Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 9

English translation of the Motto

I saw my unique (and fragile) edit on the English translation of the motto quickly and pathetically reverted here with this lapidary comment: «Might be correct but the Government website says otherwise. Discuss?».

A more careful translation of the motto - I still think so - is «conquerable by no enemy» - a very trusting form, looking to the future - and not «conquered by no enemy», a less hopeful one, leaning back on the past and nothing claiming about the future.

So my mind is now doubtful and uncertain as a lot of questions arise, keeping me awake, like these: does the Government website have the power of overwhelm any other translation, in a kind of copyright? And what about such a defeatist, although official, translator? --Filos96 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that we go with what the WP:RS says is used (As useage is often more important than the direct translation from latin to English. I mean, you could translate Non Sibi Sed Set Ludo as 'Not for onesself but for the game' rather than 'Not for onesself but for the school' and it would be equally correct, but you would need a source to know which one). Narson (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Translations are subject to interpretation, and really what is important is whatever is commonly used in Gibraltar. However, the translation given on the Gibraltar regiment page where they use the words on their badge is 'No enemy shall expel us' see: http://www.1rg.gi/history/badges.qxp and on the basis that they have guns to shoot people who wish to challenge their motto, I think their translation is best adopted. If the Government website is incorrect, then as previous it will be corrected. --Gibnews (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the motto now "No enemy shall expell us"? Has it recently been changed or this vandalism? I think that's a crying shame if its been changed but since when did mottos change willy nilly like that? "Conquered by no enemy" is far better and I would like to see the territorial motto restored to that. Perhaps fellow Wikiepedians would be interested in starting up a petition to get the British Government to revert the territories motto to the one it deserves. "No enemy shall expell us" would be a good motto for the British Government though for its position on Gibraltar and it's dealings with imperialist wannabe Spain! :) YourPTR! (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Gibnews I read what you wrote (I just jumped in with my comment without reading as usual lol) but why should the Gibraltar Defence Regiment's (GDR) motto be that for the whole territory? They have their motto and Gibraltar has its own seperate motto: which is CONQUERED BY NO ENEMY! Which is exactly right, the enemy here is Spain and until recently the despicable traitors (typical leftists) trolling the corridors of Whitehall, colluding and caniving with the enemy, trying their damndest to stab their own people in the back just like they did over their appaling sellout of Hong Kong (which should be British still till this day). I'm quietly confident they would never agree to share sovereignty of Scotland with Norway for example so what makes Gibraltar different? It's as British as any part of the UK (and hopefully one day in the not too distant future it will be fully integrated into the UK like makes perfect sense. Our fellow loyalists and British friends of Gibraltar deserve no less). :D YourPTR! (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read what I said again; the motto of the RGR is as stated and it seems to me a correct translation (I failed O level Latin). Mr Hain will never clear his name here. As for integration, it takes two to tango and at present neither party wishes to dance. Now read this:

http://www.gibnet.com/media/rgr.htm

--Gibnews (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't suggesting that your own personal website is a valid reference, Mr Gibnews? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:NPA and This

For the avoidance of doubt I do not have a personal website. --Gibnews (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still think integration is the next great leap forward. Gibraltarians have United Kingdom citizenship yet no representation in the British Parliament. It is a scandulous situation and it's about time the British Government got its act together! YourPTR! (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss that, there are other places because this is really about what goes on the wikipedia page; Integration is covered in the politics article as there are a handful of people who want it, but Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom except for the purposes of electing MEP's and thats the way the majority like it. --Gibnews (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Gibraltar/Archive 9! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to let anyone who reads this now that the vote never went ahead. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguable transfer of Sovereignty

The sentence "Spain ceded sovereignty" ignores the dispute among historians, even British, about the legal transfer of sovereignty of Gibraltar to Britain . The dispute comes basically from Article X of the Treaty of Utretch which literally says that Spain ceded the "property" of the rock and castle, but not the "territorial jurisdiction", meaning the sovereignty of the territory:

“ The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; [...]

the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about...

”

However, other historians argue that because Gibraltar has been run independently from Spain since the 18th century, with British laws and regulations, local tax collection, and continued British military presence since 1713, the sovereignty is de facto British. On the other hand, a few historical Spanish demands about British forces on the territory could contravene this interpretation. In any case, there is an important dispute about the question of sovereignty, and the article should reflect this. I have included the word "arguably" in the text. 213.96.125.22 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So cite something about the disagreement, don't cite the text of the treaty and then put your own interpretation on it. I think this same debate is available in the archives? Narson (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we need to go over this BUT

• The word in the Treaty of UTRECHT is Propriety not property.

• Legally the phrase Territorial jurisdiction relates to Gibraltar being the capital city of the Kingdom of Gibraltar. What the exclusion means is that the City of Gibraltar was no longer the administrative centre for the Campo.

• The Spanish King gives up Gibraltar with with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. That is a 'catch all' clause which includes rights not yet envisaged, eg territorial waters, launching satellites, etc.

• If you believe that the Spanish Government foolishly believes that the sovereignty of Gibraltar was not transfered, please provide an official reference to support that.

• The British Government states it has no doubt.

--Gibnews (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly not be attempting to interpret the treaty ourselves (that's original research, but we should also be reflecting both sides' points of view, not stating one side's POV as fact. To quote WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." I'll modify the wording of the article to ensure that we're not asserting anyone's opinions as fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you ChrisO. However, I'm not too sure about your edit. You changed:

Spain requests the return of sovereignty, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht.

to:

The United Kingdom took possession of Gibraltar from Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, but the Spanish government seeks the reintegration of Gibraltar into Spain.

The British took possession of Gibraltar in 1704, but Spain ceded it to them in 1713. Also it would be wrong to say the UK as the union did not exist at the time. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris you are asserting YOUR opinion of what you think is the Spanish Government's position. I suggest you leave things as they are until you can come up with a reference to what the current Spanish Government thinks. Nor is the main article really a place to get into the detail of the sovereignty dispute, simply to note that the sovereignty is British and that Spain woul;d like to reclaim it. --Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That "sovereignty was transferred to Britain" is a disputed fact. The Spanish position is clearly that the Treaty of Utrecht "transferred not sovereignty but ownership over the fortifications (establishing a British military base in Spain)." (ref. Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, p. 97. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198280076) 145.221.52.70 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no statement to that effect from the Spanish Government They argue about all sorts of things, but do not dispute the transfer of sovereignty in 1713.

In the Brussels agreement they state:

(c) The establishment of a negotiating process aimed at overcoming all the differences between them over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. Both sides accept that the issues of sovereignty will be discussed in that process.

In practical terms, there is a frontier, on one side is a Spanish flag and Spanish jurisdiction on the other side is a Gibraltar flag and Gibraltar jurisdiction. That is the reality, and will not change.

--Gibnews (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand a basic principle of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable sources for information included in the article. This I have done. Moreover, like other editors I have brought to your attention that the Treaty of Utrecht mentions the yielding of "propriety" and not "territorial jurisdiction". I will expand on this for the sake of clarification. The word "propriety" in Middle English (old language) means "ownership" or "property" (from French "propriété") [1]. The Treaty thus transfered the property of the fortifications and the port, and not the territorial jurisdiction, which means "the authority of a state or nation to adjudicate with respect to persons or property located in or having a relationship with the polity" [2]. The word "adjudicate" means "to settle by judicial procedure [3]", in other words to "enforce a nation's law" in a certain territory. This "ability to enforce British Law" which equals to "sovereignty" over Gibraltar was not given to Britain, and the Treaty dedicates an entire sentence to make this clear. This obvious fact is confirmed by the above-mentioned source.

Therefore, beyond your own interpretations, and beyond the undisputed reality that the Union Jack flies over Gibraltar, the fact remains that sovereignty was not legally ceded by Spain to Britain, or at least it was arguably ceded, as there is a major issue of controversy over this matter. At least the existence of this dispute should appear in the article. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem your lawyers and my lawyers disagree over this topic. However this is not really the place to interpret a three hundred year old treaty. As there is no evidence that The Government of the Kingdom of Spain uses this argument in their antique claim any inclusion of it sounds like original research to me, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

The Spanish argument, as presented at the UN, is instead based on the principle of 'territorial integrity' which is mentioned on the page dealing with the dispute.

IF the UK and Spain, as signatories to the treaty, were willing to take it to a competent court, were there such a thing, then it might be a interesting topic rather than a historical curiosity - they are not.

Both sides broke the commitment contained in it, the British by allowing Jews and Moors to live in Gibraltar, and the Spanish by attacking to try and reclaim the territory by force.

The reality is Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun P61 Mao's Red Book. There is little difference between Article X and Article XI of the ToU the difference came in the resistance to recapture by force.

IF you can come up with a reliable reference by the Spanish Government as the party to the claim that sovereignty was not transferred, as the British assert, then it merits a mention. Not that it matters much because the chances they can enforce such a claim are nil since they joined the EU and NATO. --Gibnews (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but my point is about the legal "transfer of sovereignty" under the Treaty of Utrecht, not about the Spanish Government's claim over the territory. Please do not mix both issues. The fact that Spain argues in favour of "territorial intergrity" or that both sides have since broken their commitment are irrelevant. The point is that there's an academic dispute about the transfer of sovereignty according to Utrecht, and I have cited sources which prove this. There are several other sources in Spanish, for example [4] and [5] but curiously very few in English. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a dispute about the number of angels who can stand on a pinhead. Neither issue is really of interest to anyone who wants to get referenced information about Gibraltar. Its time the UK resiled from the ToU most of its content is now obsolete and offensive, and article X certainly infringes human rights, the UN charter, and the freedom of movement guaranteed by the EU. But the reality is that it has no effect or relevance to Gibraltar in the 21st century. --Gibnews (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about the pinhead is funny but not constructive. Your other comments are personal opinions and not relevant to the article. Whether the ToU is obsolete or offensive is beyond the point. The question is that Spain ceded the property of the rock to Great Britain but not the sovereignty (according to some authors and to the Treaty itself) . In any case this is a disputed matter. The solution is either to change the word "sovereignty" for "control" or "property", or simply include the adverb "arguably" which very clearly shows there is a controversy. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy, if you refer to the treaty the wording is to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. That language is clear. Its debatable whether what we perceive as 'Sovereignty' was understood as such at the time, however unless its specifically excluded its simply part of the things agreed that the British Crown was granted Gibraltar absolutely with all rights. --Gibnews (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a controversy: some authors say sovereignty was transferred, others say it was not. Although the Treaty says the property was to be "held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever without any exception or impediment whatsoever", it also says that the property is to be yielded "without any territorial jurisdiction". You keep ignoring this in your argument. This means that Britain is allowed to do anything with Gibraltar (use it as a dockyard, commercial port, prison, holiday home for the King or whatever) but not to adjudicate or enforce laws upon the territory. If you put together "property held and enjoyed absolutely" with "no territorial jurisdiction" you get something like a real estate transaction. If you buy a piece of land, you have the right to use it as you wish, but you cannot create your own laws and enforce them on your land. This is not an implicit interpretation, but an explicit fact included in the Treaty which various authors support. Just because your are not used to this fact, or your history books do not mention it, does not mean it is false. Please open your mind and accept the evidence I am providing. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Far from Ignoring Territorial jurisdiction I have already explaind what, according to several lawyers it means and I quote:

Legally the phrase Territorial jurisdiction relates to Gibraltar being the capital city of the Kingdom of Gibraltar. What the exclusion means is that the City of Gibraltar was no longer the administrative centre for the Campo.

The Kingdom of Gibraltar comprised Gibraltar today and the surrounding area. When Gibraltar was ceded the other part was not.

According to Jack Straw, Britain has no doubts about Sovereignty even if he was prepared to give it away. Spain is reported to accept that the Sovereignty of Gibraltar is British, although they may haggle about the Isthmus and exactly where the boundaries lie. Indeed in their documents they say El título de Soberanía británica deriva, pues, exclusivamente del art. X del Tratado de Utrecht and repeatedly refer to Gibraltar as a British Overseas Territory.

