Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 10

Consensus introduction

It seems the majority of editors agree to leave the following alone:

Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht though Spain requests its return. The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

I've archived the rather lengthy discussion, perhaps we can pass on to something more recent and interesting. --Gibnews (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least your are not trying to say it is neutral. Better to leave the introdution that way so that everyone can see how bias the article is --Té y kriptonita (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can make constructive suggestions rather than sniping? Narson (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the tone, Te y kroptonita is right. The article still contains many elements of British bias, no matter how little patience editors have left. I have made or supported a small number of sound points with extensive sources and explanations, and still no consensus was reached. The debate has sometimes been political and far from constructive. I think it is a lost cause, but still, the pending points are these:

• "Annexation" (last paragraph of the Introduction): I have explained (with sources) that this word carries a negative implication and should be substituted for "integration" or "unification" or a number of other suggestions I gave. I have put the example of the Hong Kong "integration" in China, an expression used in many articles and publications, and the hypothetical "integration" of Ceuta into Morrocco which the latter demands, as was written in the Ceuta article. Still, some editors disagree. I am unsure why.

• "...and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht" (7th paragraph of the main article): Despite a long an arduous discussion which established that an academic dispute exists about the hypothetical "transfer of sovereignty" according to the Treaty of Utrecht (and the Introduction was changed to account for this) some editors continue to reject the rewording of this sentence in the main article. Such a position is contradictory.

It is not clear that "sovereignty" was actually transfered (from Spain to Britain) as some historians argue that according to the Treaty only the "property" of the land and fortifications was ceded. To avoid inaccuracies but also remain stricly neutral, my suggestion here was to use the same expression as in the introduction: "Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht". Still, no agreement was reached.

• "Terms of surrender [6] were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar peacefully" (end of 6th paragraph). We had almost come to an agreement about this. The population did not "leave peacefully" as the British forces plundered the town and some British and Dutch soldiers were murdered by the local inhabitants. That is far from a peaceful retreat. Somebody suggested:

"Terms of surrender were agreed upon, and much of the population chose to leave (the town/Gibraltar) fearing reprisals following the murder of (Englishmen and Dutchmen/English and Dutch soldiers).[4] Parts of the town were then plundered by the (occupying/occupation) forces."

As the cause for fleeing the town is not clear (some sources say it was general fear of the occupation forces) I would say:

"Terms of surrender were agreed upon, and much of the population chose to leave the town after the murder of English and Dutch soldiers, and prior to the plunder of the town by the occupation forces."

I hope the above can be viewed in an open-minded way, and this time more generally neutral and constructive suggestions are put forward. MEGV (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this at length and for all the reasons given the current introduction is a concise, correct and well referenced description of things which yours is not. Although, like the fraudulent 304 year old Spanish territorial claim, persistence may be seen by some as a virtue, you need to learn the meaning of the word NO which in English mean what it says. --Gibnews (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge you (MEGV) to remind yourself that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions/arguments, nor is it a forum in which you can nitpick the wording of an 18th century treaty. Articles on Wikipedia should not be based on unfounded theories and assumptions which may be politically-motivated.

Judging from previous discussion, your arguments have been exhausted and roundly refuted. If you disagree, that's fine, but consensus has been established and you shouldn't be seeking to overturn it. RedCoat10 10:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the "annexation" point. It is a loaded term and should be changed. I'm sure that 99% of Gibraltarians would see it as an annexation, but most Spaniards would see it as a reunification. Being half-British, half-Spanish, I have a conflict of interests. But anyway, a neutral word should be used. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion "Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty of the territory in any form.", a compromise position, MEGV rejected on the grounds that he felt that the word "sovereignty" would then be used too many times in the article, even though this, the current wording, and his suggestions all use that word exactly the same number of times.

Because of this rejection, and his insistence on words that we have already rejected (as they imply pro-Spanish POVs - that Gibraltar is or should rightfully be part of Spain - see the archived discussion for detail), no consensus has been possible and thus the wording remains at its previous consensus position.

These (MEGV's comments) aren't new arguments, you understand, just the old ones repeated over and over again. This is why discussion ended the last time - it is abundantly clear that no position will gain consensus and that as such further discussion is not useful. Pfainuk talk 10:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A compromise, as Pfain has described (And it is available in the last archive), was attempted and it didn't work. The result was a month long tens of thousands of KB exercise in wheel spinning that just soaked up energy and faith for no gain. Narson (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Annexation is a political term which describes a smaller territory being amalgamated into a larger one against the wishes of its people. That broadly sums up what Spain wants. Its commonly used in the media tp describe Spain's solution to 'the Gibraltar problem' Integration implies consent and anyone who knows about the situation is aware there is none. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a loaded term (as it says in the intro of the article you linked to), and a quick Google suggests that it is primarily used on Gibraltar-based websites. I know the majority of Gibraltarians oppose Spanish sovereignty. But the majority of Spaniards would view it as a reunification (it used to be Spanish territory after all), not an annexation. The question of which it is needs to be left up to the reader, otherwise the article is putting a spin on the situation.

So how about "...who strongly oppose the idea of incorporation into Spain along with any proposal for shared sovereignty." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...or "...who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for a joint administration." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Spaniards don't care less or even know about the issue. Annexation is the political term which describes a larger state adsorbing a smaller one against the wishes of the people of the smaller entity which is exactly what is proposed. The object of the page is to describe the situation factually not to make something bad sound nice. --Gibnews (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite that says that the majority of Spaniards view it as reunification? I'm curious, you understand, I don't think it changes the issues here since it's clear that most in Spain want Gibraltar to be Spanish.

The sources tend to say either "annexation" [2] or some variation on the "transfer of sovereignty" theme. [3][4] I think "annexation" is a pretty accurate description of the circumstances of this case. Nonetheless, I personally would be happy to ditch it if that will lead to consensus.

But if we are to reject terms for their supposed pro-British sentiment, we should also reject terms which have a pro-Spanish sentiment. The "integration" words, and I include "incorporation" in there, all carry equal or worse issues than "annexation". They imply that a transfer of sovereignty would be desirable or uncontroversial tidying-up, or that Gibraltar is an unincorporated (or unintegrated) part of Spain already - this is a fringe view rejected by both governments, but which MEGV & JCRB are keen on promoting.

"Spanish sovereignty", or something on that theme was what myself and Narson were going for. I still think that some variation on it is the only solution that avoids the word "annexation". Ultimately, though, we reached deadlock so the previous consensus version stayed where it was. Pfainuk talk 09:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Back packing guide? Is that all that can be provided as a reference? Let's be serious here. Annexation is not a neutral term, and I'm not prepared to accept its inclusion based on Gibnews arguments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the word. Before the word "consensus" is thrown at me or used as a reason for reverting (Gibnews: I'm thinking of you here), I was not part of the original discussion, and I have been an interested party in the Gibraltar article for a long time. Therefore, I do not recognise any "consensus" that annexation is an acceptable term. To flip the argument around, if annexation is a truly neutral term, we would be able to find evidence that the Spanish press or government use it too. Can any such evidence be provided? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much what me and Pfain suggested, Red Hat. Though perhaps both sides could take a less acerbic tone when discussing this? It does not make consensus building any easier. EDIT: I see Justin reverted until a consensus develops for change. I or one favour just using Spanish sovereignty, it is clear and avoids a contentious term. It still gets over the point that, to paraphrase Little Britain, Gibraltar says no. Could we get an greement here before getting int a revert war over it? Narson (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah, I'm not going to revert it and start an edit war. I've also posted at the Neutrality noticeboard to get some more views on it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Narson. Is there anyone who thinks that Red Hat's revision here fails NPOV? If so, could you please explain why? Pfainuk talk 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As I see it, this report is way, way premature. Both User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and User:Gibnews have a long history of tendentious arguments on this article. Dragging in others at this stage is utterly ridiculous, particularly in view of the fact that a consensus is not that far away on the talk page and is very, very pointy. Justin talk 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on: I was told above that "it is abundantly clear that no position will gain consensus and that as such further discussion is not useful". Under those circumstances, and Gibnews' total opposition to any other wording than annexation, I opened up the discussion to outsiders. Since when has requesting comments from outside parties been unacceptable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of you two, please don't act the injured party; you knew exactly what you were doing. And raising the temperature of any argument is not the way to achieve any sort of consensus. Justin talk 12:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough already. Stick to the discussion at hand and stop stirring please. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he's right, the report was unnecessary and a straw poll isn't going to solve the dispute. In any case, polling is not a substitute for discussion. I would also suggest you keep your personal remarks about Gibnews to yourself, Red Hat. RedCoat10 (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I make no apologies for seeking outside opinion: if you read the bit at the top of the noticeboard ("Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion.") you will see it is an opinion seeking page, not an "incident reporting" page. So live with it. This small group of editors has no "rights" over this article or the discussion, no matter where we live. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I'd like to open this up to a poll, whilst I realise WP is not a democracy, I'd like to see clearly who thinks what.

• For the term "annexation"

 The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

• Against the term "annexation"

 The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for shared sovereignty.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Against: A loaded term, carrying negative connotations for one side (the Gibraltarians) and is therefore not neutral. Sovereignty was transferred in Hong Kong, it was not annexed. Goa might conceivably be described as having been annexed by India, because (1) the state of India did not exist when Goa became Portuguese and (2) troops were sent in. But this situation does not apply with Spain/Gibraltar: (1) Gibraltar was once an integral part of the Spanish nation (2) there is no suggestion that it would be taken by force. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• NeutralFor The forced imposition of sovereignty by Spain against the wishes of the population would be annexation, whether or not it was achieved by military force or a deal with the UK Government. On whether Gibraltar was once Spanish territory is a point open to interpretation on many levels and immaterial to the question at hand. But having said that both versions would satisfy WP:NPOV so I have no preference for either provided the language does not pre-dispose either POV. Oh and I do have to declare an interest being half-Spanish. Justin talk 12:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. The tendentious and one sided editing balanced by the carefully constructed response of all the other editors has convinced me otherwise; particularly when the one person who responded from the neutrality noticeboard gave to my mind a measured and neutral response. Having said that I'm still of the view that either would satisfy WP:NPOV. Justin talk 18:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both versions are NPOV. Per annexation,

Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities

That's describes the case of Gibraltar quite well.

[Annexation] can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities

Making Gibraltar Spanish would require a measure of coercion of the Gibraltar people given the two referendums. The claim is unilateral and expansionist, since the Spanish government does recognise British sovereignty over Gibraltar (per a Spanish government source cited at length in the last archive).

That Spain held control before 1704 is irrelevant: it is perfectly possible to annex territory you have held previously and I find it odd that people seem to think it isn't (as I mentioned in the archive, there are parts of modern Belarus that have been annexed by Russia twice since 1704, and we refer to the German annexation of Poland in 1939 even though much of that territory was German less than thirty years before). That it would not be taken by force is also irrelevant. Texas wasn't annexed by force, for example - indeed, the Texas legislature approved their annexation.

So far as I can tell, it is not in dispute that variants using "Spanish sovereignty" are NPOV. Bad style, according to MEGV and JCRB in the archive (and I disagree), but neutral. Given the range of opinions stated, I think they're probably the better way of solving this but I'm happy with both results. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Whilst we all know WP is not a source for itself, you failed to quote the rest of the opening para of annexation - "It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred." If that is not evidence that it is a loaded term, I don't know what is! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Go back and read my comment again. What other part of that article did you think I meant by: [Annexation] can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities? Pfainuk talk 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to just include the "more positive" bit. If, by implication, the term is negative, then ergo it cannot be neutral. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are "more positive" terms then that doesn't imply the term has negative connotations. "Wonderful" is a more positive word than "good", but that doesn't make "good" negative. The connotations ascribed to the term are all accurate in this case and I don't see a problem with using a term with accurate implications. Pfainuk talk 13:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (about your first point), but one thing is for sure - it means that it is not neutral. Any word that has degrees of positivity or negativity is not neutral by definition. You chose the words "good" and "wonderful", now let's think of "bad" and "evil". Then, check out WP:NPOV, and look at those words in the context of Hitler: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately..." If the reader decides "Spanish sovereignty" over a people that don't want it is an annexation, then fine. But explicitly using the same word we use to describe Hitler's invasion of Poland is going way too far. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's law.

No, seriously, based on the fact that the article says there are words that are more positive than it, it can't be neutral? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. In any case, I don't think these blanket assertions about the term's positivity or negativity are really useful. What implications do you feel the term carries that make it negative? Just declaring it negative makes no sense. The Wikipedia article, remember, states more positive than a term that [implies] a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities - all of which implications are accurate in this case.