In practice there is no doubt about the exercise of sovereignty over Gibraltar, and although it may be an interesting argument exactly what was in the minds of John Robinson Bishop of Bristol, and the representatives of Phillip V, its of no importance. --Gibnews (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, regarding "territorial jurisdcition" indeed you had mentioned it, my mistake. But the interpretation you provide about the "capital" of the "Kingdom of Gibraltar" is quite different from that of an "explicit non-transfer of sovereignty". The former is usually given by British authors, and the second by Spanish ones. Again, I am not supporting either interpretation, simply pointing out that a controversy exists. Second, the fact that the Spanish Government has made varying claims in different moments of history is irrelevant. One thing is Spain's international claims or positions regarding Gibraltar, and another is an academic dispute about the objective contents of Article X of the Treaty. Whether Spain has officially used this interpretation (which sometimes it has) or has taken this to an International Court or not, is also beyond the point.

As I have said before, there is much evidence about the existence of this controversy. The previously mentioned source[6] (ref. Isidro Sepúlveda, Gibraltar: La Razón y La Fuerza, p. 103. Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2004. ISBN 978-84-206-4184-3) reads (Spanish): "El artículo X del tratado, en el que se codificaba la entrega, ha sido en consecuencia el de mayor trascendencia política y diplomática, origen de agrias polémicas y material de interpretación antagónica a lo largo de tres siglos". This roughly translates as:

"Artilce X of the Treaty, which covers the handover, has had the biggest political and diplocmatic repercussions, and has been the origin of sour controversies and antagonistic interpretations for over three centuries..."

The mentioned study goes no to say (Spanish): "desde el punto de vista español, lo que se cedió fue la propiedad y uso del territorio y de los edificios, reservándose la jurisdicción territorial o dominio; éste era en realidad un criterio anclado en la tradición medieval y convertía Gibraltar en una especie de señorío británico en suelo español. Desde el punto de vista británico, «the full and entire propriety» es interpretado no ya como dominio, sino como soberanía..." which translates as:

"from the Spanish point of view, Spain ceded the property and use of the territory and buildings, but kept the territorial jurisdiction; a criteria based on medieval tradition which made Gibraltar a sort of British lordship on Spanish soil. From the British point of view, "the full and entire propriety" is interpreted not like a dominion, but like sovereignty..."

This proves the point that there is a controversy, and the article should mention it. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a controversy over almost everything; however it would be a distortion of reality to include this in the main article. It is not an argument used by the Spanish Government whose ability to grasp at straws, jack or otherwise, knows no limit - as a consequence its safe to say its of no importance. It might, however be reasonable to refer to it in the article on the dispute, as a referenced POV albeit one that has no official support from anyone.

Here is the opinion of Guy Stagnetto, QC which goes into more detail than me.

It must be recalled that when the Treaty was signed the distinction between the concepts of "Territorial Sovereignty" and "Crown's Property" (propriety) were far from well established and it was not unusual for cessions of Territorial property to include cessions of Sovereignty. It must follow that by ceding the full and entire propriety of Gibraltar to the Crown of Great Britain the King of Spain indeed transferred Sovereignty over the Rock.

The exclusion of "Territorial Jurisdiction" might seem at first sight to be difficult to understand since the very essence of State Sovereignty is precisely the ability of exercising full and exclusive jurisdiction over the territory of the State. However in accordance with the usual rules of the Treaty interpretation and in particular Article 31 paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, this exclusion of Territorial Jurisdiction must be interpreted in context; while the cession properly so called is the object of the first sentence of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht the exclusion of Territorial Jurisdiction is provided for in the second sentence in which it is related to the avoidance of the abuses and frauds. To this end the Treaty excludes at the same time both "Territorial Jurisdiction" and "any open communication by land with the country around". An exclusion which is itself qualified in the next sentences of Article X.

It is clear, therefore that the expression "without any Territorial Jurisdiction" is meant to apply and applies only to the adjacent areas where the King of Spain intended to maintain his full and entire Territorial Jurisdiction in order to fight against abuses and frauds in the import "of any kind of goods".

It is only by such an interpretation that one is able to reconcile the absolute terms of the cession in the first sentence with the second sentence of Article X. This interpretation is also confirmed by subsequent practice. It seems clearly established that Great Britain has exercised full Territorial Jurisdiction over Gibraltar since 1713 without any interruption and this full exercise of Territorial jurisdiction has never been challenged by Spain.

The peaceful exercise of Sovereign Territorial rights over the Rock confirms that the exclusion of Territorial Jurisdiction did not apply to it in the mind of the parties.

--Gibnews (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a Dispute

I have read the above discussion by Gibnews and the editor 145.221.52.70, and checked some of the sources they quote, and I agree with the latter that such a dispute exists. Their own discussions and the literature quoted prove that there are different interpretations of the treaty of Utrecht. I also feel this external editor is constructive in that he is explaning there is a debate on this historical and legal issue, and not arguing in favor of either point of view.

Both contributors have also forgotten that when British and Dutch forces captured Gibraltar in 1704, it was under a Spanish Hapsburg flag, that of the Archduke Charles who was the Austrian pretender to the Spanish Crown during the War of the Spanish Succession (in which the Bourbon contender Philip V finally won). After the conquest there was no lowering of the Spanish flag, or raising of the Union Jack. In this historical context, the first interpretation about the exclusive transfer of "property" makes more sense. However, sometime after 1713 the British flag was raised, and has since been flying over the rock, which means that Britain has actually exercised "territorial jurisdiction" or "sovereignty" since then. JCRB (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying there is a dispute, however its basically a legal argument about what is meant by particular terms in a treaty negotiated nearly three hundred years ago. My point is that this particular dispute does not form part of the Spanish 'historic' claim for the reclamation of Spanish sovereignty over the Rock. It may be worth mentioning it in an article about the sovereignty of Gibraltar its simply not notable enough for the main page as it is not of any practical importance.

As a historical point, The Union Jack dates from 1801 so it would not have been seen in Gibraltar in 1704, and as you say Gibraltar was taken in the name of Charles III of Spain. Quite what flag he used is another matter, and the current Spanish flag is itself a recent design from 1978.

There is an even bigger dispute over what 'Sovereignty' itself means extending beyond Gibraltar, with claims that Britain (and for that matter Spain) has devolved its national sovereignty to the European Union. Nor is my quote from Chaiman Mao out of place because historically the fine words and sentiments in the ToU, the Treaty of Seville, and later accords have been less effective in the past for guaranteeing the freedom of Gibraltar than a man with a gun. --Gibnews (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about cession of sovereignty to Britain under the ToU, the article should mention this, whether this has any "practical" importance or not. Wikipedia is not about practicality but accuracy of information and verifiable sources. There is no question about Britain having sovereignty over Gibraltar. Another question is whether this right was transferred with the ToU, explicitly or implictly, or not at all. I think that's the external editor's point. If the issue is unclear I agree the article should say so. JCRB (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be listed under conspiracy theories because the general view is there is no dispute over this between the parties - although they may dispute many other things. --Gibnews (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JCRB. That is exactly my point: there is an academic dispute between scholars on exactly what was transferred under the ToU. This difference in interpretation is simply of academic nature, not necessarily political. Whether Spain chooses to make this point as part of its historic claim or not, is a different issue (though I am sure it has at some point in history).

You are also right in saying that Gibraltar was occupied in 1704 under the Flag of Hapsburg Spain, not the British flag. (Whether it was the Union Jack or a previous flag is another question. By the way, the current red-and-yellow Spanish flag dates from 1785, not 1978. In 1978 only the current Constitutional coat of arms was added). In any case, the British flag was raised sometime after 1713, not in 1704. As you accurately point out, the fact that the Dutch-British forces acted under the flag of Hapsburg Spain makes the first interpretation about the exclusive transfer of "property" more logical.

As I have said before, and to answer your final comment Gibnews, whether this has been part of the Spanish claim or not is irrelevant to the fact that historians do not agree on what was legally transferred. We must differentiate between academic discussions and political ones. The former have a purely educational or informative objective, while the latter have a very different "political" aim (territorial, jurisdictional, or even commercial). Finally, if you are "not denying there is a dispute" then why do you oppose including this in the article? 145.221.52.70 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be a dispute about everything in Wikipedia, However just because some ill informed person writes a book about it does not make it a genuine dispute. For example, another page I take an interest in is the Mary Celeste and there is more rubbish written about that than one could imagine. Some books are written describing the cargo as Methyl Alcohol, which is quite illogical and not consistent with the facts. Should we note that the cargo is 'disputed' because of that? The parties to the treaty do not dispute that sovereignty was transferred, and if you introduce this into the page on Gibraltar it gives the idea that it has legitimacy and it will cause further disputes. It took me ages to locate the names of who signed the ToU as many wishful thinkers have argued that Spain never even signed it !!

The ToU should be torn up and replaced with a modern agreement under which Spain respects Gibraltar, but that may take some time. In the meantime, WHY should this hypothetical argument go on the main Gibraltar page, when details of our rock bands have been removed as 'not being notable enough' as it is an unsubstantiated academic dispute over wording which changes nothing. --Gibnews (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For once, I find myself agreeing with Mr. Gibby. The dispute that should be, and is, mentioned is the one about sovereignty. Unless the Spanish government is planning to take the Queen to court over the wording of the ToU (by which I mean, less flippantly, its case seriously rests on this "disputed" legal interpretation and it can be demonstrated to be so with reliable sources) I don't think that this merits mention as a "dispute". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are taking this personally. Please keep this discussion academic, not political. Whether the ToU has to be "torn up" or not is not our prerogative. First, you cannot equate an educated interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht with "rubbish" you say appears in other historical matters. This is not the interpretation of "ill-informed" authors like you suggest, but of reliable historians which have made the point in published studies. I have quoted two: (ref. Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, p. 97. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198280076) and (ref. Isidro Sepúlveda, Gibraltar: La Razón y La Fuerza, p. 103. Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2004. ISBN 978-84-206-4184-3).

Second, in other historical discussions I have come across resistance from editors who only read English-language sources, which are often one-sided and limited in perspective. Such one-sided views have become so embedded in their conscience, that they no longer accept evidence of alternative interpretations or historical facts in any way. I hope this is not the case. I therefore appeal to your objectivity and open-mindedness. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of the treaty is not a job for historians, but for lawyers. I do know a lawyer who has a history degree and his view is the same as the QC quoted. The original treaty is written in iffy Latin, and the translations into English and Spanish are not, as far as I am aware, definitive, as the MAEC note esta versión electrónica no tiene más valor y pretensión que servir a la divulgación informativa de a acción exterior de España. Some of the interpretations I have seen are unsound.