Your comment on the Nazis is reductio ad Hitlerum. Texas was also annexed to the US in the 1840's. Rockall was annexed by the UK in the 1950's. There is even a small annexationist movement in Canada. In all of those cases, the word "annexation" is only the word used. None of them are very much like the German invasion of Poland and as such I think the comparison is not a fair one. Pfainuk talk 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad Rockallum is even worse - noone lives there! :-) I think it's more prudent to look at colonial enclaves for better analogies. Goa was annexed by India in 1961 (the army invaded). East Timor was annexed by Indonesia in 1975 after the Portuguese left (the army invaded). Western Sahara was annexed by Morocco after the Spanish left (the army invaded). Hong Kong was annexed by the British (after a war), annexed by the Japanese (the army invaded) but sovereignty was returned (peacefully, by mutual consent) to China in 1999. Gibraltar is different to Hong Kong, but, post-Franco, seeing as there is no suggestion whatsoever that Spain would send in troops to implement its claim against the will of the people, annexation gives the wrong impression. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be narrowed down like that - if we want to find the usage of the term it would be better to use all relevant data. That the term is the only one used for several events where the transfer was not achieved by conquest (such as Texas and these other examples) demonstrates that conquest is not required. In any case, as noted on the relevant section of WP:NPOVN, most annexations are subnational - you're hardly going to assume that New York sent the militia in to take over Brooklyn in 1898, are you? :-)

Having said all of this, bearing in mind that I am happy with either option in the straw poll, it strikes me that this is a fairly pointless argument. Can I suggest we just agree to disagree? :-) Pfainuk talk 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• For I think annexation sums it up quite well, factually and without any negative connotations. Curiously enough, a cursory Google search throws up a number of hits for "anexión" as used in the Spanish press: "La anexión fue rechazada por los gibraltareños en referéndum." (The annexation was rejected by the Gibraltarians in a referendum.)[5] Having said that, I would agree with Pfainuk in that both versions are NPOV and would be happy with either (despite having voted for annexation). RedCoat10 (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both are NPOV Annexation is accurate but I am happy to forgo it if it will end this disruption. I'm not sure what this poll is meant to achieve though. We have two sides who, in general, refuse to accept the others view. Consensus cannot be created in such situations, only endless discussions. Narson (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why I opened it up for outside discussion. The poll was meant to be for anyone seeing that request for help so that they could easily voice their opinion. In light of the fact that WP's policies are explicitly to seek outside opinion in such a situation, the mind boggles that two editors here took offence to that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for all we know, GibNews might not have an issue with it. It would have been wise to find out whether there is an actual disagreement before getting into it with noticeboards and crap. No matter how many people you bring in, Red Hat, if some editors cling to a good faith belief they are right. Consensus can be red flagged by one person, after all. Developing a compromise between sides was difficult with 6 contributors. It will become even more difficult with more. Narson (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Last time, "Spanish sovereignty" was nuked because it was unacceptable to MEGV and JCRB who insisted on other words (which we all already knew would never gain consensus). When pressed to comment, they objected to it, citing (relatively minor) style concerns. No-one has ever claimed NPOV concerns over it. I don't think Gibnews has ever even mentioned it. Pfainuk talk 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to speculate on Gibnews' views - he replied above, and added two references to the text to support the term "annexed". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A fair few of us clearly accept both terms, and it seems fair to assume that while Gibnews spoke in favour of the word "annexation", this doesn't necessarily mean he objects to the words "Spanish sovereignty". He has never given an explicit opinion on that suggestion despite many opportunities to object. He might well consider them acceptable without liking them. Bear in mind the context of this dispute - MEGV and JCRB's proposed wordings, repeatedly stated in the archive and in the post that started all this off, used words such as "integration" or "reunification" which all of us opposed, and he wasn't even involved in this last discussion. Pfainuk talk 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Context is important although annexation is not inherently loaded, what term does the Queen's Government use? WilyD 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I have read the government prefers sovereignty (Or did. It does its best not to speak about it), the papers and the Gibraltarians use annexation and some other terms, the spanish I am not entirely sure on though RedCoat says he has found them using annexation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narson (talk • contribs)
    • Googling as best I can, I find that it's mostly Gibraltar-based websites that use the term "annexation" [6]. The word most used seems to be "sovereignty" [7]. I don't agree that the mainland British press use "annexation". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking at those google searches, bear in mind that a search for "Spain sovereignty Gibraltar" or similar is far more likely to get irrelevant hits referring to the Sovereignty dispute, or to the shared sovereignty referendum, rather than specifically to the act of transferring sovereignty from one side to the other. Ignoring references to shared sovereignty, only 1 out of the top 10 articles I got summaries to specifically referred to a transfer. Pfainuk talk 16:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just a ballpark figure. But I have yet to find a British newspaper that uses the term "annex" in the context of Gibraltar and Spanish rule. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My error. I thought the gutterpress used it, as it is it seems to be poorly covered in the tabloids in general.Narson (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, here's another Spanish paper referring to "una anexión de Gibraltar" (an annexation of Gibraltar). Admittedly, and as expected, they tend to prefer stuff like reclamación/reivindicación. It also seems that a certain Andrew Rosindell MP used the term here. Make of it what you will. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a simple google search [8] turns up [9], [10] and [11] with two pages. Justin talk 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as it is to see the Grauniad using it, it is a pretty obviously an op-ed rather than informative piece. I mean, it includes a bit of inciting to violence and al that. Interesting though. An amusing read at least. Narson (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...you beat me to it. And the latter two articles are Gibraltar-based websites. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but one of them includes a quote from a British Government briefing paper:

Spain is continuing to pursue her objective, which is the annexation of Gibraltar, in the name of decolonisation. Her attempt to incorporate Gibraltar into Spain without regard to the human factor - the Gibraltarians themselves - is in our view the antithesis of decolonisation.

Interesting is it not? Justin talk 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely against the term annexation. I have long argued that the term carries a negative (biased) implication, and is therefore inappropriate. It was I that suggested alternative terms such as "integration" or "unification" or even "incorporation" which is completely neutral. I still view this as a lost cause, but I will reproduce the Wikipedia article on the term for those have not seen it:

Annexation [...] can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like "political union" or "reunification" are sometimes preferred. [12] MEGV (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Backpacker Reference"

My change of the "annexation" wording was reverted. OK. I can live with that. However, I would like the addition of any reference to be considered part of this "consensus discussion", and therefore that for the time being, the current state should stand - ie, "annexation" is there, and there is no reference listed. (A reference affords the wording an impression of being "confirmed" or "official".) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, there was nothing wrong with the reference. Removing it before the discussion was concluded and consensus was reached is not helpful. Engaging with other editors in reasonable discussion is the way to resolve a content dispute. Justin talk 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference was added AFTER the discussion was in flight. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not helping matters here, Justin. I have now added the until this discussion is resolved. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're disrupting this article to make a point, you're abusing process, that neutrality tag is not needed. Please have some common sense and remove it. Justin talk 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a very reasonable request at the top of this section: leave the article in the least offensive state to all - annexation + no reference. What did you do? For the second time today, you reverted my edit within seconds. That is utterly inflammatory, as is your suggestion that asking for outside opinion is being disruptive, or the addition of a tag. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick check of the history shows that remark to be nonsense, [13] a revert 22 mins after the change was made. [14] a revert 17 mins after the change was made. However, I can go through the history of the talk page to show you editing within seconds of comments being made. Many of your comments are simply badgering other editors who disagree with you. And removing comments by User:Pfainuk who has to be one of the most mild-mannered, level-headed editors it has been my privelige to work with, well that speaks for itself. As I said earlier, you're taking a disagreement too personally and are now disrupting this article and the talk page. And for the record, I'm bowing out from any further discourse with you, since all your comments seem designed to escalate a dispute that essentially already has a ready made solution acceptable to other editors. Justin talk 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference[15], incidentally, is also not a reliable source. "The Back Packing Guide". Who owns this site? Who wrote this page? It doesn't even list the author's name. What is their area of expertise? What was the basis of their choice of the word annexation? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As Redhat removed my reference without any discussion on the grounds it was someone's 'personal opinion' (although the author specifically stated it was a 'common view') I replaced it with the first one on Google, of 35,000 by a non Gibraltar source showing its a commonly used term to describe the process by which Spain seeks unilaterally to occupy Gibraltar. All other terms imply some complicity which is singularly lacking. Anyone who believes that the occupation of a territory against the wishes of its inhabitants would be bloodless is wrong. However, our Spanish neighbours have developed democracy and have enthusiastically joined both the EU and NATO which would make any military action unthinkable to them. That was not the case at the time of the Falklands war.

The website quoted is well known and respected as was the Gibraltar Chronicle and Charles Gomez, an eminent lawyer. --Gibnews (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Backpacking Guide", that well known and respected authority? Purlease. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest people read what they actually say which is concise and one of the better short introductions to the subject around from a company with 100+ web sites and 2.7 million subscribers. --Gibnews (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read what they say, but you may want to read WP:RS if you have not already. The standard of references at WP should be as high as that in academia. I doubt very much we'd find a reference to "The Backpacking Guide" in a university publication. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Google found another 34,000 references to the term BUT that was well written factual and 2.7 million subscribers indicate it to be substantive; But carry on with your nit picking and winding up Spanish nationalists against Gibraltar nationalists is always a good game. You could also try suggesting that the Ulster Banner is the national flag of Northern Ireland. --Gibnews (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could find a source from a reputable (non-Gibraltarian) media outlet (not an individual's opinions in a comment page) or an official communication by the British government (not a lone MP) referring to "annexation" by Spain, that would be very difficult to argue with. If you could find such a usage by the Spanish government, it would be impossible to argue that the term is not neutral, because both sides would demonstrably use it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

@Red Hat. Badgering anyone who comments in the straw poll and spamming the talk page with tendentious arguments is not the way to achieve consensus. It would appear that you history with User:Gibnews is clouding your judgement, you need to disengage and come back with a cool head. Justin talk 13:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the discussion at hand please. You are totally not helping matters with these unwarranted accusations about past history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica and "Annexation"

From [16]

"A formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain."

"Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory." - see my point above about Goa, East Timor, Western Sahara, 1842 British annexation of Hong Kong. This is why the word "annexation" carries a negative connotation. Yes, there have been peaceful, mutually consensual, examples of annexation, but most have not been.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs p210 "We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Its a missuse of a neutrality tag on the statement that The Gibraltarians strongly oppose the idea of annexation The wording describes well known fact not a point of view, and adequately evidenced. --Gibnews (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You know full well it's attached to the word annexation and not to the whole phrase preceeding it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It remains a statement of fact, which is well supported by references. As far as I am aware that is what Wikipedia should comprise, not personal opinions of what others should think. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That statement is totally misleading as it implies that the opinion of all the Gibraltarians that live on the other side of the border (La Linea, San Roque, Algeciras, etc) does not count. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, that is a loaded, fatuous argument and terribly POV. Its the people of Gibraltar who get a say on their self-determination right not the Spanish who deny they even have that right. I might have more sympathy if the Spanish article mentioned the results of the referendums in Gibraltar in which 99% of the population rejected Spanish sovereignty; strange is it not that such an overwhelmingly emphatic result doesn't rate a mention. The Spanish Wikipedia is replete with such examples of one sided POV articles. Justin talk 10:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is, of course, a POV statement, just like the statement we are discussing. But if the article is to be neutral it should contain both POVs and not only the British POV. The British have unilaterally decided who has the right to vote in the referendum, because it suited them. But anyway, what is the value of a referendum in which people were afraid to campaign openly in favour of reintegration with Spain? So if the referendum is mentioned in the article it should give the whole picture. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Government of Gibraltar decided who should vote in the referendum, I don't see why we should include foreign residents, nor do they invite my participation in their elections. --Gibnews (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, if NPOV is of such concern to you, then may I ask why you do not care to do something about the serious lack of it on the Spanish wikipedia? In point of fact, to address some of the claims in your argument, neither referendum was organised by the British Government, both were in fact organised by the Gibraltarians themselves. And to argue that somehow people completely unrelated to Gibraltar get to have a say in their future is an utterly fatuous argument, Spain doesn't get to gerrymander the argument to legitimise its claims. If you claim that the result was only achieved through intimidation, well that is a pretty outrageous claim, please provide some proof or withdraw it. The referendum was closely watched and I've never seen any claims of intimidation. Justin talk 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Per this document, I don't think the Spanish Government actually makes the claim that people from San Roque should get a vote (rather, I think they just want the British to hand the territory over without a referendum they know they'll lose). On the freeness and fairness, the observer mission, I believe, declared the referendum to be freer and fairer than a normal British referendum. The lack of an effective "yes" campaign was simply due to the lack of a support base. I don't have a cite for that, but I haven't looked. Pfainuk talk 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Afraid to campaign openly? A group of referendum observers, consisting of House of Commons MPs, Union Representatives and OIJ officials were all, and I quote, "extremely impressed". It doesn’t take rocket science to fathom why there wasn't much of a "yes" campaign. These claims are complete and utter nonsense and no more than cheap Spanish propaganda aimed at discrediting Gibraltar. Oh, and all this coming from a user who, on the Spanish Wikipedia, was supporting a description of Gibraltar as "Andalusia under British occupation". Irony maybe? RedCoat10 (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the last rude response I think is clear that having a civilised debate about this article is not possible. Justin, you wanted proof that pro-Spanish people in Gibraltar felt intimidated, you have it in RedCoat10 reponse. Gibraltar is very small place where more or less everbody knows each other. Do you really think that someone would dare to speak out in favour of reintegration? Pfainuk, the reason why the Spanish Government does not make that claim is because it did not recognise the referendum. The motto of the municipality of San Roque Very Noble and Very Loyal city of San Roque, where Gibraltar lives on. It is obvious that they consider themselves Gibraltarians, but they were not given the chance to express their views in the referendum. Why shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Té y kriptonita (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good spot RedCoat10, so you come here to push a POV favourable to the Spanish desire to annex Gibraltar and offer no proof whatsoever to back up what you claimed other than a vague reference to RedCoat10's response, in the face of two posts who provide clear proof of the exact opposite. I may be direct but I'm not rude and an invented excuse to refuse to engage further with a fellow editor only serves to demonstrate you don't have a sustainable argument. Justin talk 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason why discussion never gets anywhere on this page. People descend into silly arguments based on their own interpretations of matters. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Justin? Red Hat? Would the two of you knock it the fuck off? Seriously. This isn't the place. Either ignore each other or sort out your differences. To respond to the others, the fact spain doesn't believe in the rights of the population to decide surely makes it a textbook definition of annexation. Now. That aside, does anyone have any objections to avoiding the term in the intro? Narson (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the referendum GBC hosted a live debate where two invited guests expressed the view that they would vote yes. Nobody harassed them either before or after the referendum and as far as I know and care they still live in Gibraltar. One used to write to the newspaper regularly before that expressing his views. Its a free country. Just that over 99% of Gibraltarians totally reject annexation by Spain as the article says. This discussion is another red herring. --Gibnews (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually my remark was not directed at Red Hat but to accusations of a rigged vote and the intimidation of people who might otherwise have voted yes. In fact the observers report makes interesting reading [17]. A couple of quotes "The observers noted that the campaign, which preceded the referendum, was very one-sided. This, we accept, was not the result of the Government of Gibraltar or the political parties trying to stifle debate, but a consequence of the lack of support for the 'yes' option in the referendum." and "The observers, with their varied experience of electoral procedures were impressed with the entire process of the referendum in Gibraltar. They concluded that the process was a model of sound democratic process." There is also several comments as to the efforts made to ensure the "yes" argument was represented. Thats my last word on the subject. Justin talk 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. It strikes me we could also go with '...reject what they term as annexation by Spain' if we want to go down that route? Narson (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That suggests its only Gibraltarians who see it as Annexation, which is not the case because there are a large number of non-Gibraltarian references that call it exactly that because that is what it is if its an ugly term, its fitting to describe an ugly desire. --Gibnews (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All those who believe that Gibraltarians were not afraid of being openly pro-Spanish should read the following articles:

• El País: [18] ('Manuel Sánchez, the only openly pro-spanish voter is not scared of death')
• El País: | Los gibraltareños convierten el 'referéndum' de Caruana en la fiesta del 'no a España'
• The Guardian: [19] (Rock's voters signal rejection of Spanish deal)

--Té y kriptonita (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This simply shows what nonsense the Spanish press print. As for the Guardian, the referendum result shows they got it wrong. The reason there was no 'Vote Yes' campaign is that there were no substantive support for it.

There was no violence before, during, or after the referendum and two people (including Mr Sanchez) stated on television they would vote yes - they are both walking around Gibraltar because its a free country and we respect minority views, we can laugh them off because becoming part of Spain is today joke. That was different in 1967 when it was a fascist state and the threat was serious. --Gibnews (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew you were going to say just that. You asked for references and I have provided them from two of the best newspapers in both Spain and the UK. If you were just a little bit more objective and coherent you would question all the references in the article from local papers and websites from Gibraltar that nobody has ever heard about, but of course you are not interested about improving the article but just to air that irrational hate you feel against Spain and Spaniards.--Té y kriptonita (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. The notion that voters were in some way intimidated to vote "no" is complete fiction and not backed up by your most eminent sources, not least because it is refuted by the Observers’ Report.

Unlike Zimbabwe where opposition is often dealt with by lynching, the most you would have got in Gibraltar for supporting joint-sovereignty was a mouthful (and a well-deserved one at that). RedCoat10 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally we are getting somewhere!. You first said my comment was utter nonsense and cheap Spanish propaganda and now you admit that it is not only true but also well deserved".

As this comes from someone from Gibraltar, I think it is quite clear that that referendum was neither fair nor free. Therefore, any reference to this referendum should also clarify the situation in which is was carried out. Incidentally we could also mention the sheer hypocrisy of the British Government, who couldn't care less about the wishes of the Hong Kong population but it is very committed to respect the wishes of the British Gibraltarians because Spain doesn't have nuclear weapons and a Peoples Liberation Army like China does.--Té y kriptonita (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not engage in political discussion on this page. This is a page for the discussion of improvements to the article Gibraltar, and it is not appropriate for you to make political points here. This is intended to be directed to Té y kriptonita in particular, but also applies to everyone else.

To Té y kriptonita. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your sources wouldn't back up your proposed edit even if the edit was uncontroversial. But this - accusing a government in an EU member state of failing to meet basic standards in its election processes - would clearly be a controversial edit even if there had been no observer mission. That the proposed edit also directly contradicts the observer mission's report only makes the claims more exceptional. It's not that your sources aren't quite good enough for your proposals. Your sources are nowhere near good enough for us to even consider including your claims anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead.

As a regular contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia with over 1500 edits to your name it seems inconceivable that you could be unaware of our basic principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. But this suggestion, coupled with your suggestion that we include a political opinion in the article as fact without any sources at all, rather undermines what remains of my faith in your willingness to apply these principles. The most logical conclusion I think I can come to is that you are ignoring Wikipedia policy and principles in order to try and unbalance the article to suit your POV on this issue. Please, by your future conduct, show me that this is not the case. Pfainuk talk 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont't understand how can I unbalance the article when the article is not balanced at all, (let alone I haven't edited a single word yet). There isn't a any statement in the introduction that backs the Spanish POV and I am not saying that my comments are not POV. My point is that the article is writen from the British POV and that if we want the article to be neutral both POVs have to figure in it.

While the introcution may contain only facts, these have been carefully picked to lead the reader believe that the UK rightfully administrates de Rock and that Spain is an expansionist Estate trying to annex it. This is what anybody would understand when reading the following introduction:

Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht though Spain requests its return. The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

In a three lines summary of the political situation of Gibraltar we have:

1) That Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to GB in perpetuity - with no mention at all of the fact that it was previouly militarily occupied during the Spanish War of Succession.

2) That Spain requests its return - with no explanation whatsoever about this claim, such as the concept of territorial integrity.

3) That the British Gvnt is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians - giving a positive impression of the UK Gvnt in contrast to the Spanish Gvnt, who wouldn't respect them.

4) That the Gibraltarians strongly oppose annexation by Spain - again no mention at all about the Gibraltarians that were expelled when GB occupied the Rock, not to talk about the connotations of the word annexation, which didn't even figure in the referendum question.

All these statements back the position of the British. There isn't any statement or argument to support or explain the Spanish claim and not even a mention of a neutral party like the UN resolution urging the UK to decolonise the Rock.

Now my question to you Pfainuk is; can you not see the introduction is biased to British POV? or do you not want to see it? --Té y kriptonita (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have indented for clarity.

Let's start with your points 1 and 2. The point of a lead is to summarise the basics and allow the details to be explained later or on a different article. Here, we don't go into detail of claims on either side. Both sides accept that Spain ceded Gibraltar to Britain in 1713 (per this on the British side and this on the Spanish side). The basic positions of the two national governments on the matter are significant and noted. The views of the Gibraltarian people on this are significant and noted. The details of the claims are not so significant and are explained elsewhere. Any expansion here should be made to all three positions, not just to one.

Your point 3. You seem to be suggesting that we should exclude the (cited) British government position because including it is politically inconvenient for the Spanish side. That is blatant POV. We are not in the business of removing relevant and cited facts from the article because some people do not like them.

Your point 4. According to the sources cited in the last archive - sources on both sides of the dispute - most of the residents of Gibraltar chose to leave in 1704 following the murder of occupying soldiers. Even if the Spanish government claimed voting rights in Gibraltar for people who may or may not be distant descendants of the people who chose to leave Gibraltar three hundred years ago (and they don't claim this so far as I know), this would be the sort of detail that would be kept out of the lead as a detail. As it is, this is a fringe view that should not get the sort of undue prominence that (it appears) you would like to give it.

We already have an article on the dispute. We don't need to turn this article (let alone the lead of this article) into one. There is far more to Gibraltar than just a sovereignty dispute.

To finish off, I think a continuation of this conversation would produce a lot of heat and not much light. Thus I do not intend to respond again in detail. Please feel free to have the last word. Pfainuk talk 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When I need to know what is happening in Madrid, I read a Spanish newspaper. However they do not have offices or reporters in Gibraltar. That local paper that nobody has ever heard of does and just happens to be the second oldest daily newspaper in the world. --Gibnews (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for what I've said to you before, but please abstain from making frivolous comparisions about Franco and contemporary Spain, if only because of all the people in Gibraltar that also suffered when they coulnd't see their family for years when the border was closed. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, however as the Government of Mr Zapatero has not renounced the claim on the territory of Gibraltar and still officially wants annexation. I don't suppose we will get a formal apology for the crimes of the past, however it would be nice if there was some honesty about them in a reference work and that there was enough respect for the views of the people of Gibraltar that they can be expressed without others telling us how and what we think.

In the same way that progress in relations in Ireland required a change in the constitution of the Republic renouncing their claim to the North, for good relations it is long overdue for Spain to formally renounce its claim to the homeland of the Gibraltarians. The result will NOT be the kind of power sharing seen in Stromont as there is no divided community with part looking for union.

In that scenario we could look to Spain to support its neighbour Gibraltar in joining UEFA etc instead of going ballistic at any mention of the G word. But you know there are still ill informed Spaniards who think that Gibraltar joined the EU in 2004. The purpose of Wikipedia is to act as a reference source and explain things 'as they are' and not to be an accumulation of politically correct platitudes. If Annexation is an ugly process - stop asking for it and it will go away. Covering it up in fancy words is not the solution. --Gibnews (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While you are free to say whatever you want I am only allowed to speak strictly about the article, otherwise someone will intervene to remind me all the rules of Wikipedia, so I hope you will excuse that I am not able to reply. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Annexation: if it is a NPOV term, please explain this

I see that noone has replied to my post above. If "annexation" is a neutral term, then explain why a PM of a country had this to say, quoted from Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs p210: "We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. It's not even as if most of us oppose your proposed edit.

Since most of us do not have a copy of this book, this quote could be in reference to any one of half a dozen different situations at any point within a period of nearly thirty years. We do not know whether his audience was his family, his electorate, a hardline party in Israel or one or more of the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians. For example, the Egyptians might view "occupation" as more positive than "annexation" regarding the Sinai in 1967-79, as "occupation" carries a connotation that this is temporary. But you'd hardly argue that "occupation" would be more positive regarding the annexation of Texas (by the US), Svalbard (by Norway) or Canada (regarding the annexationist movements there).

As such it is entirely unreasonable to ask us to comment on a quote that is lifted so completely out of context - especially when (as the person that you yourself brought into the discussion from the NPOV noticeboard points out) context is such a crucial factor here. Pfainuk talk 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with this "oh come off it" business? Please be WP:CIVIL. You don't need to go out and buy the book or wonder what the context is, because if you follow the link, you will see the context in all its glory on Google Books. The context is in relation to Israel and her border with Egypt: ie a matter of international relations with respect to control of territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be in relation to the west bank, where most of it does remain occupied and un-annexed, due to a reluctance to make a large number of Arabs israeli citizens, IIRC. Context is, as was said above, key. I'll have to see if my father has the book among his Israeli history books, it isn't really my 'thing'. I prefer history before 1945. Narson (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The only summary I can get doesn't mention the word "annexation" at any point.

That it was the border with Egypt doesn't give any real context. First, it doesn't say who he was addressing per my last point. Also, note Israel has had four different de facto border lines with Egypt, not counting the various front lines during the four wars that those two countries have fought. Rabin was in a position of influence over that border line for the entire period from 1964-95, as Chief of Staff of the IDF, as Ambassador to the United States, as a government member during the Yom Kippur War and later as Minister of Defence, as member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, and as leader of the Labour Party and as Prime Minister on two separate occasions twenty years apart. All three changes in border line occurred during this time period, as did two of the wars.

And "oh come off it" is because IMO (given that no-one has even objected to your proposed edit except that it came before consensus was reached) opening this discussion does nothing to help us judge consensus, nothing to cool the situation down, and nothing to further our ultimate goal of improving the encyclopaedia. In accordance with this view, I won't comment further in this section. And on civility, I think neither "oh come off it" nor this post is in any way incivil. Blunter than I normally am, maybe, but entirely civil. Pfainuk talk 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the straw poll, two are "for" the term annexation, three if you include Gibby who didn't vote but made his views plain elsewhere. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it does have negative connotations. The entire consensus introduction supports only one POV.--Té y kriptonita (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK lets add a section to balance that describing all the good things that the Government of Spain has done for Gibraltar and Gibraltarians. Suggestions welcome. --Gibnews (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask the Gibraltarians that live in San Roque, they'll give you a few examples.--Té y kriptonita (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic! This is not the place to engage in political fights. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have missed a long part of the debate, but I will repeat my view about annexation which I posted originally in the archived discussion [20]. I have long argued that the term carries a POV because it has negative implication about the hypothetical integration of Gibraltar in Spain. It was I that suggested alternative terms such as "integration" or "unification", or even "incorporation" which is completely neutral. Here is the Wikipedia article on the term for those have not seen it:

Annexation [...] can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like "political union" or "reunification" are sometimes preferred. [21]

For this reason the term is inappropriate. I am glad that other editors have seen this, as well as other inaccuracies and expressions with lack of neutrality. MEGV (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the paragraph in dispute

It seems to me that, while peace seems to have broken out here, the underlying issue that some object to the word "annexation" remains. I'm wondering if the best way of resolving it might be another wholesale rewording.