As we have now generated a large amount of discussion about the topic. perhaps you would like to start an article about the academic interpretation of Clause X of the ToU which would be an appropriate place. Whatever anyone might think will not make the slightest difference to the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

In terms of objectivity, its my experience that anything coming out of Spain in relation to Gibraltar is likely to be untrue, be it historical or current news. We have seen in recent times things like This and recently stories about radioactivity and unending oil spills from the MV New Flame. --Gibnews (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir, arguing in such a negative and random ways will take us nowhere. Whether it is "the job of lawayers (not historians) to interpret the Treaty", or whether the Spanish & English translations are not legally binding (which indeed they are not) is beyond the point. Both transalations are as accurate as you can get, and they both agree on "territorial jurisdiction" being explictly excluded from the transfer of Gibraltar. In any case, Wikipedia is based on secondary research (not primary), therefore it is the verifiable sources I have quoted and not the Treaty itself, that you need to refer to. One of them by the way, is a British book published by Oxford University Press. The third paragraph of Page 97 says:

"Whereas the United Kingdom contends that the Treaty of Utrecht transferred sovereignty in the Rock of Gibraltar to Great Britain, Spain argues that it transferred not sovereignty but ownership of the fortifications (establishing a military base in Spain). Spain does not, however, contest the proposition that a cession, made by a defeated state to a victorious state in 1713, was capable of transferring sovereignty, it questions only the interpretation of the terms of that cession - arguing that the land as such was never ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht. As to the title based on pure conquest, Spain contests that the United Kingdom could have no claim to Gibraltar based in conquest because (1) its seizure in 1704 was not in the name of Queen Anne of Great Britain, but on behalf of a possible King of Spain - the Pretender to the Spanish Crown, Archduke Charles of Austria; and (2) the conquest was accomplished by an allied military force, not an exclusively British one" [7]

(Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, p. 97. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198280076) 145.221.52.70 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter TOSH! The spanish govt position is nothing of the sort. They DO NOT dispute sovereignty over Gibraltar, only over the isthmus, which they incorrectly claim was not part of the cession. Spain has repeatedly accepted that sovereignty lies with the UK. They wish that position to be altered, but do not in fact dispute it. The is an utterly fabricated argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can find books that say almost anything, however the only parties that can legitimately dispute the sovereignty of a territory are nation states capable of exercising that right, and not you or Sharon Korman. Although as I have repeatedly said, this might form a sub-section of an article about the basis of the claim to sovereignty of Gibraltar, its not appropriate to the main page which should be factual and not theoretical. --Gibnews (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Policies of Wikipedia

I would ask the Gentleman who used the word "Tosh" to please follow the conduct of Civility. Also I would suggest that he read the above discussion carefully. The controversy is about the legal transfer of sovereignty under the ToU, not about the sovereignty over Gibraltar today, which is British beyond any doubt. To Gibnews' comment about "books that say anything" I would refer him to the policy of Verifiability and Reliable Sources. I could agree with creating a sub-section of the article on sovereignty, but the issue needs to be mentioned in the initial section. I will not go on with this discussion as I have sufficiently and honestly put forth an argument that follows NOR, NPOV and Verifiability the three policies of Wikipedia. If you still disagree I will try to contact other neutral editors or parties in Wikipedia that can solve this endless dispute. 145.221.52.70 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I too have at great length explained why including a dubious claim which has no practical application or popular support on the Gibraltar page is bad, and have suggested by way of a compromise that it may be appropriate to include it in an article about the theoretical basis for asserting British sovereignty.

Even if you do not like the description by that Spanish Ono user, it does neatly encapsulate an arcane argument of no consequence based on a dubious interpretation of a three hundred year old document, itself in poor Latin. The Gibraltar page should tell things 'like they are' and 'as they are reliably reported.' I do not see the need for your insistence that this should be headlined. --Gibnews (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't commented here yet, so I think I will.

In judging this, we must note that our aim on this article (and in this case) is to neutrally summarise the history of Gibraltar. We already have an article on the Disputed status of Gibraltar (and, more generally, on the History of Gibraltar) where we can go into detail. Discussion of the origin of the dispute on the page is of course relevant, but there is a point where it is logical not to include otherwise potentially relevant information simply so that the article is not too long, and so that minority or fringe viewpoints do not get undue prominence. There always will be, otherwise we'd only have a thousand or fewer articles on Wikipedia, all of them hopelessly unwieldy. If we insisted on including every theory in every lead, then many of our leads would last pages and pages. It is for this reason that we have other articles. In this case, given that this is an argument based on history, in my view we should be guided by asking: "has this particular dispute had any practical effect on the history of Gibraltar?".

In this case, the answer to this question is clearly "no", since both governments apparently agree on this point, and so far as we can tell, always have done. Thus it is a technicality, and we risk giving it undue prominence if we include it in any way prominently. That's not to say it won't be significant elsewhere, but I don't think it is here.

Finally, the initial edit was here. My initial revert was perhaps based on a flawed assumption but I think most of the regulars here will understand based on that diff why I did it. If we are to include this dispute in Wikipedia, adding "arguably" into the lead without any explanation or reference is almost certainly not the best way to do it. Pfainuk talk 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk (Which is no suprise, he is often correct). If we went into various claims that could be/have been made on the main page of every disputed bit of land, the Falkland Article would become so massive it might risk collapsing in on itself and forming a black hole of information. This is not a viewpoint governments seem to consider key however the anon has proven (in my view) that some academics do indeed discuss it. I think a page on the Sovereignty of Gibraltar (Do we have one?) is the place for it. Narson (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, if it is going to be included it should be in Disputed status of Gibraltar and not the main article as Gibnews had initially pointed out. --Gibmetal 77^talk 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now created a Wikipedia account (MEGV) to discuss this more easily. I am glad more editors have joined this discussion (Narson, Pfainuk). I welcome your contributions. The more the minds, the faster we will come to a solution. To begin with, please do not erase the "Policies of Wikipedia" title, as this is part of our past discussion, and helps find the latest messages at the bottom. To answer the comments of the different editors:

First, the "dubious claim" which Gibnews mentions is not such. My point is not that "sovereignty was not transfered under the ToU", but that there is an academic controversy and the matter remains unclear. The current sentence reads: "Spain requests the return of sovereignty, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht". Indeed Spain requests the return of sovereignty, but it is not clear that sovereignty was ceded with the ToU (or at a later date, with other treaties or others). The way this sentence is written is inaccurate and biased. It reflects the British point of view, which favours the interpretation that sovereignty was ceded. The alternative Spanish point of view is that only the "property" was ceded, not the sovereignty. I am not arguing in favour of the British or the Spanish point of view, but for a Neutral Point of View which is a basic Wikipedia Policy. This neutral point of view states that "whether legally the sovereignty was transferred or not under the ToU remains unclear". The editor Pfainuk said "our aim on this article is to neutrally summarise the history of Gibraltar". This is excatly my point. We should be "neutral" and not blindly accept either side of the argument.

Most editors only use English-language sources, which only show one side of the picture: "Gibraltar is British and its sovereignty was transfered by Spain in 1713. Period." These sources reflect the British point of view only. But there are other sources in other languages which are just as "reliable" and "academic", and reflect a different point of view, equally legitimate. We should all be more open-minded and accept different sources in different languages. In this case however, I have produced an English source (quoted above) which clearly describes this controversy.

Pfainuk also says that "minority or fringe viewpoints should not get undue prominence". I agree with you fully. But does this means that anything that is not the British point of view is a "fringe viewpoint"? What if another editor came along and argued for the Spanish point of view? To say that there is a "controversy" is not a "minority point of view" but the middle ground, the neutral ground between the British and the Spanish points of view. This should be our aim.

I also agree with Pfainuk that the word "arguably" could be confusing. In that case, the most simple, clear and neutral option would be to substitute the word "sovereignty" for "territory". This is more accurate as it provides the same information to the reader, but avoids mentioning the "transfer of sovereignty" which the controversy is about. The sentence would read: "Spain requests the return of the territory, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht". We could also add a sub-section on this matter, as Gibnews suggested earlier. MEGV (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I havn't been following this discussion in detail but it seems to me that the issue that is presented by some editors is that the view you have sourced and wish to include is not the view of the two parties to the treaty. That being said, the other option is to retain sovereignty and include a brackets after ceded (Though this is disputed by some academics) with a wikilink to the sovereignty article. Though this is clunky. At the very least this certainly should be mentioned on the sovereignty article, the proposed edit to this page (Sovereignty -> Territory) is fine with me. Frankly, one of the huge issues here is that sovereignty has drifted, as a definition, over the centuries since the treaty was signed so its use is ambiguous. I can, however, see that others might object to using terms in the treaty themselves....why do we have to say anything? Why not simply put that Spain requests the return of Gibraltar? Narson (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thus far I haven't seen this in terms of British/Spanish POV, since so far as I could tell the governments agree on this point. Just to make sure I was talking sense, I thought it might be a good idea to check what the Spanish foreign ministry actually says about Gibraltar, and I found this document (60 pages, only available in Spanish). Note that this is a Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs source and thus, I would argue, is a reliable source to determine exactly what the Spanish POV is.

Of relevance firstly are pages 3-4, where the word césion and the verb ceder are well used. They state:

De acuerdo con este artículo, lo que España cedió a través del Tratado de Utrecht fue la ciudad y el castillo de Gibraltar juntamente con su puerto, defensas y fortalezas que le pertenecen, no accediendo a la pretensión británica manifestada durante el proceso negociador del Tratado de Utrecht de ver igualmente cedido en su favor el istmo que separa el territorio de Gibraltar del resto de la Península Ibérica.

My free translation, aided by Google:

In accordance with this article [article X of the Treaty of Utrecht], what Spain ceded/gave up by the Treaty of Utrecht was the city and the castle of Gibraltar, along with the port, defences and forts pertaining to it, without acceding to the British claim, made during the negotiating process of the Treaty of Utrecht, that the isthmus separating the territory of Gibraltar and the rest of the Iberian Peninsula was also ceded/given up.

According to my dictionary, ceder can mean "cede" or "hand over", "give up" - which is rather what I expected - that's why I've put in the slashes.

Further, pages 7-9 are also useful, and also use the words césion, soberanía and the verb ceder. I quote page 7:

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.

Again, my free translation:

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.

Later in that document a few things are made clear:

• That Spain has the right to retake Gibraltar should Britain withdraw, and that this is not in dispute with the UK.
• That Spain does not recognise any British rights (to airspace, and so on) with respect to Gibraltar outside those expressly given in the Treaty of Utrecht.

Now, while I haven't read most of the rest of that document - it is 60 pages long and my Babel box is only an es-2 - I feel that it is clear that the Spanish government does not dispute that sovereignty was given to the British by the Treaty of Utrecht. The fact that it is the Spanish government is important because it is the Spanish government that is arguing for that side of the dispute, and it follows on, in my view, that where both sides involved in arguing a dispute agree on something, and others differ, the POV of those differing is surely a minority viewpoint that should not be given undue prominence.

Having said that, the Spanish definition of "sovereignty" (a word which as you've seen they do use) in this case is clearly not the same as a standard definition, since they judge that it does not include rights to territorial waters or to airspace, for example. They do mention the "without territorial juristriction" clause, but do not come to the conclusion that this gives Spain sovereignty (indeed I can't see that they use it to draw any conclusions at all).

So, what should happen to the article? I agree with Narson, broadly, except that I don't really see we benefit if we put the bracketed phrase in. Better, I think, to find a wording that, while it might not acknowledge the dispute, does not appear to take any side in it, particularly given the slight ambiguity in the word "cede" in the Spanish document. Two suggestions:

Spain requests the return of the territory, which it gave to the UK in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

or:

Spain requests the return of the territory, a proposition which is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

I prefer the first, from which I drew inspiration from Narson's comment (I didn't notice this an an option elsewhere but perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough) as it actually explains that Spain used to hold the territory while the second may be a little vague. Finally, I agree that mention of this dispute would be relevant to Disputed status of Gibraltar - and that mention could go into some detail but should be clear that this is an academic dispute.

That went a little longer than I intended. Never mind... Pfainuk talk 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish certainly mention sovereignty even if its spelt differently. The argument that airspace and territorial waters were not included is a rather silly one as nobody imagined such things existed in 1713; however the 'catch all' clause to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. Would seem to cover those things, sovereignty and the kitchen sink. The right to outer space, is currently being exercised by launching satellites. As I've repeatedly stated any academic argument belongs on the page about the Sovereignty dispute - albeit there is such a dispute because Spain does not recognise that over the isthmus and the reclaimed land, not that part of Gibraltar ceded under Utrecht. This is why under the now obsolete Brussels agreement the two states agree to discuss the issues of sovereignty. HMG has declared that process obsolete. --Gibnews (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the majority that a more neutral sentence needs to be included. I like Pfainuk's first suggestion for the sentence, except for the word "gave" which is too coloquial. I would use "ceded". We could also substitute the word "territory" for "Gibraltar". These are my two suggestions:

Spain requests the return of the territory, which it ceded to the UK in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

Spain requests the return of Gibraltar, which it ceded to the UK in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

JCRB (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either - I think the second is a little clumsy with the repetition of "Gibraltar" from the previous sentence, but no more so than the current version. In case it wasn't clear, my reason for not including the word "sovereignty" in my suggestions is partly based on the current debate, but also based on the fact that the word has certain connotations in English that apparently the Spanish don't accept in this case (the right to airspace, territorial waters and so on). Silly or not, that's their argument. Better, I think, to dodge the issue by using another word - "the territory" is a phrase we use repeatedly in the article in reference to Gibraltar and I feel it removes the possibility of bias.