The wording at the start of this phase of discussion (before the placement of either reference or tag) was:

Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht though Spain requests its return. The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

In April, before the start of the very long discussion in the last archive, it was:

Spain requests the return of sovereignty, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

I suggest, based largely on that original wording:

Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, and the Spanish government requests that sovereignty be returned. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting these wishes.

Note that the property-not-sovereignty argument made in the last archive does not logically lead to any change in this text. It makes perfect sense for the Spanish government to request the return of sovereignty over Gibraltar, given that that government accepts that it does not have sovereignty (per this document). Using "the Spanish government" over "Spain" also makes sense given the reference to the British government later in the paragraph. The overwhelming majority? Well, nearly 99% of those who gave a valid vote voted "no" in 2002 which meets any definition of "overwhelming". The Madrid 2012 Olympic bid was, as I recall, claiming unanimous support based on rather less than that.

What do people think? Pfainuk talk 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor revision

Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, after various attempts to recover the territory military the claim for sovereignty was in abeyance for many years until revived by Franco in the 1960s and continued by Spanish government's since. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. Despite this, an overwhelming majority of the population holds the view that better relations with Spain are desirable. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting these wishes.

I think its necessary to highlight the claim was revived and that Gibraltar does not reject a relationship with Spain. Justin talk 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as 'good neigbourly relations' Gibraltar is in favour of a relationship with Spain, the people of Ballymena, and the Martians. In terms of anything else, eg annexation the answer remains a loud and united no.

I suggest we leave the introduction as is, but as a concession alter the sentence to say who strongly oppose the idea of what they see as annexation by Spain, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty --Gibnews (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The revival under Franco is noted on several articles and while I don't doubt it I'm concerned that it's not cited on any of them - and this paragraph probably has a higher profile than any of the current mentions, so it's more likely to be challenged. Other than that I'm happy with that suggestion.

Gibnews, I'm concerned that your suggestion is just washing our dirty linen in public. I won't try and block it if it becomes the preferred solution, but I'm not keen on it. Pfainuk talk 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should cover up the reality of Spain's dirty little scheme, The truth shall set you free. --Gibnews (talk)

I changed the indent to make it more readable. The point of my edit was to highlight that the problem was with the sovereignty claim and not the Spanish people. If the problem with the Franco comment is the lack of citation, there is a reference on the dispute article that should suffice. Justin talk 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk talk's wording is excellent, and to the point. Gibnews, I'm afraid that wording like "what they see as annexation by Spain" is impossible to back up. Someone of a similar mindset to me will come along and add a tag after "they". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence refers to the Gibraltarians who see any proposal for incorporation of Gibraltar into the Spanish state to be annexation - which is incidentally how others see it too unless they want to give it a fancy name, like calling 'ethnic cleansing' 'population diversity readjustment'.

Annexation is a legitimate political term which EXACTLY describes the situation.

The difficulty is not in backing up statements, but preventing people deleting references. --Gibnews (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with Pfainuk's suggestion in your opinion? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not make it clear the Gibraltarians reject annexation by Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like rephrasing the term annexation because I want the term annexation" is basically what you are saying. This is not a mindset that is conducive to reaching a consensus. Whilst I'm adamant that annexation is not neutral, I'm open minded as to the possibilities of rewording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be your opinion. Its a term which EXACTLY describes the situation. Its a term which is WIDELY USED, its a term which is REFERENCED - so you don't like it? I suggest you go to Madrid and speak to the MAE and convince them they should shelve their plans for Annexation. This is a dispute for the sake of having an argument. --Gibnews (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is an accurate and neutral wording. But it's not the only way of putting it and I don't see why we can't equally use a different accurate and neutral wording - particularly given how controversial this one has been. In the last archive you were, let's remember, arguing for a wording very similar to the one I've proposed except I've turned the first sentence around in my version and added the British government bit. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dispute both the accuracy and neutrality. According to Britannica, it says "A formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain." Note 'HITHERTO'. Gibraltar was once within Spain's domain. And when an Israeli PM says that he would not use the term "annexation" because of its negative connotations, it is difficult to argue that the term is ALWAYS neutral. I'm sure this will only induce more attempts to explain away both the Britannica and the Israeli PM's statements, but both facts stand for themselves, and are from far more reliable sources than "The Backpackers Guide". I can't imagine The Backpackers' Guide is on many university bookshelves (except perhaps on those of students, for the reason that they are going backpacking rather than attempting to use it as an academic reference). "Well, my dear fellow" replied Professor Higginson, puffing on his pipe and running his finger searchingly along his dusty bookshelf, "I do agree with you on some of your points, however, do not forget what that most respected of publications, the Backpackers' Guide, has to say..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'Backpackers Guide' reference is one of 34,000 google found, they are well known and have millions of subscribers. What they say about Gibraltar is factual and better written that the article in Encarta which you probably would find in universities etc. But that is another red herring. In case you haven't noticed its not Israel that wants to annex Gibraltar but Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are very poor arguments indeed, Gibnews. If there are really 34,000 references to be found, it's striking that you have to keep repeating one of the them, and your justification for that one is that it is "factual and well written". I fail to see those criteria at WP:RS, where it says as follows: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I guess it must have slipped your mind to let everyone know you'd posted on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gibraltar, Annexation and the Backpackers' Guide as a Reference, just for info, the response indicates it is a reliable source. Justin talk 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to get creepy now with your following me around. Anyway, you clearly do not understand how these boards work. They are requests for opinion, not final arbitrations. One guy responded, and he seems to be being somewhat ironic, having queried a source himself [22]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Would the pair of you stick to commenting on the article/edits and not on each other? Enough dipping pigtails in ink wells. Narson (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If he can put his handbag away then so can I and we can stick to getting this issue resolved. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting on that noticeboard without letting other people involved know about it was simply impolite and I make no apologies whatsoever for pointing it out. The accusations of "wikistalking" were unfounded and, when I saw them last night, I assumed were designed to get a rise. I chose not to respond. I'm not, however, going to be intimidated by personal attacks like that from commenting where it is due but as promised I'm not responding to the digs. Justin talk 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have chosen not to respond, but you just did. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, I have no problem with Pfain's edit. It gets the same meaning across, at least to me, without compromising neutrality. Narson (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So both Narson and I are OK with Pfain's proposed edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I have no real issue with the current wording either, just for fairness. I simply see that others consistantly have a problem with it and I have to assume that they truely feel there is an issue so using alternative (but equally neutral) wording is fine. Narson (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either version; both satisfy NPOV. An outside opinion was asked for and the word annexation is perfectly acceptable in the correct context, which it is. My only comment about the opening is that I feel it should capture the point that the claim from Spain is modern in nature and only resurrected in the 1960s. But on that I'd yield to the consensus opinion. Justin talk 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions (plural) were asked for and an outside opinion (singular) was received. The only conclusions one can sensibly draw from this is that hardly any people look at those boards. And sure enough, if we look at the top of it, it says "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors.". The view of one individual on that board carries no more weight than the view of one individual here. If one person had replied in my favour I would not have mischievously misrepresented that as "well, that solves it, now we have our answer". Neither should you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NB - a few others have added their opinions now. [23] Jayen466's advice is very sensible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT (not sure why that has to be spelled out, but anyway) NEWLINE
BLANK LINE
If anyone doubts that "annexation" is not a neutral term, I believe that Gibnews' position here is proof to the contrary. Gibnews wants to keep "annexation" or change the wording to "what Gibraltarians see as annexation". What the Gibraltarians see as annexation? Surely, if it is a neutral term, then everyone in the whole world (except perhaps me, an ex-Israeli PM, and those that have ever been conquered by another country's armed forces) would see it as annexation too? We all know he is rabidly pro-Gibraltarian, it is not a personal attack to say so (or meant to be one), so isn't his position proving my point? The position of everyone else here is that the term is neutral and can therefore be kept or swapped out with another neutral term. I can respect a position like that because it's logical. But when you are fiercely attached to "annexation" and you are a self-declared partisan, this should ring alarm bells. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another option - Disputed status of Gibraltar

Why can't we just use the wording at Disputed status of Gibraltar? Absolutely no mention of annexation there. Gibraltarians reject "union with Spain". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds quite neutral and politically correct to me. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern with the term "union" (with which others agreed in the last archive) was that it rather implies a union of equals. That Gibraltar and Spain would be theoretically equal components in a new "Greater Spain" (my phrase). This is how the word is most often used in this sort of context - England and Scotland are theoretically equal in their union, as are the Länder of Germany, the States of the USA, and as were the republics of Yugoslavia and the USSR. But this sort of arrangement is not what Spain are offering - rather, IIRC, they are offering equality with the Spanish autonomous communities such as Catalonia, the Basque Country and Andalusia.

Plus we have no need for it since we have wordings available to us that are accurate, neutral and acceptable to those who oppose "annexation" - and which don't carry a whiff of that sort of implication.

That said, I'll change my position slightly and say that I won't block a consensus if it is otherwise achieved around that term. There are better ways of putting it, but if it'll end this dispute then I'll go with it. That doesn't extend to the family of terms that MEGV/JCRB were insisting on (integration, reunification and so on) which I oppose for other reasons which you can read up on in the archive (because I feel like I've explained them dozens of times). Pfainuk talk 11:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This silly palaver could all be solved by changing it to "Spanish sovereignty". That would be a term indisputable by all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pfainuk talk 13:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It could also be solved if you accepted the reality that Gibraltarians call Spain enforcing sovereignty over Gibraltar against their wishes annexation instead of trying to cover that up. --Gibnews (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Red Hat. That was exactly one of my suggestions a long time ago, when some editors were countering my suggestions with political, instead of academic arguments. "Gibraltarians reject union with Spain" is a prefectly neutral and accurate way of describing it. I am glad you mentioned it. MEGV (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Annexation

So what exactly is wrong with the word? Oh a larger country adsorbing a smaller one against the wishes of its inhabitants is bad? Yes it is. Should we use nice words to describe rapists because it is a pejorative term and might offend them?

The sentence describes how the Gibraltarians see the Spanish claim to the territory of Gibraltar, those who do not live in Gibraltar may not understand how it is perceived, but its a legitimate and widely held view and its not a matter for people to tell others what their opinion should be, but simply to record it.

IF people in Iceland believed the world was flat it would be reasonable to mention it, as the Gibraltarians believe that Spain's 'recovery' of Gibraltar amounts to annexation then its equally valid to state that. --Gibnews (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that other people consider that Gibraltar is NOT a country, it's a British colony on Spanish soil, even though some euphemisticaly call it a British overseas territory, so why should the article reflect what Gibraltarians believe only? This is an international encyclopedia. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof again from Gibnews that annexation is not a neutral term. He wants the term because it reflects the negative views that Gibraltarians would have of Spanish sovereignty. He is making my point for me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence describes what Gibraltarians actually think, and that is what is important, not what others would thrust down our throats because it suits their views, and those who deny we even exist. Britain does not have any colonies. Nor is there going to be any 'spanish sovereignty' asserted over Gibraltar by annexation or any other process, so why are we wasting time discussing how something ridiculous is rejected? --Gibnews (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The only proof of what Gibraltarians "think" is the result of referenda or opinion polls. As far as I am aware, there has been no referendum or opinion poll with the explicit wording "annexation". Remember, the policy here is verifiability, not truth. You personally do not speak for the entire population of Gibraltar, let alone future generations of Gibraltarians. Statements like "there will never be..." are your personal opinions. You are free to hold them, but you are not allowed to inject them into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to what Gibraltarians think and the use of the word annexation in the media and indeed I have now seen it used to describe the situation by Spaniards. You are correct that I do not 'speak for' Gibraltarians, but every day I speak to them which you do not. But I have not 'injected my opinions' in the ARTICLE. This page is not the article. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in the immediate future there is NO prospect of any political union.