In case it wasn't clear before, I agree with you, Gibnews, that the academic argument is better off on the other page. Pfainuk talk 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me recap - its the generally accepted view that the territory of Gibraltar, but not the Campo of Gibraltar, was transferred to the British Crown under article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. In 2001 Jack Straw stated that HMG in concert with the Spanish Government was considering a proposal for joint sovereignty. You cannot share something you do not have. The general view expressed by other editors here does not dispute British sovereignty, but states there is an academic argument about interpreting the ToU. The proper place for discussing that is not on the main Gibraltar page, and it does not justify watering down the current wording which reflects the majority view. --Gibnews (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Sentence

I agree with Narson, Pfainuk and JCRB, and I appreciate their comments. As I said before, it is not the British or the Spanish interpretation of the ToU that I am supporting, but a neutral position that recognizes both, and acknowledges an academic controversy. Again, I am not rejecting that sovereignty is British, but indicating that it was arguably transferred with the ToU. Of JCRB's suggestions, I also prefer the first one (I agree with Pfainuk that we shouldn't repeat the word "Gibraltar"):

Spain requests the return of the territory, which it ceded to the UK in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

Finally, I agree with all editors, including Gibnews, that a separate sub-section should be created, that explains the question of sovereignty, the claims, and the different interpretations of ToU. MEGV (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To me that looks fine. As for a subsection, that should go in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar article. Always best to minimise the political ping pong on the main article if we have a place where context to disputes can be gotten into without fear of bloating. Narson (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree, but the view of the British Government, the people of Gibraltar AND the Spanish Government is that the sovereignty of Gibraltar was transferred under the ToU and I do not support watering down that statement for political correctness or because one or two academic people have different views on the subject. Sovereignty IS very important, we have had riots and large demonstrations about the idea of changing it and its a very hot matter.

I fully support going into the ojections in detail in an article discussing the ToU but NOT on the main page. It is likely to provoke more edit wars than anything else and this part has been quiet so far. --Gibnews (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is watering down anything. With the edit I want, the relevant paragraph would say:

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major issue of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Spain requests the return of the territory, which it ceded to the UK 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 says pretty much exactly the same thing as the current version with a couple more bases covered. It says it in a way that is a little less clunky than the current version (as it avoids the repetition of of the words sovereignty and Spain) and which is perfectly neutral. Indeed, it says it in the same way as you put it in March 2006 in the article Disputed status of Gibraltar. The relevant part of that edit ("[Spain] ceded the territory under article X... in 1713") remains in place. What that article currently says is:

Gibraltar was conquered by Britain from Spain in 1704, during the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714). Spain formally ceded the territory under article X of the Treaty of Utrecht in perpetuity to the British Crown in 1713. This was confirmed in later treaties signed in Paris and Seville.

I don't see that we would discussing into the Spain-didn't-transfer-sovereignty argument on Gibraltar. But since we can cover that base while improving the flow of the text and retaining NPOV, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. Pfainuk talk 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Any wording needs to make it clear that sovereignty was legally transferred, because that is the accepted position. --Gibnews (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being misled by your political convictions. You are trying to impose the British point of view on this issue instead of finding a consensus between the Spanish and British positions. Wikipedia is not a political forum, but a free encyclopedia based on neutrality and verifiable facts. JCRB (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really an issue of Spanish or British POV (Both sides accept the transfer of something we might call sovereignty occured). I don't think PfainUK's edit waters down or removes reference to sovereignty. It improves the flow and, well, this isn't the page to be getting into sovereignty with its shifting meanings. Leave that to some other page. Lets use the most neutral and un-assuming language we can to get across the point. If people want to read more about the transfer, it should be wikilinked in for them. There they can read the official positions as well as whatever paragraph about the academic debate gets put in and make up their own mind. We are not here to educate, merely to inform. Narson (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not a matter of a political POV, both nation states involved agree that sovereignty was transferred and its important that Wikipedia reports that and not some watered down consensus. Its something that people have died over and which a proposed change in created an almighty stink. Peter Hain said that flags and sovereignty were not important. He has not visited again and although we have not had a public hanging since 1837, the traditional square has been refurbished. --Gibnews (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Gibraltar was ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. This remains a major issue in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain requests its return. The British Government are committed to respect the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Spain didnt transmit the sovereignty of Gibraltar to England, only the property of the constructions. If you don't believe me, read the Treaty of Utrecht, Article 10: "the Catholic King (Spain) wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land". The castle and houses of Gibraltar are owned by the King of Britain but the land is not British and it is illegal to show their flag and put their own laws there, at least by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. 83.38.165.21 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be your view, however, the view of eminent lawyers, as previously quoted that the phrase Territorial Jurisdiction' refers to the Campo. I have put up a lot of flags and the police have never arrested me. The ToU says he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever..

For three hundred years Britain, through its Governor, and now the Government of Gibraltar, have exercised control of the territory and its inhabitants currently limited only by being a member of the EU and by international treaties. We do not anticipate the King of Spain arriving on a white horse to reclaim his inheritance in the near future.

Similarly we have no interest in occupying the Campo de Gibraltar, which formed part of the Kingdom of Gibraltar - except as home owners and visitors. --Gibnews (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With due respect Gibnews, making it an emotive issue (though, of course, I understand it is one for the people like yourself whose homes are the ones discussed) and personal issue does not help....responding to bait, like that above, doesn't help either. I have no objection to your edit either Gibnews, works nicely and gets the point across without seeming to be trying to make a point. Flipping the order of the second sentence might improve flow...Spain requests its return, causing strain in Anglo-Spanish relations or somesuch. Either way, good job. Narson (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pfainuk talk 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - I put it in that order because it reflects the time sequence of things. Despite it being sorted out over three hundred years ago, the problem of Spain's claim. which is mainly down the drain, seems to remain. --Gibnews (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the consensus sentence that somebody suggested earlier. The question is to avoid saying that "sovereignty was transferred" as this is the source of the controversy. As another editor explained before, the Spanish historians say that only the property of the port & fortifications was transferred, while British sources say that the full jurisdiction (or sovereignty) was ceded. The article should reflect a neutral interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht, not the Spanish or the British points of view. The article must not take sides. I insist on the previous consensus sentence:

Spain requests the return of the territory, which it ceded to the UK in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.

JCRB (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous sentence was replaced. Let us get this in perspective - the article is about GIBRALTAR not Spain. The idea is to explain why Gibraltar is British in perpetuity, something the treaty states, which needs to be included. This is not a POV issue, Spanish historians are weasel words - there is no suggestion that the Government of Spain asserts that view. They accept that Britain has sovereignty of the territory, and simply want it back. --Gibnews (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put in the edited version of Gibnews suggestion. Lets see how it looks in. Narson (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That explains the situation and how it arose sufficiently well to someone who has never heard of it before, and is 100% factual. I hope we can now put this to bed, archived this rather long section, and move on.

I would like to do something about the Referendum mentioned in the above phrase, which another editor has unilaterally decided should be called a 'Gibraltarian referendum' although the Government of Gibraltar seems to think was a Gibraltar referendum, and in which English, Irish and Scots residents here participated along with the Gibraltarians. Assistance in this would be most appreciated. --Gibnews (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Have both sides considered just being more descriptive in the title? Gibraltan (or whatever word we use) Referendum On Sovereignty (2008)? The common name approach won't work as I imagine its common name is likely just 'The Referendum' as the only people who are likely to reference it alot are in gibraltar and will speak of 'The referendum'. Sorry, I have to say I'm big on avoiding wikifights these days. Narson (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm glad you were happy with my slight tweaks to your proposal Gibnews. I think it looks good and flows a little better than the previous wording. Should stop the complaints too. Narson (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point on the referendum. The question of naming is what the correct adjective to be used in the page title is: whether it should be Gibraltar or Gibraltarian. It's come up on Requested Moves, closing at no consensus with 2-2 and 2-1 !votes, the latter in favour of moving to Gibraltar (after the admin favouring Gibraltarian moved the pages unilaterally over redirects). Apparently, because the redirects have been edited, non-admins are unable to move the pages. Obviously, your choice whether you want to get caught up in this!

The problem at the moment for the Gibraltar side is that participation is quite low, meaning that even when the only editor coming out in support of the status quo is the one who created it, there is no consensus to move. Given the lack of participation, I don't think it would be forum-shopping to repeat the RM, or to go to RFC or 3O at a representative article (giving notice at WP:UK, WP:UKWNB and WP:GIB) or to open a wider discussion at WP:GIB. I know that project is dormant, and I'm aware of the controversy around its creation (it was created primarily to try and counterbalance the presence of a WikiProject Spain banner at the top of this page), but it would seem to be a good venue for this debate. Pfainuk talk 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Sounds like more wikiwank. Narson (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, I was rather hoping he would rename the Gibraltar football association and get sent off - however in the case of the 2002 referendum its an open and shut matter. see http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref2002g.pdf

Its rather like having Jewish elections in Israel. --Gibnews (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

From the beginning I have tried to put forth a neutral point of view, despite some editor(s) insisting on the one-sided, British position. After such a long and mostly unproductive discussion I guess some people just want to minimize or hide the most likely interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht, which is that Spain did not transfer the sovereignty of Gibraltar. That is my conclusion. Spain's claims today or in the past are irrelevant to the objective content of the Treaty, which is that Spain handed over the property of the fort and other constructions, but not the land, the territory or the sovereignty, a view supported by different sources and by the Treaty itself. This fact is repeatedly being minimized and discredited in this discussion, by taking the opposite one-sided point of view. Come to think of it, the British interpretation about the "Campo" does not make much sense, and that's why such radical positions are being upheld. There is not much more I can say. Unless this discussion stops being political and becomes academic, the article will sound more like British propaganda, rather than a balanced, objective encyclopedia article. MEGV (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It no longer states sovereignty. A compromise was reached. Your guesses at other users motives and theories are unproductive at best. Narson (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A compromise is reached when everybody agrees. The new wording is an improvement from the previous one. However, the second part of the sentence still has an element of bias in favor of Britain. It introduces blame against Spain for "strain" in bilateral relations: "...though Spain requests its return, causing strain in Anglo-Spanish relations". A more neutral statement could include the reasons for Spain's claim, instead of putting blame on her:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht though Spain requests its return, based on its claim on territorial integrity."

There is also a POV in the word "annexation" used in the last sentence: "...Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain". This word carries a negative connotation (conquest, occupation) and reflects the British point of view. A more neutral expression would be: "reintegration in Spain":

"The British Government is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of reintegration in Spain, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with that country."

JCRB (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its rather hard to discuss this topic politely. The page is about Gibraltar and the word used in Gibraltar is annexation not re-integration because the territory, its infrastructure and its people are quite distinct from Spain, indeed two thirds of it has never been Spanish land. Spain bears 100% of the blame for the dispute over Gibraltar, because it continues despite there being no prospect of success. Yes its a very negative thing, and the sentence does not convey the disgust and shame that should attach to such a policy, nor does it imply its acceptable in a modern Europe, and nor is it.

I suggest we leave things as they are and move on. If there is any 'bias' against Spain for engaging in irredentist politics its appropriate and has been well earned over the years of continued and continuing harassment. --Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think that is pedantry. Not to mention that we arn't going into claims but are stating what caused the transfer and what was transferred. Leave the claims etc for later on. I would say that we should perhaps put a cite on the strained relations bit. The latter mention of annexation? Well, it is an accurate term to use and re-integration strikes me as shifting too far the other way, if anything. I'm sure a more acceptable word /could/ be found, just don't know what it is. I'd suggest that for now we leave things as they are for now until we find it. (unsigned) 17:26:46 Narson

I did not use the word 'strained' and would suggest its removed - the view of HMG as stated by Jim Murphy MP, Minister of State for Europe: 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. That indicates at least one side is pretty relaxed, compare this to a previous attitude --Gibnews (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I put that in as a toning down of 'major issue' (as there was no cite), or was major issue meant to be the other side and simply mean it was a major part, if so an error on my part. As I say above, don't agree with the second round of changes desired by JCRB, and no-one challenged the major issue part, so I left it in without a cite but a cite would be nice. That was all I was saying :) Narson (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs something which explains concisely that its a topic where the two Governments may disagree, but not to the point of sending a gunboat anymore. Sir Joshua Hassan, former chief minister, once told me he had no problems with talks about sovereignty providing the other party realised they might last for a few hundred years. I think have a feel for it by now from the discussion here. --Gibnews (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To be upfront about my personal views, it is crown terratory, the people want it to remain, there is no reason to hand it over and every reason to keep it. If the people wanted to be part of spain, then, well, discussions would have to be entered into to form a timetable and decide what is best for Gibraltar, but that is unlikely to happen. I honestly can't see the British exclave there randomly changing their minds. But yes, feel free to edit away. Perhaps we should say it has been a matter for discussion between the governments? Or an issue of some import? Major issue sounds like it is a problem and even then, I don't think the British /do/ see it as a major issue. We seem far more concerned with getting spain 'on side' in the EU these days, quash the eastern bloc and all that. Narson (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In the words of Sir William Jackson, Gibraltar is neither Spain's to claim nor Britain's to give away Lets leave the wording 'as is' because there are currently questions being asked in Parliament about Spain playing silly games at the frontier with NATO equipment. Perhaps they will send HMS Illustrious to shell Algeciras. --Gibnews (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gibenws your position is not constructive. Your comments about HMS Illustrious bombing Algeciaras or Spain "harassing" Britain are completely out of order. This is not a political blog but an academic forum. If you wish to express your political views you are free to do so elsewhere. The sentence "causing strain in Anglo-Spanish relations" reflects exactly that, a political point of view.

Spain could argue it is Britain who causes strain in relations by occupying the isthmus on the neutral buffer zone, by building an airport on Spanish territorial waters pretending it was a temporary "Emergency Landing Ground", by granting the "Lansdowne Constitution" which contravenes the Treaty of Utrecht, by denying residence permits to Spanish nationals (but granting them to citizens of many other nationalities), and by not cracking down on illegal trafficking through Gibraltar. But that's why these are all points of view JCRB (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the serious discussion on this sentence is over with far too much having been written about it; However it is a matter of fact that Spain continues to harass Gibraltarians, and that recently essential military equipment was not allowed through the frontier.

You are wrongly informed about residence permits, since Spain joined the EU there is no such problem. Indeed under the Brussels agreement (1984) advance rights were granted on a reciprocal basis. Sadly many Spanish people believe the anti-Gibraltar propaganda started by Fernando Castiella, under Franco, and the .es wikipedia is full of nonsense which perpetuates the problem.

Perhaps sorting that out might be a useful area where we could co-operate more profitably, as they complain my Spanish is unreadable. Indeed that may be the case or may just be convenient. If you are interested, I'll give you some examples of glaring errors. --Gibnews (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The above discussion has been too political and many personal opinions have been thrown around. I agree with JCRB that this is not the place for such a debate. We have advanced on the sentence about the transfer of Gibraltar. I think it is certainly better than the original one, but I also agree that it still has elements of British bias. To say that Spain is guilty of "causing strains in bilateral relations" is an unacceptable POV. Regarding the word "annexation", maybe we could use "integration" which is more neutral than "reintegration". MEGV (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was my point. The current sentence blames Spain for "strain" in relations, which is far from neutral. Spain could also blame Britain for all the reasons I mentioned, and there are others. Regarding a substitute for "annexation", I still prefer "reintegration" because it reflects the fact that Gibraltar was part of Spain before 1704. So a hypothetical return of the territory to Spain would constitute "re-integration" rather than a sort of new integration "for the first time". JCRB (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Any strain in relations is entirely the result of unrealistic demands by one party. That is not a POV but a correct description of the situation. Spain today is a totally different state to what existed prior to 1704, and 99% of Gibraltarians do not want to form part of it (2002 vote). --Gibnews (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is one-sided, personal point of view. Your approach is neither constructive nor academic. Spain could argue that the "strain" in realtions is caused by Britain because Britain has consistently and systematically violated the Treaty of Utrecht since the 18th century. Spain argues that Britain has unilaterally occupied the isthmus, it has built an airport on Spanish territorial waters, increased the military presence dramatically (including deployment of nuclear weapons on the Rock), used the port as a convenient overseas shipyard for dangerous reparations of nuclear submarines (Tireless, 2000 and 2004), and consistently adopted a soft stance on illegal trafficking through Gibraltar. All these causes for "strain" in bilateral relations do not include the numerous political stratagems which go against any friendly relations of neighbouring countries. They also exclude the numerous UN resolutions which Britain has ignored or violated. For example: 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"

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;" JCRB (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain Could argue all sorts of things, but it does not, because such arguments are childish nonsense not fit to be included in an encyclopedia;

There are No nuclear weapons in Gibraltar, there have been no dangerous repairs to nuclear submarines. This is propaganda.

Whatever the fascists in Government in Spain managed to achieve in 1967 at the UN, in 2002 there was a referendum in Gibraltar which rejected any Spanish claim to Gibraltar, this absolute rejection stands;

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, Minister for Europe 2008.

I suggest you find something more worthwhile to argue about. --Gibnews (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Gibraltar referendum you mention was ilegal from a UN Resolution point of view (see JCRB's quote above). The other arguments that JCRB lists and you call "childish" are actual causes of protests from the Government of Spain to Britain, and they certainly sound very serious to me. In any case this is not a political forum. The question remains that blaming Spain for "causing bilateral tension" is not a neutral statement. It is therfore unacceptable from Wikipedia standards, specially Wikipedia:NPOV. Here is an alternative suggestion:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain requests its return, basing its claim on territorial integrity. The British Government is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of integration into Spain along with any proposal for shared sovereignty." MEGV (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that there is a finally proposed edit to talk about I'll poke back in, I will dispute the idea that the edit before puts blame onto spain for the strain, though strain /has/ taken the active part in the issue (They are the ones forwarding a claim, the British are passively sitting on the rock), though obviously you have infered blame from this and as such a change might be in order. Personally I'd keep the claims out of the intro, ToU should only be mentioned as the act by which de jure/de facto control was passed over. However, as last time there was a problem and when we finally sorted it out, you found new issues, can I ask what other issues exist? If we are going to have long debates every time one is brought up, lets at least get it all out there and deal with it at once rather than this. Narson (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My take.

1. Nothing can be made illegal under a non-binding resolution, such as a UN General Assembly Resolution.
2. "Integration" and "re-integration" would be Spanish POV IMO, implying that Gibraltar is an unintegrated part of Spain, which it is not (as agreed by both governments). Annexation is the best word I can think of: it doesn't imply anything much regarding the views of the annexed (note for example that the Annexation of Texas occurred with the permission of the legislature of the Texas Republic).
3. The rest. There is perhaps a case for a small change per Narson's comment. The claim should be mentioned briefly in the lead but there's little point in going into any detail on the arguments. The position of Gibraltar's people is very important, however, and should be included. Thus, if anything, the best change to my mind would be simply to remove the phrase "causing strain in Anglo-Spanish relations". Pfainuk talk 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the original idea, to show gibraltar is a topic of discussion, is good....though, maybe thats the wording we should use? Replace it with ensuring Gibraltar remains a topic of discussion between Britain and Spain? Narson (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy with that. Pfainuk talk 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pending Issues

I am glad this discussion has taken a more constructive path, and I thank the other editors for rejoining. Having read the entire article carefully, I have spotted a total of 4 issues which I believe need reassessing, including the ones under discussion already:

Introduction: (1) The phrase "causing strain in Anglo-Spanish relations" and (2) the word "annexation"

(1) I disagree that Spain is the "active" party creating "strain" on the relations, and the editor JCRB has proven that. Apart from the occupation of the isthmus and the construction of the airport on Spanish waters, there is a continuous lack of cracking down on illegal trafficking through Gibraltar which Spain repeatedly protests. Another prominent example is the reparation of nuclear submarine Tireless in Gibrlatar on two ocassions (2000 and 2004), which represented a health risk for the population of the entire Campo de Gibraltar, due to a possible radiactive leak. The Spanish government tried to prevent this repair through diplomatic negotiations, and eventually protested it.[8]. The problem was even raised with the European Commission which invoked directive 89/618/Euratom on Informing the Public in the Event of Radiological Emergency. This is just one example of how Britain also causes "strain" on bilateral relations. To move on, maybe the phrase about "strain" can be left out. But what's wrong with completing the sentence with the reasons for the Spanish claim? There is no POV in that, and it provides relevant, neutral information:

"...though Spain requests its return, claiming territorial integrity."

(2) Regarding "annexation", as I explained before the word carries a meaning of "occupation" which is negative, and therefore reflects the British point of view. It also has an implied meaning that Gibraltar was never part of Spain, which is untrue and also suits the British position. The Annexation of Texas example is not comparable, because that event made Texas part of the United States for the first time. If Gibraltar were to be made part of Spain, it would be a second time, it would be a "return", a "reintegration" as it was already part of Spain from the 15th century until 1704. Using the word "annexation" implies that such a possibilty would be "new" in Gibraltar's history, which it is not. If "reintegration" has an element of Spanish point of view, maybe the best word is "integration":

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

History Section: (3) Again the question of "transfer of sovereignty" and (4) "leaving Gibraltar peacefully"

(3) The 7th paragraph again mentions the question of sovereignty which we have long discussed here. It reads "Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war". As agreed earlier, it is not clear that "sovereignty" was transferred, and therefore the sentence should read:

" Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and Gibraltar was subsequently ceded to Britain by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war."

(4) The last sentence of the previous paragraph reads: "Dutch and British marines captured the town of Gibraltar and claimed it in the name of the Archduke Charles. Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar peacefully". This last sentence gives the impression that the Spanish Gibraltarians willingly and happily abandoned their homes and property. The fact is they were forced to abandon them fearing the violence of the British soldiers, who later actually ill-treated the civilians who chose to stay, and robbed the town. (George Hills, Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar, p. 179-183. Robert Hale & Company, 1974, First Edition. ISBN: 0709143524). A local priest Juan Romero, described the pitiful scene of thousands of locals crying as they left their homes:

"the miserable sight of crying and tears, of women and children parting through those fileds, strayed in that summer heat. That day, when the people left [the town], the English robbed all the houses and even mine was not spared, nor that of my companion (Vicar Juan de la Peña) because when we were inside the church the majority of them assaulted [the houses] and robbed them" (Translation from the original Spanish) [9]

Therefore, a more suitable phrasing would be: "Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population left Gibraltar fearing the treatment by the British soldiers". MEGV (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: I think we agreed above that removing the strain bit in favour of a statement that it is a point of discussion between the two governments is good. As for the claims, no, I do not think we should go into the claims in the opening paragraph. We should state what caused it to be currently held by the British and thats it. This is not a specific article on the soveriegnty or the history, so such things should go to their correct sections. For use of integration, see response to point 2.

Point 2: Annexation is the taking of sovereignty without the consent of the people/government of the terratory in question. If that isn't the case in the sentence, then yes, use a different word, but for accuracy, not because words might carry negative connotations due to the nature of their use. However, integration is indeed unacceptable for the reasons PfainUK gave above, IMO.

Point 3: You seem to be forgetting that sovereignty not being transferred in a minority opinion. I am more than happy to see the arguments for it presented in the article on sovereignty and leave it out of the intro, but pretending like there is some massive belief that sovereignty wasn't transferred is disingenuous.

Point 4: I would suggest that if you can cite the fears as above, you'd be better off with Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, believing that if they stayed they would be ill treated by the British and Dutch forces.. If sources say the town was pillaged, then that could be included too. I would expect it to have occured as it was fairly standard for armies of the period. Narson (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I mostly agree with Narson.

MEGV, surely you can't say that the population was forced to leave when some chose to stay. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording 'as is' describes the situation, Spain continues to cause problems for Gibraltar as a direct result of its outdated, unwelcome territorial claim. The Isthmus is an integral part of the territory of Gibraltar, and before the Airport was built it was the Gibraltar racetrack.