The UK Government will never - "never" is a seldom-used word in politics - enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word "never" sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK's position. -- Jim Murphy, HMG

Now lets give it a rest. The term is verifiable, and just because YOU don't like it and want to pick a fight is no reason to change anything. --Gibnews (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit Wikipedia to pick fights, you should assume good faith. At best, your references back up the statement "some Gibraltarians view integration with Spain as annexation" which is a bit weak. However, if we are pointing out that one side views it as annexation, again, this is proving my point that it is not a neutral term. Let's be clear here that we actually have three positions now being argued for (1) change "reject annexation" to "reject Spanish sovereignty" (2) leave "reject annexation" (3) change "reject annexation" to "reject what they see as annexation". The view of our good friends Narson and Pfainuk that (1) and (2) are interchangeable are inconsistent with the fact that (3) has even been placed on the table by Gibnews. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Annexation is hardly a neutral act, but its exactly what the Spanish propose, no more or less indeed one of the reasons the joint sovereignty peoposals failed was that Spain wanted 100% not joint sovereignty. However, its the term that most Gibraltarians and some Spaniards use to describe it.

• Gibraltar national day celebrates when a massive majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation - www.qppstudio.net/publicholidays2008/gibraltar.htm

• Annexation talk ridiculed ... If such argument were to become accepted Great Britain ourght to give Gibraltar ro Spain - NYT 1911

• majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain. - encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8713/Gibraltar.html

Plus a further 51,000 mentions of it by google, its the normal accepted term to describe 'that which Spain wants' and 'that which is rejected by the Gibraltarians'. Wikipedia policy is to record that and not the opinions of its editors. --Gibnews (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. "encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com" (whatever the hell that is, it is certainly not a proper university, and the website is on the spam blocklist of Wikipedia) is blatantly a programmatic ripoff of Wikipedia taken some time ago - but don't take my word for it, compare encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8713/Gibraltar.html the "stateuniversity" version] to this old version of the Wikipedia article in 2006 - mysteriously large portions of the text are exactly the same. But, wait, that is not the end of it - it gets better .... oh my god, I'm trembling with delight here, literally trembling ... IT WAS YOU YOURSELF THAT ADDED THE WORD "annexation" TO THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BACK IN 2006 WHICH THAT STATEUNIVERSITY WEBSITE YOU ARE TRYING TO USE AS A REFERENCE THEN RIPPED OFF!!!!! Revision as of 14:41, 9 April 2006 Gibnews "Add picture and details of National Day". Both versions even have your grammatical error ("where with"). You have been totally and utterly rumbled! Ha ha ha. You'll have to do better than citing your own work as a reference, mate. Now here's a challenge for you: find a British newspaper or member of the British or Spanish government that used the word annexation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to remain civil, please. If you have a grievance with Gibnews, please remain calm and adhere to common talk page guidelines such as avoiding excessive markup. I already noted how Andrew Rosindell used the term "annexation" here. This discussion is now going round in endless circles and bashing one another isn't going to help. RedCoat10 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am calm. Also, I said a member of either Government, not a member of Parliament. That is a very important distinction which you seem to have missed. MPs can basically say what they like because they are speaking as individuals (e.g. Dennis Skinner). Ministers speak on behalf of the Government. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ps the above markup seems to have been taken in the wrong light by everyone. It was meant to reflect my amusement at the situation of someone using a reference to back up their argument which was a direct copy of words they themselves had written two years ago. I apologise to Gibnews if it comes across as incivility. I would not like that to detract from the seriousness of my point, that it is not a reliable source, and that one cannot simply accept any old web page as a reliable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair to say that MPs can say whatever they want—they represent and speak on behalf of the legislative body of the UK. It would be unreasonable to discard the citation just because he is an MP; in fact, it goes to show that annexation is not unused within the parliamentary community. Do we really need a minister to spell it out to us? I can't recall having read that at WP:SOURCES. The term has evidently been used to describe the situation and, to my view, reflects it well. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is really that MPs solely represent their constituents at Westminster, not the country, and there is no burden on an MP to be diplomatic or to choose words carefully: that's why many choose a life on the back benches. I'll say this here and now: if anyone can provide a quote from a serving Minister on either the British or Spanish side that used the term, I would shut up immediately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think its very silly to dispute the use of this word, clearly whatever references I have cited are 'not good enough' for critics, but you know google has some 51,000 of them. How about an interview with Peter Caruana, Chief Minister of Gibraltar and Sir David Frost:

• Frost: What is your greatest objection to Spain's annexation of Gibraltar, even if they say they will give the right to Gibraltarians to remain British citizens? What's wrong with Spain as far as Gibraltar is concerned?

Caruana: Simply the fact that we Gibraltarians are not Spanish, we don't feel Spanish, we have been British for 300 years, we wish to remain British, and what is not acceptable is for the Spaniards to seek to draw a distinction between the territory of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar, so suggesting that our homeland, which is Gibraltar, should become Spanish but we, if we want, can carry on carrying British passports is offensive really in this democratic age in the European Union.

http://www.panorama.gi/archive/980126.html

Perhaps Sir Davids use of the word which shows it simply is the term that is commonly used to describe Spains aim is good enough? Incidentally this predates the 2002 referendum when the people rejected any union with Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is your own website, is it not? I am not suggesting that you have rewritten what Sir David Frost said, but as a self-published website, it is not a WP:RS. Surely if it's so common you can find other sources? Why don't we just resolve this here and now and use the wording of the 1967 referendum ("Spanish sovereignty")? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NO it most certainly is NOT my website. Panorama is a long established local newspaper. You really are scraping the barrel trying to reject all references that do not support your POV. --Gibnews (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It does have an email address at the bottom with "email gibnews", so you can see how I might have thought it was yours. You used to link to your website on your user page, and I could not remember the address. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It happens that I have a shorter and less pretentious username than some which can, and is, used by a Gibraltar Newspaper as their email address - however for the avoidance of doubt apart from writing occasional letters to Panorama, I do not control their website, or provide any content to the newspaper. You may find This interesting. --Gibnews (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it! You shot JFK and were behind the faking of the moon landings!  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Caruana uses the word annexation is another proof that the word is not neutral. He doesn't have a neutral view (for obvious reasons) on the issue. I could bring several references of Spanish politicians who use the word colony, yet certainly this term would not be considered neutral by British editors. One side sees reunification with Spain as decolonisation, the other sees it as annexation. The point is to find a term between these two points of view. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation?

Mediation was proposed as a way forwards [24]. Gibnews, would you agree on that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone (particularly RedHat, nothing personal) ought to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, stay cool and avoid escalating this dispute any further. I'm sure we'd all agree that this is nothing more than a very petty issue which seems to have elicited a storm in a teacup. For crying out loud, we're arguing over the use of one word (reminds me of the whole UK overseas territory vs British overseas territory ordeal). Needless to say, if mediation is the preferred option I'll happily comply. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There use to be a banned sockpuppet master, who frequented this article; was his IP range ever blocked? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was. Whilst this article attracts Spanish vandals like flies round the brown stuff, I don't believe there has been any sockpuppetry here for a long time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs)? I don't believe the entire IP range was blocked indefinitely; as far as I'm aware that's not permitted. However, his range of IPs was tagged with {{Gibraltarian}} and he rarely makes appearances now (most notable at Kingdom of Gibraltar), if at all. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a relief. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at one stage the whole Gibraltar IP range was blocked which was quite disproportionate. Even my private IP which user:Gibraltarian could not use was blocked. However that particular user was provoked rather like the bull in a bullfight, and after being killed, has been demonised. --Gibnews (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "demonised" you mean "blocked after abusing multiple sockpuppets, vandalising his own arbitration case and being permanently banned by the community after violating his block and being reverted on a daily basis for a year" then I guess so. We don't do these things arbitrarily, you know. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

My intention is to take this dispute to medcab and having done that archive the reams of discussion. Does anyone have any objection? Justin talk 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cession

A technically correct, and presumably neutral, word is "cession". So "who strongly oppose the idea of cession to Spain" (or "Gibraltar's being ceded to Spain"). Howard Alexander (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. OED defines the word as meaning "The ceding, giving up, or ‘handing over’ of a portion of territory to another ruler or state. Sometimes concr. a portion of territory surrendered." So I think we're clearly in the right ball park here. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence refers to what the Gibraltarians actually call the unilateral imposition of Spanish sovereignty on the territory of Gibraltar, not what such a thing may be called in dictionaries. The Spanish call it something else. Its hard to provide references for something which is not being proposed or denied. --Gibnews (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no doubt that the Gibraltarians call it something with a lot of negative connotations. Presumably the Spanish call it something with a lot of positive connotations for their POV. It's not our business to endorse either version. I've come across this situation many times before in my time as an editor, and the way I've always dealt with it is to use a neutral term and then say parenthetically, "this side regards it as X, the other side regards it as Y".

Let me give you an example. A couple of years ago, Serbian and Croatian editors were move-warring over whether a mass killing in 1991 at a place called Borovo Selo was a "massacre" (the Croatian term) or an "incident" (the Serbian term). I defused that - and it's stayed defused ever since - by renaming the article using a neutral term, as Borovo Selo killings. The opening line calls the affair by a neutral name and then explains both sides' POV: "The Borovo Selo killings of 2 May 1991 (known in Croatia as the Borovo Selo massacre, Croatian:Pokolj u Borovom Selu and in Serbia as the Borovo Selo incident, Serbian: Инцидент у Боровом Селу)..."

So in this case, I would suggest describing the transfer of Gibraltar back into Spanish hands as "the cession of Gibraltar, which the Gibraltarians describe as an annexation and the Spanish describe as ..." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

...decolonization. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (I had thought it would be something like "reunification" á la East Germany, but never mind.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A) Decolonisation for this article if we plan to put it in, please, and B) Can we have a ref? There has already been an alternative suggestion put forward that avoids using the term annexation because some editors are sensitive over it. I believe it is now heading towards mediation to try and get around the impass. Narson (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Decolonisation is a word often used by Spanish authorities and the media to describe the withdrawal of British military presence from the Rock and the transfer of its sovereignity to Spain. I have found this extract [25] of a UN press release in a British website. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would be the UN Committee on Decolonisation. Thanks. Narson (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure "cession" is entirely neutral. As ChrisO pointed out, it denotes some sort of "giving up" or "surrendering" and (as with reunification/reintegration) thereby implies the typically Spanish view that Britain is occupying an integral part of Spain etc etc. Moreover, I don't think I would be wrong in saying that the term 'cession' is normally used in an historical context and would not reflect a hypothetical transfer of sovereignty accurately. RedCoat10 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the word cession is potentially confusing given that the cession of Gibraltar would generally refer to the events of 1713. I think the proposed edit here is unnecessarily awkward - we are trying to provide a neutral description of a hypothetical event, rather than trying to name a past event. It's not unreasonable to suggest that there simply aren't standard names used. I think the proposal is potentially misleading - I note that so far we have rather more evidence that the Spanish use the word "annexation" than that the British (outside Gibraltar) use it.

I think Té's source does not back up his comment (as it never refers to the transfer of sovereignty as "decolonisation"), and his explanation is potentially misleading (as it's clearly quoting a UN meeting - note the differences in spelling of "decolonisation" - thus the fact that the site is British- or Gibraltar-based is not relevant).

I would thus suggest that we have no evidence at this stage that decolonisation even makes sense on the Spanish side in the context suggested: that "the Gibraltarians oppose decolonisation" would be taken to imply that the Gibraltarians oppose transfer of sovereignty, as opposed to independence, associate status with the UK or integration into the UK - all of which are other possible outcomes of decolonisation in its normal UN sense. Let alone that it is the standard term in use by the Spanish government and Spanish-biased media.

I also think, from a practical standpoint, that this has a snowball's chance in hell of getting consensus. With all these concerns put together, I see no benefit in favouring this proposal over previous suggestions. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) I don't see the problem with "cession" that RedCoat10 is referring to. In its normal context it refers simply to giving up something - you cede a point, a country cedes territory, a government cedes authority. That states only that the entity doing the ceding is in possession of the thing being ceded. It carries no implications that I can see about whether that possession is legitimate or not. In the case of Gibraltar, Spain ceded Gibraltar to the UK in 1713; if it ever went back to Spain, Britain, as the sovereign authority there, would be ceding it back again. For a comparable example, think of Hong Kong - ceded by China to Britain "in perpetuity", ceded back to China under the treaty that restored Chinese sovereignty. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an proposal that has almost got consensus. Though, this does highlight a flaw in annex. Cede and Annex have the same problem in that we are talking hypotheticals. IF they oppose cessation would they therefore be fine if the spanish annexed Gibraltar? IF they oppose annexation, would they be fine with a deal between the two crowns? The proposal above that almost has consensus seems best (Our now infamous 'Spanish Sovereignty' sentence) which is based on a previous consensus position. Narson (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1) It implies its voluntary, but the people of Gibraltar have overwhelmingly rejected it, however Té dresses it up or tries to diminish it. 2) It implies thats its the UK Governments to cede, which it isn't. The principle of self-determination implies that only the people of Gibraltar have a right to decide. 3) It gives legitimacy to the Spanish claim that the people of Gibraltar have no say in the self-detemination of their own home.

The analogy with Hong Kong is also inapropriate and in the context of Gibraltar rather insensitive. Hong Kong was handed back because the majority of the territory was leased and in many ways the British Government was compelled to return it. The two are not comparable in any way. That does not, however, stop simplistic comparison being made with the obvious inference that sovereignty transfer to Spain is the only "logical" outcome; one overwhelmingly rejected by Gibraltar.