At least 1/3 of Gibraltar has never been part of Spain and the view of the people, as expressed democratically in the 2002 referendum is that they do not wish the remainder to be, so why are we even discussing this ?

In relation to HMS Tireless, it is a measure of the special attention that is given to Gibraltar that:

• Repairs to American nuclear submarines happen regularly in Rota, Cadiz but the Spanish Government do not say a word about the 'danger'.

• The CEPSA refinery in San Roque, spews out benzene amongst other carcinogens, and the ONLY radioactive contamination recorded in the area was from the ACERINOX plant in Spain with a leak of 137Cs.

In respect of the defamatory statement there is a continuous lack of cracking down on illegal trafficking through Gibraltar is nonsense, as the Foreign Affairs Committee noted in 1999:

We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact.

IF there were any problem today, the Spanish Government could raise the matter at the trilateral forum, it does not.

I do not care to go into details about the Spaniards who decided to leave Gibraltar in 1704, except to note that they were not Gibraltarians and broke the terms of the surrender by murdering British servicemen. They left to escape lawful hanging. They were more fortunate than the moorish population when it was overun by Spain who killed everyone. Mr Hills was a friend of Franco and like him is dead.

However, the purpose of this talk page is not to continually refute the tedious lies about Gibraltar promulgated in Spain by Fernando Castiella, Franco's foreign minister, and their echos, but to constructively discuss what should be on the page about Gibraltar. Spanish sovereignty is not a pending issue and it is quite pointless discussing it. --Gibnews (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gibnews' above points. If we are to go into greater detail on the discussed topics it should be done in the appropriate article and not in this one. This discussion is now almost worthy of WP:LAME! --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, first let us tone down the discussion a bit. Gibnews, your comments are aggressive and hardly constructive. They are also almost entirely political. Your statement about the Isthmus being an "integral part of Gibraltar" is very very doubtful, and there are mountains of literature on that. The Foreign Affairs declaration you quote about "cracking down on illegal trafficking" is of course, the British position. I will not prolong the political squabble. The above examples simply demonstrate that the British side is also to blame for "strain" in bilateral relations. To move on, here is my view on the Points commented above by Narson:

Point 1: I agree to "removing the strain bit in favour of a statement that it is a point of discussion between the two governments", as Narson said. I also agree to leave out the claim. This could go in a separate article.

Point 2: I looked up the word "annexation" and it does imply a negative meaning, that of "coercion" or "unilateral take-over". The Wikipedia article says:

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. [10]

That's why "annexation" represents a POV in the Gibraltar article, and why "integration" is more appropiate. We could also use "political union" or even "reunification" as the Wikipedia article suggests.

Point 3: I don't understand your point. I thought this issue about the "transfer of sovereignty" had been resolved. The long discussion above concluded that this is a source of academic controversy. The interpretation that sovereignty was not transferred by the ToU is not a "minority opinion". It is only minority in English sources. What is the point of starting this debate all over again? If the transfer of sovereignty issue is avoided in the Introduction, it should also be avoided in the main article.

Point 4: I largely agree with your suggestion, and most of the wording. The pillage of the city could also be included. I would say:

"Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, fearing they would be ill treated by the British and Dutch forces. The town was later pillaged by the occupation forces." MEGV (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that this isn't a political issue (or even much of a personal issue) for me. My only aim here is to get something that reflects the situation and something that both sides find acceptable, if possible, while remaining within standard wikiguidelines.

OK, so point 1 is dealt with, point 2...could we not just say that Spain wishes to take over sovereignty of the rock? Spain seems to accept the British have soverignty over the rock so I can't see that being a problem. Which leads us into point 3. The mainstream view is that Gibraltar's sovereignty lies with Britain. There is some debate in academic circles over this. Because of this, and other reasons, avoiding the wording in the intro is a good idea. However, articles should represent the mainstream view unless it is set up to examine things in detail. NPOV means neutral point of view, not no point of view, we take the mainstream. This is not to say I absolutely oppose altering that sentence (it is currently clunky), but that removing all mention of sovereignty from the article reduces accuracy to pander to a minority view. That the British do not exercise sovereignty over Gibraltar is an extreme claim and one that would require extremly good sources in order to back it up to the level of expunging the widely held view. I hope that is a bit clearer?

I suspect the pillage sentence in point 4 will likely need editing, if cites can be found. Gibmetal or Gibnews mentioned claims that the spanish population had killed British or Dutch soldiers, so if that can be sourced, it would need to be factored in. I havn't checked the sources for the pillaging, could you provide them? It is a controversial claim, so it would be best if we can check them and judge whether they can support an absolute statement of fact. Narson (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A take on these.

Point 1. I think I've covered my view on that quite thoroughly above.

Point 2. Your argument for the word "integration" sounds increasingly like WP:IDHT.

The claim on Gibraltar is unilateral. Given British government assurances and the referenda, the chances of Gibraltar becoming part of Spain by means that do not involve the coercion of the people of Gibraltar are slim - this coercion could be by either government or both. Thus "annexation" is appropriate even by your own criteria. Even so, note that it says can in your own quote - it doesn't always imply this, such as in the case of Texas in the 1840s.

That's not to say that we couldn't replace that word with, say, "Spanish sovereignty" or a similar phrase (per Narson's comment). I'm sure one of the Gibraltarians here will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the people of Gibraltar would oppose Spanish sovereignty even if an international court or someone suddenly declared the territory to already be under Spanish sovereignty.

Point 3. That sovereignty of Gibraltar was not transferred is a minority view, not held any involved party. We should not be giving it undue prominence.

I have seen no sources to suggest that, in the view of the Spanish government of the time, Spain did not consider sovereignty to have been transferred by the Treaty of Utrecht - only that a few modern academics take that view. The more unusual the claim, the better the sources needed (that's on a policy page somewhere but I can't seem to find it now). In the absence of such a source it seems to me that it would be fair to state that Spain (represented by the Spanish government) recognised the transfer of sovereignty by said treaty as per the current Spanish government position.

Again, there are changes that could be made on style grounds, but content-wise it appears to be accurate.

Point 4. You'll need to source that reliably and neutrally if you want it included - indeed sources from all sides would be welcome. I was unable to open the PDF you supplied last time around, so I can't judge that source. Pfainuk talk 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who can say Your statement about the Isthmus being an "integral part of Gibraltar" is very very doubtful has never seen the Isthmus. Apart from the airport, there are two housing estates, a marina, and a cemetery. It is subject to the laws of Gibraltar and controlled by the Government of Gibraltar.

Sir William Jackson's book, "Rock of the Gibraltarians" states on P 101 Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen were thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain.

In relation to the word 'annexation' the word describes a hostile takeover and until such time Gibraltarians favour joining Spain, it is the appropriate term. As of 200,2 99% do not. Because the Government of Spain persists with a claim which has no chance of success, and victimises Gibraltarians for rejecting it, the relationship remains strained.

The Foreign Affairs declaration you quote about "cracking down on illegal trafficking" is of course, the British position. No, the British position as quoted, is that allegations from Spain are fraudulent because there is NO PROOF. please do not try and twist the words of the select committee.

I suggest you give it a rest. The Government of Spain has agreed to put to one side it outdated claims and talk about real issues which affect the communities on both sides of the frontier under the Cordoba agreement. Repeating propaganda from 1704 and the days of Franco serves no useful purpose.

In reply to Pfainuk's enquiry, Annexation has been opposed by political means, it has been opposed by non violent protest. It would be opposed by all other means, in the style described by Winston Churchill this day in 1940 to the House of Commons. --Gibnews (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a political forum and whatever Spain claims or decides to "put to one side" is not the question here (unless it is the claim itself we are discussing). I also suggest we all "give it a rest" once the article reflects a fair and neutral point of view. Thanks for your comments Pfainuk and Narson. It seems Point 1 has been solved, so I will ho ahead and remove the bit on "strain". Here is my view on the other points:

Point 2. It's not a question of "refusing to get the point" WP:IDHT, but you understanding this point. Maybe I have not explained it well enough. The possibility of "incorporating" Gibraltar into Spain must be stated in a neutral way, not in a way that carries a negative implication. Why? Because this implication leans towards the British point of view. It's as if the article on Hong Kong said: "Hong Kong was liberated from Britain in 1997 and returned to China." The word "liberated" implies the territory was freed from previous "unwanted occupation" which is untrue, or it depends on who's point of view. In the same way, the hypothetical transfer of Gibraltar to Spain cannot be described either as a "liberation" (Spanish point of view) or an "annexation" (British point of view). You are right that this hypothetical transfer would be against the wishes of Gibraltarians, but this is already explicitly said in the phrase: "who strongly oppose the idea". If you add "annexation" to "strongly oppose the idea", it is both a redundancy as well as a pro-British statement. Finally, apart from the issue of neutrality, there is the question of historical accuracy. The term "annexation" can imply that Gibraltar was never part of Spain, which it was for over 200 years (the Gibraltar Flag & Coat of Arms still used today, were granted by Queen Isabella in 1502 [11]). This is another reason why "annexation" is inappropriate. I therefore propose a neutral term that carries no POV or inaccurate historical implications. I leave this up to you. Here are some options: "union", "unification", "integration", "incorporation"..

Point 3: First, a comment for Narson: I think you've misinterpreted my point (and the discussion above) when you say that "the mainstream view is that Gibraltar's sovereignty lies with Britain". Of course it does, and I have never questioned this. What I argued (and we reached an agreement about) is that sovereignty was not necessarily transferred with the Treaty of Utrecht. [12]. Remember the discussion about the "property" versus "territorial jurisdiction". Therefore, just like the Introduction does not say that "sovereignty was transferred with the ToU", the main part of the article cannot say it either. It can say that sovereignty is British, but not that this was ceded in 1713. There are plenty opposing views on this.

Second (to respond to Pfainuk) I cannot understand why we are reopening this debate. Either you accept the same conclusions for the main part of article as the Introduction, or you are rejecting the consensus reached above. You cannot have one point of view for the Introduction, and another one for the main section. The previous discussion concluded that sovereignty was arguably ceded with the ToU because there are opposing opinions. The view that "sovereignty was not legally transferred" is not a minority point of view, but one held by reliable sources both from Spain and Britain. I recall having quoted at least one of each. This means that an academic controversy exists, whether the Government of Spain has claimed this or not. This is a techincal issue (legal, historical) not political. Therefore the article cannot state that "the ToU transferred sovereignty". You can agree with this extensively debated fact and we can move on, or you can challenge the previous consensus, meaning we need to discuss this matter all over again.

Point 4: Here is the previous source about the evacuation of the Gibraltar population in 1704, who feared the plunder by the British soliders (Spanish):[13] (See page 91). There is also a British reference: (George Hills, Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar, p. 179-183. Robert Hale & Company, 1974, First Edition. ISBN: 0709143524). Both of these references are also quoted in the Bibliography section [14] of the History of Gibraltar. There is also this other source: (Tito Benady, Las querellas de los vecinos de Gibraltar presentadas a los inspectores del ejército británico en 1712, pp. 203-213. Almoraima: revista de estudios campogibraltareños, Nº 13, 1995. ISSN 1133-5319). that should be enough for now.

MEGV (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Point 2. It is not disallowed to use a term that is accurate in meaning and implication, just because some people may find it distasteful. I also find it odd that you argue that "annexation" is bad because it doesn't imply previous Spanish sovereignty, but then propose "union", "unification", "integration", "incorporation" which also do not imply previous Spanish sovereignty.

Having said that I am quite happy to use the words "Spanish sovereignty" instead since it puts the same message across. As Gibnews made clear so vividly, the people of Gibraltar oppose Spanish sovereignty of Gibraltar, regardless of the minority view that Gibraltar is already legally under Spanish sovereignty.