Finally I suggest you need to be aware of this [26] and the ultra-Spanish nationalist viewpoint expressed by one of the proponents here. I've spend a good part of this evening preparing a case for MedCab. May I respectfully suggest that consensus is more likely to be achieved by concentrating on that without introducing further rabbit holes. Justin talk 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both, except to note that (per Té's source) the Spanish government do not consider the Gibraltarians to have a right to self-determination. They are careful to say that they would respect the interests as opposed to the wishes of the Gibraltarians. Pfainuk talk 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Gibraltarians do not have the right to self-determination. As Crown territory, the only body with authority to dispose of Gibraltar is the Crown, with the advice of the British Government. But as a (very sensible) matter of policy, the Government has said that it will not act contrary to the Gibraltarians' wishes. Contrast this with Hong Kong, which was handed back to China very much against the wishes of a substantial chunk of the population - no referendums there. Also in regard to Hong Kong, Justin is right to say that some of the territory (specifically Kowloon and the New Territories) was leased but the original core of Hong Kong was ceded "in perpetuity". Theoretically Britain could have hung on to Hong Kong Island for as long as it wanted. The terms of Article III of the Treaty of Nanking concerning the cessation has some striking similarities to Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're correct and incorrect, a) the Crown might have the right to dispose of the territory but b) the UN Charter, which Britain is comnitted to upholding, would guarantee the right to self-determination irrespective of the authority of the Crown. Were the British Crown to attempt to dispose of Gibraltar without their consent it would lose any challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. Fascinating as any extensive discourse on the politics and rights/wrongs of the Hong Kong transfer might be, or indeed about the self-determination rights of Gibraltar residents, is adding another rabbit hole helping? Justin talk 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain appears to be committed to upholding the UN Charter, but as another editor mentioned in the archived discussion, Britain ignores the UN resolutions on decolonisation, such as UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples", and specially UN Resolution 2353 which states:

any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly"

The Gibraltarians do not have a right to self-determination, nor does Britain have the legal capacity to hold referendums about the sovereignty of the territory. The UN made it clear after the 1967 Referendum:

[The UN] Declares the holding of the referendum of 10th September 1967, by the administering Power to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 2231 (XXI) and of those of the Resolution approved on 1st September 1967 by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;" MEGV (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Reliability - two seperate issues, let's not confuse them

Hello. I would like to detach the issue of the neutrality of "annexation" and the issue of the reliability of Backpacker.com. I proposed something very reasonable on Gibnews' talk page - first sort out the choice of wording, second find a reliable reference for it. Not only is the Backpacker.com reference not reliable in my opinion (and in the opinion of some contributors to the RS noticeboard), it was added after the dispute was in-flight. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's deal with Backpacker.com. It should be possible to find an alternative reliable source that supports the point being made. Backpacker.com must have got the information from somewhere. Let's find it, shall we? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, can someone ask Justin Kuntz to stop winding me up by reverting every single edit I make? He has painted himself as an angelic mediator on the cabal page, when it was he that did most to wind me up. He was already asked politely once to get off my back [27] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for me to put my admin hat on (it's not red, by the way). Both of you, please stop reverting each other. Justin, the Backpackers.com reference is not remotely a reliable source - it should not be in the article. Red Hat, instead of deleting it, I suggest you find a more reliable source - e.g. a book or newspaper article - that makes the same point. Here is a link to Google Books, here is a link to Google News. Get searching, please, and if you find a viable source post it here so that we can form a consensus on it. I'll do some searching too, to help you out. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My whole point above is that no reference can be found which clearly demonstrates that the term is neutral. Had one been provided (from a British or Spanish government communication, referendum, opinion poll, Ministerial communication etc), I wouldn't be having this argument in the first place! Given that the term itself is in dispute, and the reference was added after the dispute started, it seems to me to be highly unfair to leave any reference in at all until this is resolved. Why is that not fair and reasonable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your concerns, but please take a look at "The Wrong Version". Don't forget that Wikipedia is a work in progress. We don't have a deadline to fix this (although obviously I'd like to see it resolved sooner rather than later). The answer to this problem is not fighting over the source, it's replacing it with something better. If none of us can do that then I agree that it should come out, but let's try to resolve this collectively first. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are clearly a number of seperate points - the sentence being questioned deals with the perception by Gibraltarians that the desired 'reclamation' of the sovereignty of Gibraltar by Spain amounts to annexation. This is the word used to describe that process by numerous sources, including Sir David Frost interviewing the Chief Minister of Gibraltar - and EVERY reference I have included to support this has been unilaterally deleted by one editor --Gibnews (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying "numerous" sources yet I haven't seen a single undeniably reliable (and neutral) one yet. So far I've seen backpacker.com, an uncredited pirate version of Wikipedia on a website links to which are blocked by WP as spam, and reflecting wording that you yourself added to the article in 2006, and another weird website about holidays that is not in the least bit scholarly. The Frost one is the closest yet to a decent reference, but it is a third hand account of what he said (did they transcribe it accurately?) and anyway it strikes me as odd that if this is so common, that is the best that you can come up with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Chris, I sympathise with what you were trying to achieve but you're unaware of the history here. A simple google search brings up 46,400 hits. That of itself will bring up a gibraltar newspaper, or a source quoting the British Government position [28] and a google book without too much effort. All would satisfy WP:RS but would be rejected. If you care to look above, some of these have already been produced and rejected because they are "Gibraltar in origin". Even when a reliable source is produced it is simply rejected.

I would also highlight without getting into the reasons for it, that I was not asked to get off Red Hat's back and I chose to disengage to cool things off. Justin talk 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding getting off my back, you were clearly asked to step back here [29]. Regarding the "history", ChrisO is doing the creditable thing of trying to sort this mess out without inflaming either side. Finally, we are discussing the neutrality of the term, and clearly, given that 99% of the inhabitants - a number most Communist dictators would be envious of - reject Spanish sovereignty, a Gibraltar-based publication is not going to be neutral. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to step away from talking to you because both of you were just winding each other up. I asked him and not you to leave it be because I know Justin and thus knew I could ask him to drop it to defuse things rather than asking someone who I've had no experience with. It wasn't me assigning responsibility or guilt, just a desire to avoid you two going into a full blown barney in the middle of an already tense situation. I'm just annother editor and so it was simply a requst of a friend to let things cool. Not some kind of 'RAWR' wikialert. Narson (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I just said on RS/N, the Government of Gibraltar website does not use the term annexation either. So why not use the terms that gibraltar.gov.uk uses in referring to the 1967 referendum, where union with Spain was an option? They're the official representatives of the population of Gibraltar. Jayen466 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Searching the http://www.chronicle.gi website, I find a total of 107 matches for "sovereignty", and just 3 matches for annexation (two of which are opinion pieces), which would seem to indicate that even in the Gibraltarian press, references to "annexation" are the exception rather than the rule. Jayen466 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Try searching a little harder, a simple google search [30] would bring up thousands of hits. I don't think even Red Hat disputes its commonly used in Gibraltar. Justin talk 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We should use the terms most prevalent in high-quality sources, not just a term we can find on the Internet. The Gibraltarian government does not use the term on its website, and a reputable Gibraltarian newspaper has but a single instance of it in its archive (not counting the two opinion pieces). A Google News search for "Spain annexation Gibraltar" brings up very little, most of the hits being articles discussing Morocco's annexation of Spanish Sahara that somehow happen to mention Gibraltar, or other cases involving Ceuta, Argentina or Crete. Compare that to news mentions of sovereignty in the context of Spain and Gibraltar. We should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each (WP:DUE). Mainstream view first, and mainstream only in the lede. I have seen no evidence that "annexation" is the mainstream term either in Gibraltar or anywhere else. Jayen466 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for that. Just out of curiousity, tell me is a British Government Briefing paper a reliable source[31]?

Spain is continuing to pursue her objective, which is the annexation of Gibraltar, in the name of decolonisation. Her attempt to incorporate Gibraltar into Spain without regard to the human factor - the Gibraltarians themselves - is in our view the antithesis of decolonisation.

How about Chronicle, one of Gibraltars oldests newspapers[32], is that a high quality source?

How about Hansard, is that a reliable and high quality source?[33]

How about another Gibraltar newspaper, Panorama[34], is that a high quality reliable source?

How about a Spanish newspaper[35], "La anexión fue rechazada por los gibraltareños en referéndum." (The annexation was rejected by the Gibraltarians in a referendum.) Justin talk 09:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point. The question is not whether you can find instances of the word's use in reliable sources. The question is how prevalent the term is. The Gibraltar Chronicle article you reference, for example, is the only such article in the Chronicle archives according to Google. All of the above evidence shows that annexation is far from being the most prevalent way of describing the situation. If the use of "annexation" to describe the situation is a significant minority view, it can be covered in the article, but a minority view should not take precedence over the majority view in the lede. I reiterate: the Gibraltarian government does not use the term on its website, and it is restricted to a single occurrence in the Chronicle, Gibraltar's longest-established newspaper. WP:DUE is policy, not a guideline. Jayen466 10:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point, it is a well known mainstream opinion in Gibraltar. And with respect, you're missing the point about the proposing wording. The word annexation is not being used to describe the situation, its being used to describe how it is perceived by the people of Gibraltar; there is a subtle difference there and there is a plethora of sources to back that up. I realise you were trying to help but all you've done is to open up a further avenue for argument and provided encouragement for one of the main protagonists to withdraw from a mediation attempt[36]. Justin talk 10:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

...and to add to that reply, a search in Hansard throws up no other mention of the term by an MP - you've found the solitary one there. How about the Gibraltar section (p118) of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee; Overseas Territories; Seventh Report of Session 2007–08 p188 - lots of mention of "sovereignty", none of annexation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Justin, if your argument is that it is the mainstream opinion in reliable sources, then it should be easy to find the sources that demonstrate that. Unfortunately, the Gibraltarian sources I found contradict your view, showing the term to be either absent or rare. What to do? Jayen466 11:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>This seems to indicate we are best off with the spanish sovereignty wording. Narson (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For what feels like about the 1,000,000,000th time of saying it, I would be quite happy with the compromise wording that Narson and Pfainuk were working on, and which in all likelihood would have been acceptable to Gibnews. "Annexation" is NOT my bugbear but it is a mainstream opinion in Gibraltar and there are plenty of sources to support it. I also happen to disagree that your sources contradict that and the term is neither absent nor rare. Pretending it isn't a mainstream opinion is not going to make the dispute go away and does not provide a solution.

What to do? Well trying for mediation of the dispute between the two main protagonists might have been nice. However, once again that seems to have been scuppered. And to put a little frosting on the cake, I notice the same user that previously spammed the Talk Page with endless rounds of circular argument promoting a pro-Spanish POV has felt emboldened to return. So I guess the rest of us are just condemned to watch the page spammed with endless tendentious argument with another 600 kb of circular argument instead of any chance of productive editing. Indeed, what to do? Justin talk 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This kind of statement (the frosting) does not help matters in the slightest, Justin. It's exactly this kind of thing which got me so wound up last weekend, and now you are doing it to Te. Your intellectual bedfellows, Pfainuk and Narson, notably do not make this kind of comment. I agree political arguments are not wanted here, but the best policy is just to ignore it. The other side engages in this too, but noone scolds them for it (and I have never understood why). With regards to your point, it seems to revolve around truth rather than verifiability. I hope you understand the difference but fear that you do not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to MEGV not Te, as usual you've jumped in half-cocked to seize the opportunity to have another snipe. And as usual knowing only half the facts, you've made a complete hash of things. What was that you just said - "the best policy is just to ignore it". Take your own advice.

And be honest about it, what got you wound up was because I confronted you about behaviour that was escalating the dispute not cooling it off. What I find truly astounding is that my "intellectual bedfellows, Pfainuk and Narson" had worked up a compromise thats about 2 words different from what is now being discussed. We could have been there a week ago if you hadn't waded in and stirred things up. Justin talk 08:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect RedHat, Justin is a friend. That is all. We have disagreed in the past and I am sure we ill in the future, his interests are mostly far more modern than mine, they just overlap in the area of milhist on things like Falklands. Pfain I only really know in any depth because of trying to accomodate MEGV's views on this talk page. I think you have to understand RedHat that this did not start when you joined the page, we spent 2 months discussing things with very little gain and a lot of gnashed teeth. Narson (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. And that state of affairs was precisely why I tried to get outside opinion. It was all getting a little claustrophobic, like hamsters that eat each other when they're locked up in a tight cage. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A few references...