On Point 3 I think you have misunderstood me. For this discussion the most important word in the sentence is "recognised". Only governments (acting on behalf of their countries) can formally recognise sovereignty, and whom a government recognises in a disputed region is essentially a statement of the position of that government on the dispute. Legal scholars may differ on whether sovereignty was truly passed, but because of the word "recognised", IMO we only have to concern ourselves with the position of the Spanish government in and shortly after 1713.

So what was that position? I haven't seen a source stating it outright. But the modern-day Spanish government accept the mainstream view: they consider that sovereignty changed hands due to the Treaty of Utrecht. Given that this position appears to damage their claim, it seems likely that it's accurate. Based on all of this, I feel that the sentence does not need changing.

Point 4, I'm not sure there's much I can add at this point, except that I can now get at the PDF in Spanish. I haven't read it, mind. Pfainuk talk 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 2. I am not proposing a term that implies previous Spanish sovereignty, but one that does not exclude previous Spanish sovereignty in its implications. "Annexation" carries the implied signification that a territory is occupied "for the first time", which is untrue in this hypothetical case. It also carries a negative meaning against one of the sides, in this case Spain. The Wikipedia article says: "Annexation [...] can 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". Therefore, a more positive (less negative) term should be used. That's why I favour "union" or "integration" or a similar neutral term with no secondary implications.

Point 3. I disagree. The Spanish government's actions, claims or points of view are not directly related to the technical dispute on the possible transfer of sovereignty according to the ToU. Spain can choose to invoke Article 10 of the Treaty, or to involke other agreements or international resolutions, but this does not change the academic controversy. In fact, Spain has sometimes alluded to the Treaty, and sometimes it has not. For example, recent claims invoke "territorial integrity" and UN Resolutions (Decolonization), but older claims inovoked Article X of ToU and other bilateral agreements thereafter. In other words, different governments have used different arguments for their claims since 1713. But this does not change the technical dispute about the legal, objective cession of sovereignty.

Still, the interpretation of Article X has been the most important basis for the Spanish claim historically, and it is still used today, as these 2 sources (quoted earlier) demonstrate:

(1) "Artilce X of the Treaty, which covers the handover, has had the biggest political and diplomatic repercussions, and has been the origin of sour controversies and antagonistic interpretations for over three centuries [...] From the Spanish point of view, Spain ceded the property and use of the territory and buildings, but kept the territorial jurisdiction; a criteria based on medieval tradition which made Gibraltar a sort of British lordship on Spanish soil. From the British point of view, "the full and entire propriety" is interpreted not like a dominion, but like sovereignty..." (translation from original Spanish) (ref. Isidro Sepúlveda, Gibraltar: La Razón y La Fuerza, p. 103. Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2004. ISBN 978-84-206-4184-3) [15]

(2) "Whereas the United Kingdom contends that the Treaty of Utrecht transferred sovereignty in the Rock of Gibraltar to Great Britain, Spain argues that it transferred not sovereignty but ownership of the fortifications (establishing a military base in Spain). Spain does not, however, contest the proposition that a cession, made by a defeated state to a victorious state in 1713, was capable of transferring sovereignty, it questions only the interpretation of the terms of that cession - arguing that the land as such was never ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht." (Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, p. 97. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198280076) [16]

MEGV (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Annexation implies it is a first time? Yet we use it for the German Annexation of Poland. We use it for the peaceful take over of the Texan sovereignty (Treaty of Annexation). I do think the best result here is to simply mention Spanish Sovereignty in the way covered above. It is simpler language but avoids the issue.

On point 3, please read Pfainuk's comment above. I don't think you quite got what he was saying. As it states recognised, we are only dealing with what the other powers thought, not quotes from a former academic and the deputy director of a spanish institute. We seem to be going over old ground here. I think you will have to accept on point 3 you will not get consensus. Narson (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, similarly parts of Belarus have been annexed by Russia twice since the Treaty of Utrecht (in the Partitions of Poland and WW2). And there are, I believe, some in Belarus who want to be annexed by Russia for a third time. MEGV, you've still yet to comment on the suggestion of "Spanish sovereignty" to replace "annexation", as argued above.

I also think you've still missed my point in point 3. The sentence in question reads (emphasis mine):

...and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war.

Whether to recognise is a political judgement made by a government, not a legal judgement to be made by a judge or by lawyers. If (as the mainstream view holds and no reliable source yet refutes) the Spanish government recognised Gibraltar as British in 1713 as a direct result of the Treaty of Utrecht, then the sentence is accurate. More detail in my previous post.

I also note that both your quotes say they put the "Spanish point of view" or what "Spain argues", both with a clear implication that they apply to the current situation (what the Spanish POV is now, what Spain argues now). We know the Spanish POV, and we know what Spain argues, because the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs produced a document on the subject, quoted above. This document directly contradicts your books. The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs state that, in their opinion, the UK has sovereignty over Gibraltar (excluding the isthmus), and I'd suggest that the Spanish government is probably best placed to know their own POV. Pfainuk talk 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, let's forget that "annexation" implies it is a first-time occupation. Just stick to the fact that it has a negative implication for one of the sides. It is biased against the hypothetical reunification of Gibraltar with Spain. The phrase "annexation of Gibraltar by Spain" carries an implicit criticism of this hypothesis, and is unacceptable according to the Wikipedia principle WP:BIAS. The term you suggest, "Spanish sovereignty" is more neutral, but falls short of explaining the full implications of that hypothesis (which Gibraltarians oppose) which is that it would be reunited with Spain. You said it yourself, it "avoids the issue". Indeed, it avoids calling things by their name. Why do you oppose such a long list of possible terms (union, unification, integration, incorporation, reintegration, merger) which better describe the concept?

Regarding Point 3, we are indeed "going over old ground here" as Narson said. The fact is we had already reached a consensus, and there is no reason or no new information to rechallenge it. It is also a contradiction to accept the argument that led to the rewording of the Introduction, but not to the rewording in the main section. As explained before, it is not a question of what political arguments governments choose to use in different moments of time, but an objective, technical question about the meaning of Article X, that is up to historians, lawyers or philologists to resolve. The "former [British] academic and the deputy director of a spanish institute" which you downplay, are more than sufficient evidence for the existence of these contradicting points of view. If you have a problem with the sources, please refer to WP:VER. The dispute between two equally verifiable interpretations makes the wording "British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht" simply inaccurate. One of these points of view is that "British ownership of the fortifications of Gibraltar was recognised", not sovereignty.

Some of the arguments thrown around here seem to carry confirmation bias. They try to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Let us all open our minds to the verfiable information brought forward. MEGV (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We've gone over why the situation in the article is different to the situation in the lead, so I'll simply look at the point 2. Merger is woefully inadaquate. Union I'd not mind (The people of Gibraltar oppose any union with Spain, for example). Unification, integration, reintegration and incorporation are less acurate than annexation but have all the bias that annexation has. So, point 1 is sorted, point 4 is in need of wording tweaks, point 3 has been explained which leaves us with this wording issue on point 2. So yes. I'm fine with union as above, or failing that just stating that the people are opposed to Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar. Narson (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see little benefit to the encyclopaedia from continuing on point 3, given that all I'm likely to do is repeat myself. Instead, I suggest you reread the above since I still don't think you've understood me. Please remember to assume good faith of others when posting.

On point 2. The list Narson gives all share the same problem as integration (if you don't remember, I've said it twice or three times, so go have a look). My preferred solution on balance is "Spanish sovereignty". It's NPOV, and I don't see how the phrase ...Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. fails to mention that they oppose Gibraltar's becoming part of Spain - I don't see what else it could mean, particularly in context. And I think it's probably the best term given the all-encompassing nature of the Gibraltarians' opinions. The details are irrelevant: they just don't want it.

To my mind the word "union" rather implies a theoretically equal partnership, such as between the states of the US, Australia or Germany, between England and Scotland, between the member states of the EU - even the republics of the USSR and Yugoslavia - and that's not what Spain is offering. That might be me reading too much into it though. I'll think about it. Pfainuk talk 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point Pfainuk. Yeah, just go with the spanish sovereignty wording. So, is that us all done here? Narson (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read the many messages since my last contribution, and these are my questions/ comments regarding the 4 points discussed. Ok to removing the "strain" issue in Point 1, but what exactly does "ensuring Gibraltar remains a topic of discussion between Britain and Spain" mean? It's a funny sentence with some sort of secondary meaning. It seems to imply that Spain requests its return just "to prolong a diplomatic conflict", or something like that. I suggest either ending the sentence simply with "though Spain requests its return" or adding a generic basis for the Spanish claim:

"...though Spain requests its return, based on various historical claims."

On Point 2 I agree with Pfainuk that "union" implies a sort of equal partnership. But I don't think that "integration" or "incorporation" has a "biased" meaning. Perhaps "reintegration" leans more towards the Spanish POV, but "integration"? I see no POV in that. Also, repeating the word "sovereignty" in the same sentence does not sound good. I propose "...Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of integration in Spain, along with any proposal for shared sovereignty."

Point 3 - I agree with MEGV that Spain's varying claims on the Gibraltar issue is not related to the controversy about the transfer of sovereignty with ToU. I understand that Spain has sometimes used Article X, and others it has claimed territorial integrity. Your references adequately show this question has been long debated and is still unclear. So the article can not read that "sovereignty was ceded in 1713" either in the introduction or later in the article. My suggestion:Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and Gibraltar was subsequently ceded by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war

On Point 4, I prefer: ""Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, fearing ill treatment by the British and Dutch forces. Parts of the town were later plundered by the occupation forces." JCRB (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try BUT

• Spain's claim to annex Gibraltar places strain on anglo Spanish relations - FACT - its also places strain on international football, where Spain has pressurised UEFA to act contrary to its rules and in contravention of the ruling by the Court for Arbitration in Sport (CAS).

• Why are we even talking about 'union with Spain' ? Its a non starter.

• If you want to include information about Spain's claim, it is what they have asserted at the UN and its not appropriate for introduction of the article about Gibraltar, because that is about Gibraltar not a irredentist claim.

• On the terms of surrender, you may indeed prefer a version which is favourable to the Spaniards who entered into an agreement, broke it, murdered people, and ran away, however the words I quoted are from the reference cited.

Bottom line is that this is an article about Gibraltar not Spain. The main problem for Gibraltar, has been, and remains Spain's territorial claim based on something which happened prior to the USA becoming a state. Annexation is totally rejected by the Gibraltarians, and the current wording describes the situation correctly. An attempt to impose a dishonest Pro-Spanish POV is not what Wikipedia is for. --Gibnews (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how annexation is POV. Spain's claim to Gibraltar is Irredentist, which is:

...any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged.

Therefore, I suggest using the word annexation and mentioning that Spain's claim is irredentist in order to justify it, ending this discussion which is now getting way out of hand. --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ALL of JCRB's suggestions on the four points. Well done and thanks. Gibnews, it's not a question of "trying" anything, but of finding a more neutral and unbiased wording for the article. The things you call "facts" are mostly personal opinions. There is a long list of British issues that also "cause strain" on bilateral realtions. For the 5th time, this is not a political forum. We have reached a consensus on eliminating "strain". It is now about the end part of the sentence. I'm OK with "based on various historical claims" because it ends the sentence nicely and objectively. Regarding the possibility of a "union" with Spain "which Gibraltarians strongly oppose", it was already in the sentence. I just showed the word "annexation" carries a negative implication, and put forward "union" or "incorporation" etc (see above) as better alternatives. I have left it for other editors to choose, and JCRB has suggested "integration", which I think is fine.