• Encarta's Thesaurus "capture, seizure, takeover, occupation, invasion, appropriation" - are those neutral terms?
• Britannica's article on annexation "Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition." - is either side even remotely suggesting that Spain would act unilaterally and take over Gibraltar against the wishes of not only Gibraltar but Britain too? Presumably that could only be done by force?
• Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs "We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation" - how can a neutral term have a negative connotation, whatever the details of the political situation in Israel? The term is either neutral in every single context in the English language or it is not. (NB this quote is about Sinai, read on...)
• UN Security Council meeting in 1976 "In 1956, during the night of 29/30 October, Israel decided to invade the Sinai, Egyptian territory. There was a further act of aggression on 5 June 1967. That time it resulted in the occupation of a large part of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory. Since then the Middle East problem has been in the forefront of the concerns of the international community. From that date to the present time, almost 100 resolutions have been adopted by various bodies of the United Nations rejecting the annexation of territory by force and advocating a solution to the Palestinian tragedy. Not only have all those resolutions been rejected by Israel, but the Israeli policy of annexation and expulsion of peoples has been accompanied by a campaign of denigration of the United Nations.". (I quote this because "annexation" carries these connotations - taking territory by force. In the second mention of "policy of annexation", they didn't even need to mention "by force").
• thesaurus.com "acquire, add, affix, appropriate, arrogate*, attach, connect, ell, extension, fasten, hook, join, procure, secure, seize, tag, unite, win, wing" (yes, annex is sometimes used in its inoffensive connect/join sense, but bold synonyms are clearly not neutral) * arrogate's synonyms are "assume, claim, commandeer, confiscate, demand, preempt, seize, sequester, take, usurp"
• United Nations "The evidence strongly suggests that Israel is determined to create facts on the ground amounting to de facto annexation. Annexation of this kind, known as conquest in international law, is prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations and the Fourth Geneva Convention,” he adds, calling for it to be condemned as unlawful annexation." (so a certain kind of annexation is illegal - we can easily see how this is not a neutral term)
• New York Times "U.N. Council Declares Void Iraqi Annexation of Kuwait" (how exactly did Iraq "annex" Kuwait? They marched their troops in - surely people can see how the term applied to Gibby might suggest Spain would march its troops in) "Last night Kuwait's government-in-exile convened an emergency session of the Council after Baghdad announced its annexation decision." (Baghdad announced its annexation decision - that's because it's unilateral, see Britannica definition)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should look at how Wikipedia describes annexation rather than outdated texts like Encarta, which is demonstrably wrong. It describes things exactly. --Gibnews (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, let's look at how Wikipedia describes it. "It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred." Again, the suggestion is that it can be taken to be non-neutral! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Annexation" certainly is a non-neutral term. It has strong connotations of aggression and unilateralism - think Kuwait or the Anschluss. If it is being used by the Gibraltarian press in preference to other terminology, it's not unreasonable to conclude that they are doing so to make a political point. Likewise if the Spanish press is using "decolonisation". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on Annexation being inherently non-neutral. However, we have an alternative that avoids the disagreement, so lets focus on how we can make that work rather than going ovr and over this annexation thing guys. We have other equally neutral (and possibly less specific) terms we can use, ones that won't result in disruption to the page. Narson (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It took a while, but finally, I am happy a respected longtime editor has chimed in and can see that annexation is non-neutral. The neutrality or not is a very important point because NPOV is a policy, and if it is established that this article is in breach of it, then the offending text needs to be changed, not just to keep a crackpot editor bizarrely opposed to a neutral word in spite of the whole world (as was portrayed at the mediation attempt), but to be in accordance with policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, can we cut with the Personal Attacks? Anymore of this crap and we should just take it to ANI. Narson (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my post. That crackpot editor is ME. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Though once again, the majority of people here accept an alternative wording than annexation, so there is no need to go on about it. The person you need to talk to is GibNews if you want a uniform consensus. It is possible that there is a way of combining various versions to GibNews' satisfaction. Perhaps for example:

Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, and the Spanish government requests that sovereignty be returned. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty, which they describe as annexation. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting these wishes.

Narson (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the Spanish view that it would be decolonisation? Both sides views have to be mentioned. If they are (ChrisO's proposal), I can live with that. Although I think the matter would be better and more eloquently solved by changing annenxation to Spanish sovereignty. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think decolonisation is the Franco term, incorporation or reunification seems to be the modern spanish term. Narson (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Decolonisation is still the Spanish term, its how they contrive an argument that the people of Gibraltar do not deserve the right to self-determination. I don't see anything inherently wrong with Narson's suggestion, I don't see a need to include the term decolonisation since the Spanish position on sovereignty is more than adequately represented with the phrase "the Spanish government requests that sovereignty be returned". Justin talk 11:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Working in the spanish term and getting the sentence to flow without using 'scare quotes' is difficult.

Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, and the Spanish government requests that sovereignty be returned, stating their desire to '(incorporate/integrate)' Gibraltar into Spain as a whole. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty, which they describe as annexation. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting these wishes.

Obviously finding sources is important. I think it makes the sentence run a bit but it is just a draft. Narson (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Hat you are completely right. It is more than sufficiently clear that "annexation" is a biased term, and all the editors show understand that by now. It carries a negative implication and is therefore inappropriate for the article. It was I that made this point a long time ago, quoting the Wikipedia definition: "Annexation [...] can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like "political union" or "reunification" are sometimes preferred. [37]

That's why your previous suggestion "Gibraltarians reject union with Spain" [38] or terms like "unification" or "incorporation" are perfectly OK. They are used in many other cases such as Hong Kong, or the hypthetical Ceuta case or others. MEGV (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not helping MEGV. Going back to previous unaccptable suggestions is not constructive. Narson (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What is constructive, in this instance? Are there any words discussed that sort-of have better appeal all-around? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Well, old ones that were discounted that are used in new ways can be constructive, just repeating the same old crap that has gone on for 300KB is not. The widest appeal so far is for a plain 'spanish sovereignty' but with GibNews holding out and it appears to be more than a simple case of IDON'THEART, I am unsure whether consensus can be formed over his good faith objections. I don't believe he is willing to simply put up a weak objection and say 'I don't like it but put it in anyway'? Narson (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I object to changing that sentence is that there is evidence that the Gibraltarians reject annexation, there is NO evidence that we reject decolonisation most people are in favour of it, and at least half the population AND the British Government say that we have already achieved it.

• the new constitution* provides for a modern relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I do not think that this description would apply to any relationship based on colonialism. - Emyr Jones Parry, British ambassador to the UN.

The term used in Spain is reclaim or recover Gibraltar (reclamation / recuperar).

I suggest that inventing terms to describe the situation is original research and thus should be avoided. Perhaps if editors feel the need to make the introduction more balanced there could more of a mention of that.

Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain would like to recover Gibraltar and maintains a territorial claim. The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose what they see as annexation, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Like almost all the others, this works for me too. Narson (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that as well. Pfainuk talk 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me too, happy with that. Justin talk 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that proposal, for the following reason: who, exactly, are "they"? The people of Gibraltar, of course, but which ones? The implication is all of them. So where is the reference that explicitly demonstrates that this is the case? Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. I freely admit that the term can be found often in the Gibraltarian media, but do all 28,875 inhabitants see it as annexation? Perhaps some adopt the same strict definition of the term as Britannica, and believe that it only applies to countries integrating territory hitherto outside of their control, so it does not apply in Gibraltar's case. Or perhaps they connect the term with armies marching in, and so would not use it personally. Or perhaps they are one of the four people that want Spanish rule (or is it now 400? The last referendum was six years ago, after all, and some may have changed their minds - how do we know? The only verifiable statement in that regard is to say that in 2002, 99% of the population rejected joint sovereignty). Finally, I'm not permanently opposed to this wording, the following would satisfy WP:V: (1) a reliable reference or references explicitly reaching the same conclusion (otherwise it's WP:SYN); (2) an opinion poll about sovereignty which contained the word "annexation", though this would require a slight wording change. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ps another way of phrasing the problem as I see it is: if you arrived from Planet Blisstonia (known for its high levels of bliss) tomorrow, not knowing anything about the situation in Gibraltar, and read that line in Wikipedia, how would you go about verifying its accuracy? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Have sources been provided previously? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) worst case scenario: what to do if there are no opinion polls? :-/

There are quite a few sources from the Gibraltar media using the term annexation. There is even a source suggesting that Sir David Frost used it whilst interviewing the chief minister a few years ago. However, there have been no sources provided which would allow us to verify the statement that Gibraltarians see recovery of Gibraltar by Spain as "annexation". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There were, but you deleted them claiming the Gibraltar media is biased. --Gibnews (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't (or, more likely, couldn't) answer my point only confirms it, in my opinion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is gibnews used as a reference, but unreliable for this one entry? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite disagreement by some editors, it has been made objectively clear that the word "annexation" is biased. It carries a pro-British, anti-Spanish bias by implying that reintegration with Spain would be through "coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities", ie Spain. Such an implication is unacceptable from the view point of WP:NPOV. Thus, "more positive terms like "political union" or "reunification" are sometimes preferred" as the Wikipedia article suggests [39]. I have explained how terms like "integration" or "union", or even "incorporation" are perfectly NEUTRAL because they DO NOT IMPLY either pro-British or pro-Spanish points of view. This is how I see it:

• Terms with a British Bias: annexation
• Terms with a Spanish Bias: return, reintegration, reincorporation (However, some of these were used in the HK case)
• Terms with NO BIAS: incorporation, intergration, union

I would appreciate constructive comments from editors on this. MEGV (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Integration with Spain could only be obtained through coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities -or- waiting for hell to freeze over; the consequences are not acceptable to anyone sane, and its quite pointless discussing it. --Gibnews (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

MEGV? Repeating the same thing over and over again ad naseum does not make it true. It has been explained to you over and over, you havn't changed peoples minds in howevery many hundreds of kb of text, you won't change them now. Narson (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a little naïve of me to ask this, but what exactly was wrong with the wording we had before adopting the new one? Namely:

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major issue of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Spain requests the return of sovereignty, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

It seems that this version remained undisputed and stable for months, if not years. RedCoat10 (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Jayen466 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The present wording was a stable consensus until one editor embarked on a mission to remove the word annexation which is the correct political term to describe 'what Spain wants' --Gibnews (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There was chuff all wrong with it, it was scuppered because someone objected to the implication that Spain had ceded sovereignty. Justin talk 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major issue of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain requests its return. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

That uses the present wording about the cession. Any good? --Jayen466 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the extra bit to the effect of The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting this opposition their wishes. should be added - for which we have a source which is not in dispute - you can specifically verify it using the answer to Question 257. Other than that, I'm happy. Pfainuk talk 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. And with Pfain's suggested addendum. It is pretty much the wordng we keep on going back to. EDIT to add: Does the source not indicate the government's desire to respect the wishes/will of the people rather than a specific result? Narson (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - thanks. I'll change my comment. Pfainuk talk 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought too that adding the UK government's statement might be useful. --Jayen466 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is amended with Pfainuk's wording, it gets my vote. Remind how different that is from what was proposed about 2 weeks ago? Justin talk 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose spanish sovereignty has become oppose this. Thats the difference I think. Narson (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, that ref could do with being formatted a bit better than it is at present. And we could add a reference to question 257 – while I did find the relevant passage earlier, it would have been a lot quicker if the footnote had mentioned it. ;-) --Jayen466 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have made an improvement. Specifically, I've changed to the corrected version of the document (which apparently has been looked over by the participants with any needed corrections made), noted the question number and quoted the relevant passage (which Gibnews has also quoted below). I don't think this is likely to be controversial but since it's in the disputed sentence I thought I'd better note this here. Pfainuk talk 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. Jayen466 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] The reason we changed the wording before was that it was disputed that the issue remains 'a major dispute' between the UK and Spain.

Quoting Jim Murphy:

• The UK Government will never - "never" is a seldom-used word in politics - enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word "never" sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK's position

He is saying that Spain has no hope of achieving their end, and that the relationship is mature enough that it is not a problem.

On the removal of the word 'annexation' which is a valid term to describe a large territory adsorbing a smaller one - if that is the way its perceived by Gibraltarians, which I assert it is, then I feel we should be honest and tell the truth. Just because one editor does not like it and removes all references that support it is used.

In the event of the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, which resulted in the 1991 gulf war, Iraq claimed that it was the 47th province of Iraq and had only been 'lost' because of the way the British drew lines on a map. The arguments used by Spain in relation to Gibraltar are less convincing.

Gibraltarians have the right to describe the final solution to what the Spanish call 'the Gibraltar problem' as 'Annexation' if they so chose. Wikipedia should mention it otherwise its censorship on the grounds of not offending 'Spanish sensitivities' to the truth. It does not require 99% of the population to vote on it to make it so. There are sufficent references to support this view.

--Gibnews (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• No evidence whatsoever has been presented on this page that it is reliable sources' preferred way of describing it, not even Gibraltarian sources'. The government of Gibraltar does not use the word on its website, the Gibraltar Chronicle has used it exactly once. That is not a sufficient basis for including that wording in the lede. (Besides, I don't think we are talking about an army marching into Gibraltar, as was the case in Kuwait, or in Western Sahara.)
• If it no longer is as much of an issue as before between the UK and Spain, I suggest we change it to "has been a major issue". Jayen466 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I believe we have a consensus here, and it's based on policy. Please live with it. Jayen466 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i'd suggest you think about removing the comment I struck through, it sound like an ultimatum. Justin talk 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gibraltar problem continues to be major issue between Spain and the UK. In fact, both countries will never have "normal" relations until the British navy leaves our peninsula and the UK returns our land. This is not my opinion but the general Spanish view. Both countries cooperate in many issues, as they are both Eu members. However, the Gibraltar problem has also affected EU initiatives and policies.

I'd be almost happy with the new proposed paragraph, as long as the word annexation is not included, although since according to the paragraph the Gibraltarias 'strongly oppose', I think it would be fair to say 'Spain is determined to recover it' instead of 'Spain requests its return'. I'll be happy to look for references to back this, although since references from The Guardian and El País and UN press releases are not accepted here, I am not sure how quickly I can find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Té y kriptonita (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain has only requested its return and seems comitted to peaceful means. I can't see spain doing more than requesting as it is not going to seize land from a more powerful fellow EU/NATO member. The wording that we have on it ATM is fine. Narson (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Being determined to recover it does not involve using violence. The British didn't blink twice before killing innocent Argentinians for some barren islands thousands of miles away from their homeland. The Spanish are perfectly aware that the UK could flaten Spain in days in the event of war with their weapons of mass destruction, as the British like to remind us by bringing nuclear submarines to the Bay of Gibraltar every so often--Té y kriptonita (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of users who may be unfamiliar with this dispute, per this Spanish government source, Spain accepts that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty. I cite specifically the passage that says:

Según el Derecho Internacional General, Gibraltar es un territorio bajo la soberanía del Reino Unido, sobre el que recae una reivindicación por parte de España y sobre cuyos límites existe una controversia con España.

Which means:

Under General International Law, Gibraltar is a territory under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, subject to a claim by Spain and whose boundaries are in dispute with Spain.

Pfainuk talk 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "seeks" rather than "requests"? And we could mention the claim. That would give us:

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major issue of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.

Any good? Jayen466 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a variant of the wording proposed by Pfainuk and works for me just as his did. Although, I find "overwhelming" a bit of a peacock term. The majority, a large majority, most, are all OK. But even better: make it 100% verifiable - words to the effect of "in 1967 X% voted against Spanish sovereignty and in 2002 Y% voted against shared sovereignty". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish claim and Spain's seeking the territory's return both refer to the same thing as I understand it, but aside that I'm happy with this. You've not included the wikilinks here (which is fine), but I would mention in passing that that section should wikilink to Disputed status of Gibraltar, the main article on the dispute. I'm also happy with Red Hat's suggestion that we use the figures. For reference in 1967 it was 99.19% against (0.36% in favour, 0.45% spoilt) and in 2002 it was 98.48% against (1.03% in favour, 0.49% spoilt) - that's based on the relevant articles. EDIT: I don't agree with his assessment of the word "overwhelming" however - Madrid was claiming "technically unanimous" support for their 2012 Olympic bid on 91% - check out their presentation at 37:55 (I really shouldn't be able to find that so quickly), so I think "overwhelming" for 99% is fair. The figures can then be quoted later in the article or in another article. Pfainuk talk 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the matter is complicated by the fact that (as User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick states), the 1967 referendum had the options "Pass under Spanish sovereignty" vs. "Retain link with UK", while the 2002 referendum rejected "Anglo-Spanish joint sovereignty" (source: [40]). That might be tricky to state neatly in the lede. (And we do have the precise numbers in the main body of the article.) --Jayen466 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Its the introduction and should be concise. I think its already bloated. --Gibnews (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position though, I am happy with the suggestion. I don't want to confuse matters by throwing in yet another proposal (unless Gibnews likes the general idea and we can then work on making it succinct). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We could include the name(s) of the people in Gibraltar who are in favour of annexation by Spain. --Gibnews (talk)

Regarding "overwhelming", I think I may have a source for it. The 2006 version of Microsoft Encarta has the following:

• Gibraltar held its own independent referendum in November 2002, in which the people voted overwhelmingly to reject any agreement...'
• In a referendum held on September 10, 1967, the people of Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly to remain under British rule... RedCoat10 (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ps Admittedly though, I do often question its reliability when I come across statements like "[T]housands of Gibraltarians, thought to be the vast majority of the population of the island"! --RedCoat10 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I take my objection back about "overwhelming". But note that these refs make verifiable statements - referring to the referenda, rather than words to the effect of "as of today, the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians think...". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to qualify that Gibraltarians reject the idea of Spain being involved in the administration of Gibraltar the number that disagree is small enough to ignore totally. --Gibnews (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediator took on my suggestion for the mediation cabal today, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-28 Gibraltar, case is now open. If we have a consensus I'll close it, otherwise I'd suggest moving any further comments on the dispute to there. Justin talk 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is really inapropriate that you try to discredit my contributions to the debate by briging here a dispute I had in another article, specially being in a language that you don't understad. I am sorry if it annoys you that I disagree with the way this article is written, but I am not going to shut up because of that. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If that remark is aimed at me I haven't a clue what you're on about. And if you're ASSUMING I don't speak Spanish, my mother is Spanish so I do, albeit badly. Justin talk 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And neither should you shut up. Some contributors here seem to give the impression that your views shouldn't count. They do, just as much as theirs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody told him to shut up Red Hat, nobody did, but its naive at best to assume that his extreme POV on the Spanish Wikipedia wouldn't be noticed. Justin talk 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the views expressed here, like the comments about 'innocent Argentinians' killed in the Falklands simply do not belong.

Its interesting that you claim the entire Iberian peninsula - let me know when Spain recovers the remainder of Portugal to add to Olivenza.

In relation to visits from Nuclear submarines, these occur at regular intervals at the Gibraltar submarine berth for crew changes and taking on provisions. American nuclear submarines call at their base in Rota for the same purposes. Spain is not 'menaced' by its NATO allies and its very rare that a British SSBN is seen in these waters.

There is no 'Gibraltar problem'. --Gibnews (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is on this talk page! :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As regards Some contributors here seem to give the impression that your views shouldn't count, RedHat, I shall just quote you above: This kind of statement does not help matters in the slightest. No-one has told him to shut up, the only thing brought up was some edits from the spanish wiki and while bringing it up was not helpful, it is perhaps naive of Te to think it would not be noticed considering the way he started his contribution to this talk page. Narson (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I noted, for example, that (s)he wasn't listed as an interested party at mediation, and was instead referred to very negatively in the opening sentence. (One reason why I crossed it out...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to stop you adding him Red Hat. In fact, it would more useful if you had thought to do so instead of sniping about it. I was in fact referring to MEGV but as you jumped in halfway through when things had cooled off then perhaps you were unaware of the history. Justin talk 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, that is referring to MEGV by my reading. That Te wasn't included perhaps was an oversight? And easily fixed with an edit. Narson (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. Justin talk 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, please feel free to include me in the Mediation Case Page [41]. By the way, I am a "he". Second, I am repeating my case "over again" because there is a whole new audience of editors participating in this dispute, and because no sound arguments have been put forward against eliminating "annexation". The word is completely biased and inappropriate for the article. Third, this is a place for academic discussion, to find neutral and verifiable ways of putting forth information. This is not a political forum for people to throw around their nationalist points of view. Gibnews answered my previous message with:

Integration with Spain could only be obtained through coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities -or- waiting for hell to freeze over; the consequences are not acceptable to anyone sane, and its quite pointless discussing it.

The aggressive and political tone of this message is unacceptable, as is the refusal to discuss the content of any part of the article. For one, integration with Spain is only a hypothetical circumstance, mentioned only to inform the reader of the position of Britain, Spain, and the Gibraltarians in this respect. This hypothetical case cannot be described in a pro-British, or pro-Spanish way, no matter what the Gibraltarians want, or what the Spaniards want. "Annexation" carries the implication that Spain would "invade" or use some sort of violence in this hypothetical case, and is therefore biased in favour of Britain. The alternatives "integration" or "union" are perfectly NEUTRAl and I am still waiting for someone to present reasonable arguments against them. My suggestion for a well-balaced sentence is the following:

• The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of union with Spain, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty.

Can a constructive editor with a neutral point of view please tell me what is wrong with that. MEGV (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss? Seriously MEGV, look at the size of this page. Look at the size of the last archive. We discussed plenty. Though as you obviously payed no attention to all that, don't be suprised if you are now ignored as a time waster. Narson (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed at length, your proposals are not neutral, they're subtly arguing the Spanish case. They're completely unacceptable to a broad range of editors. Further attempts at filibustering the talk page are not in any way shape or form helpful and will have exactly the same result. Justin talk 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with both. For the benefit of others, myself, Narson and Gibnews spent two months and 190kB discussing this. MEGV repeatedly proposed the same thing without addressing our (reasoned) objections, which were raised no less than a dozen times, until AGF was no longer tenable. He refused to accept the compromise position proposed on some very flimsy style grounds.

For the record, when I said I accepted "union", I meant this: if everyone else accepts it, and in a proper context, I think it could go. But it is inaccurate in implication and there are several wordings we have that are better. Also for the record, I oppose your wording as I think it implies the inaccuracy rather more strongly than the word alone does, and I think we can do better.

Finally and incidentally, this is not a place for "academic discussion". This is a place for determining what should go on the article Gibraltar. Nothing more, nothing less. Pfainuk talk 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think its worth mentioning that the compromise wording was virtually identical to what is currently proposed above. Justin talk 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Union implies some willingness on the part of both sides which has yet to be demonstrated. Thats why Annexation describes the situation better, as it describes a larger state adsorbing a smaller one without consent. --Gibnews (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks like it fails my test then. Pfainuk talk 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I never said people refused to discuss matters in general. I meant Gibnews refused to dicuss annexation when he said "the consequences are not acceptable to anyone sane, and its quite pointless discussing it." Maybe it's pointless to him because he appreciates the negative connotation of "annexation", but it is definitely worth revising to other editors for the sake of neutrality. As I said, I still have to see some reasonable arguments against perfectly neutral terms like "incorporation", "integration", "union" or others I took the time to look up and put forward. When I say "reasonable" I mean well-founded arguments, with a definition, a reference, not just "it sounds biased". Some editors should be informed (or reminded) that the article formerly contained other examples of bias, which were eventually removed or toned down. For example, the cession sentence read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht though Spain requests its return causing strain on bilateral relations"

At another editor's request and my own, the "strain" bit was finally removed for obvious reasons. But the tone and wording of the entire article is still heavily pro-British, and there are many clear examples of this like "annexation" in the text. Saying that my proposals are not neutral, or that "they're subtly arguing the Spanish case" is complete nonsense, apart from ridiculous. It is pure prejudice on your part to make that statement. I invite you to demonstrate how "union" or "intergration" are "subtly arguing the Spanish case". You don't understand the meaning of neutral, nor the Spanish position for that matter. For your clarification this would be pro-Spanish wording:

• Gibraltar was occupied by Britain during the War of Spanish Succession in 1704 and later ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, though Spain has historically requested its return based on a claim of territorial integrity, and UN resolutions on decolonisation. The British Government refuses to return the territory arguing it is against the wishes of Gibraltarians, who oppose reintegration with Spain along with shared sovereignty of any kind.

Do you need any more examples? How about the term "liberation"? What if the text said: "Spain requests its liberation", would you think that is pro-Spanish? Well, you would be right! That is pro-Spanish bias! See? I hope this helps you understand the "subtle" difference bewteen pro-Spanish and neutral. MEGV (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to recognise your own bias/POV, MEGV, before pointing fingers. That you fail to means you are unable to address it. Narson (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the consequences of annexation of Gibraltar by Spain are not acceptable to anyone sane - the Spanish Government is not prepared for people to die for that cause. Nor are they foolish enough to use language like 'Liberation' to describe occupation by force. The British considered this a possibility up to the end of the Falklands conflict and maintained a sufficient military presence to deter it. Now with Spain in the EU and NATO its not a consideration.

There is no point discussing 'Gibraltar Espanol' because its simply not a option.

--Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, back to the political arena. MEGV (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft wording

This is the current proposal:

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major issue of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.

Is there anyone who cannot live with this wording? Because if we all can, then let's put it in. --Jayen466 15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to that wording, I just point out (mainly out of a sense of frustration) that its virtually identical to what Narson and Pfainuk proposed two months ago. Justin talk 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with it (logically enough given Justin's comment). I'd suggest a wikilink to Disputed status of Gibraltar over asserts a claim, but I don't think that's likely to be controversial and if it is we can leave it out. Pfainuk talk 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(There's a wikilink to it on "issue of contention". Is that okay too? Otherwise I don't mind moving it either.) Jayen466 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, didn't notice it there. I think it's better on "asserts a claim" but I'm happy either way. Pfainuk talk 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Lets just shoot the damn horse already and put it out of our misery. Narson (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that too. So have we finally found some common ground? RedCoat10 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy because it loses the word 'annexation' because one tendatious editor objected to its valid use. However I would rather press on with things like naming referenda and elections correctly rather than arguing about this small point ad nausiam. So I'll accept the above for the time being, however should there be substantive references to annexation in the Gibraltar media in the future, it may need to be revisited to reflect that. --Gibnews (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Jayen466 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Gibnews, when Narson and Pfainuk proposed almost identical wording two months ago would your answer have been more or less the same? Justin talk 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording is clumsy and does not convey the correct meaning but there are more important things to do that argue that forever. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. --Gibnews (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the wording too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I will also accept that wording. MEGV (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I suppose User:Té y kriptonita will be fine with it as well. Jayen466 19:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)