Regarding Pfainuk's comment "I see little benefit to the encyclopaedia from continuing on point 3, given that all I'm likely to do is repeat myself", I have re-read your comments above, and still think it you who misunderstood me. I'll explain. You say it is up to governments to "recognise" anything in an international treaty, not scholars. You are right. You go on to say "we only have to concern ourselves with the position of the Spanish government in and shortly after 1713". Indeed, but because we cannot ask the Spanish governmenmt of 1713 what it was they meant with "yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar" and "the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction" we can only rely on history books, in other words historians, to judge what the Spanish government really meant in 1713. Some of these historians think it was only the "property" they wanted to give Britain, not sovereignty. Others say it was the full property and jurisdiction, meaning sovereignty. That's why there is an academic controversy on exactly what Spain recognised, and what it transferred to Britain. I hope this helps better understand my point. MEGV (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not putting the claims in the lead. We are not going to expunge the mainstream theory for your favourite fringe theory academic debate. A proposal for the line you want 'integration' in has been proposed that avoids the issue and remains accurate. Please stop trying to force consensus by repeating yourself over and over and forcing us to do the same. Narson (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pfainuk talk 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a constructive or polite way of answering. I have been considerate enough to explain my point of view for the third time, even though a consensus had been reached. Pfainuk referred me to his message above, and I have now explained why he missed my point. I cannot accept that you shove my arguments to a side like that, claiming they are my "favourite fringe theory". MEGV (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Going round and round is not constructive. I was not impolite, I was blunt. Why? Because we have tens of thousands of bytes of text here and going over the same ground over and over is not just wasting your time, but ours as well. We have explained many times why point 3 is unacceptable, the other points are dealt with I believe. Unfortunatly sometimes on Wikipedia you have to accept you won't gain consensus for your proposed edits. Narson (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm quite willing to add references to the things I state are facts, but this is a discussion page.

To quote another editor: I suggest using the word annexation and mentioning that Spain's claim is irredentist in order to justify it, ending this discussion which is now getting way out of hand.

--Gibnews (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Repeatedly ignoring a well-sustained argument will get us nowhere. Such a position is neither considerate nor constructive. If you come up with a reasonable and well-supported argument, namely that there is no controversy on the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht, or any other point of view, I am more than happy to accept it. But shoving to one side a perfectly sound and referenced argument, compliant with ALL Wikipedia principles, just because you don't agree with it, is simply unacceptable. If editors are not willing to continue this discussion, I suggest we turn to dispute resolution. MEGV (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

here. here. here (It states British has to renounce sovereignty, meaning it has it). more borderline but makes no mention of special 'ceded but not really' conclusion. Annother one stating it as a British possession Doesn't mention ceding it as a spanish territory. A nice one from 1965 showing how the Spanish considered sovereignty to be British. There are also plenty of books, including Settlement Finality in the European Union By Marc Vereecken and Albert Nijenhuis. That Britain doesn't hold sovereignty from the time of the ToU is a fringe view, one that has, yes, at times enjoyed some support from the Spanish government during the franco years. That was all picked out in about 10 minutes of browsing. To remind folks, the current text is:

Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war. In this treaty, Spain ceded Gibraltar (Article X) and Minorca (article XI) to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. Great Britain has retained sovereignty over the former ever since, despite all attempts by Spain to recapture it.

At /best/ you might see:

Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war. In this treaty, Spain ceded Gibraltar (Article X) and Minorca (article XI) to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. Great Britain has retained sovereignty over the former ever since, despite all attempts by Spain to recapture it. In the 20th century Spain has at times sought to interpret the treaty as transfering purely land and not sovereignty, an interpretation not recognised by Britain.

The main stream view itself would not be removed. It is also possible someone else might object. This is the last comment of any length I will make on the topic, hopefully. Oh, and because I'm in a quoting mood...

...all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence

Narson (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... "at times" should probably state who and when IMO (in a footnote if it's too long). And I'd challenge it in any case if left unreferenced (I consider this fair warning that I may revert if it is added with no suitable reference - it shouldn't be too hard to get hold of one). I would also want an acknowledgement that this is not the current Spanish POV - for example, the words "or the current Spanish government (as of 2008)" placed at the end - we can reference that to this document, or most of those that Narson just mentioned. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can cite it to Franco's government. Franco's government is mentioned specifically in the book I did read that included the claim.

OK. Pfainuk talk 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would have to find it again though....I was just giving an example of the best MEGV could really hope for. Narson (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that - any further in that direction would certainly be over the top for what is, after all, a fringe theory. I'm not convinced this version isn't too far that way as it is. Pfainuk talk 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus, so please don't take for granted everybody's point of view. Although the interpretation that Spain only transferred "property" and not "sovereignty" may be a minority point of view today, Spain has historically claimed this very often and MEGV has given reliable sources. I have looked into this matter extensively, and I do believe that this interpretation is not the Spanish government's position as of today. However, it has been in the past, and the article cannot afford to ignore it. Here is a better suggestion:

"Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, although Spain has sometimes claimed that it did not transfer sovereignty but only the property of the land. In this treaty, Spain ceded Gibraltar (Article X) and Minorca (article XI) to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. Great Britain has retained sovereignty over the former ever since, despite all attempts by Spain to recapture it."

That should take care of Point 3. (Point 1 was already solved). Regarding Point 2 MEGV definitely has a point that "annexation" implicitly criticizes the "stronger or bigger party". I would go with "integration" or "political union". On Point 3 my position is the same: "Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, fearing ill treatment by the British and Dutch forces. Parts of the town were later plundered by the occupation forces.". If these two issues are solved, we don't need to go to WP:DR JCRB (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you would like an article that is more favourable to Spain.

• Giving undue weight to a minority view on sovereignty is not appropriate however much you repeat it.

• Integration sounds a friendly co-operative act - it is not the word used by diplomatic sources. Its a concept that is totally rejected

• The history books record that the Spanish population of Gibraltar broke the terms the surrender, committed crimes, and escaped justice.

You have put your arguments politely at length, they are equally rejected, can we please now move on to something else more important ? --Gibnews (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

JCRB, I am still not convinced that non-transfer of sovereignty is a minority point of view. Although Spain does not base its claim on this interpretation today, it has done so quite often (as you said it yourself) in the 3 centuries of history since Utrecht. However, I am ready to accept your suggestion for the sake of moving forward. Regarding "integration", Gibnews says it's like a "friendly co-operative act", and that is exactly the point. It is a neutral term that carries no political implications for either side (unlike "annexation" which takes sides against the hypothetical integration with Spain, and against Spain herself). Finally, regarding your accusation that JCRB wants "an article that is more favourable to Spain" I think that is out of line. MEGV (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest we avoid integration or any of those words.

The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty, whether held by spain alone or shared with the British crown.

One potential wording, as you wanted to avoid the double usage of the word sovereignty. Could also just switch it to

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 with that country

As for the final point, assuming both sides can find the cites, why not combine?

Terms of surrender were agreed upon but much of the population chose to leave after the terms of the surrender were breached, fearing reprisals by the British and Dutch forces. Parts of the town were later plundered by the occupation forces

Not perfect. On the sentence about sovereignty, putting the spanish inconsistant claim in the lead sentence would be, IMO, undue weight. We should go through and state the main view then after state the on again off again claim.

Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. In this treaty, Spain ceded Gibraltar (Article X) and Minorca (article XI) to Great Britain in perpetuity. Great Britain has retained sovereignty over the former ever since, despite all attempts by Spain to recapture it. Spain has sometimes interpreted the treaty as saying that it did not transfer sovereignty but only the property of the land

I'm not keen on the word 'claimed' there, so I put in the interpreted part. Though this leads me to want to tack on 'An interpretation the British do not recognise' again. But anyway, guess that wasn't the last comment I was making on this.. Narson (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On the sentence in the lead I was thinking:

The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty in any form.

That uses neither "Spain" or "sovereignty" twice. It's accurate, neutral, and demonstrates the all-encompassing nature of the opposition to Spanish rule in Gibraltar.

Agree with Narson on point 4 (regarding the departure of Spanish) - all claims should be reliably sourced and referenced.

Obviously on point 3 - the other point - my previous comments still apply, and if included this should make it clear what the government positions are now (Both countries now accept that Britain holds sovereignty,^{[UK gov't source] [Spanish gov't source]} but...). I feel JCRB's version is clunky and gives undue weight to the minority theory. Narson's second is my favourite so far, subject to the comments I've already made.

In any case, I rather think this is trivia that is not desperately relevant to the subject Gibraltar as it doesn't have any effect on the current situation, or lead to greater understanding of it - I think the best option is to leave the sentence as it is. It may be relevant to the disputed status of the territory or to the history of the territory, but not, I think, to the territory in general. Pfainuk talk 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article makes an arguable statement like "British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht", there needs to be a reference to the alternative interpretation immediatetly afterwards, meaning in the same sentence. I am not ready to accept a version that leaves this caveat outside the sentence, and much less a phrase that downplays this fact by switiching the word "claim" for a flimsy "interpreted the treaty as saying". MEGV (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not getting equal footing with the mainstream theory, it is a small occasional claim from the spanish that is the subject of minor academic debate. Acctually, claim is more flimsy, IMO, than 'interpreted the treaty as saying'. But if you want claim, I'm fine with that. Just not with putting it on equal prominence to the mainstream view. Narson (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards integration and Annexation the former implies some degree of willingness on the part of both parties. There is NO consent forthcoming from Gibraltar. The latter describes the desire to impose something unilaterally which is the existing situation. Dirty deeds don't deserve decent descriptions. --Gibnews (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's rather my feeling, in so many words, why there's nothing particularly wrong with annexation - it describes the situation pretty accurately. I feel integration goes further than that, though. It rather implies to me that Gibraltar is already an unintegrated part of Spain or at least should be - that the normal state of Gibraltar is to be part of Spain (IOW it accepts Spain's territorial integrity argument as fact, pretty much). Same goes for most of the other suggestions given. Union, as JCRB acknowledged, rather implies a setup whereby Gibraltar would be on an equal footing with Spain in a new "Greater Spain" (my own name, for lack of another). This is not what Spain is offering.

MEGV says: "Gibnews says ["integration" is] like a "friendly co-operative act", and that is exactly the point." What you appear to be saying is that it's OK to use a word which you perceive to have a positive spin but not one which you perceive to have a negative spin. That's not right. We should be using the setup that most accurately and neutrally describes the situation, and if that means using annexation, then we should use annexation.

Having said that, I think the versions with Spanish sovereignty in italics above work quite well. I've mentioned this a few times now and the only acknowledgement this suggestion has received from MEGV/JCRB was that JCRB thought it was bad style to repeat sovereignty. This is no longer relevant per the above. Pfainuk talk 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Narson, if you want a sentence that does not give it "equal footing with the mainstream theory", JCRB's suggestion is perfect:

"Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, although Spain has sometimes claimed that it did not transfer sovereignty but only the property of the land"

Pfainuk, the term you say "implies to me that Gibraltar is already an unintegrated part of Spain or at least should be" would be "reintegration". That's why I have discarded this option a long time ago (see above). But "integration" certainly does not imply anything. You quote me as saying to Gibnews that "[integration is] like a "friendly co-operative act", and that is exactly the point" but you miss the following sentence: "It is a neutral term that carries no political implications for either side". What I meant is that "integration" carries neither a positive nor a negative implication, and I am sure you agree with me. In any case "annexation" does carry a negative implication and I have shown why. That's why it is unacceptable. For example when Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997, different expressions were used and obviously none of them were "annexation". However the "return" concept was used:

- the return to China [17]

- resuming the exercise of sovereignty [18]

- handed over to Chinese control [19]

- restoration of Hong Kong from the UK to China [20]

Again, I am not pushing for "return" or "re-integration" or "re-incorporation", simply a neutral term that puts no negative implications on either side. You don't seem to appreciate this. MEGV (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Having it in the same sentence as the mainstream view, putting it as a condition on that view, is unacceptable. You have also once again not commented on the proposed sentence using the term 'Spanish sovereignty'. Narson (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in those who disagree with you.

• On 2 June, in my first comment on the matter, I said:

  "Integration" and "re-integration" would be Spanish POV IMO, implying that Gibraltar is an unintegrated part of Spain, which it is not (as agreed by both governments).

• In my last comment I meant integration, as I wrote. I don't find re-integration acceptable either.
• I don't think that integration is free of bias, for reasons which are adequately explained in my previous comment.
• I don't understand how you could say both that integration implies a "friendly co-operative act" but "carries no political implications" since these views contradict one another (or at least appear to).
• When you described the connotations you believe that annexation has you described this case pretty well, as mentioned at the time. I don't think that it has been shown that the term has to have negative connotations in any case: it doesn't in this case. The term is accurate, and it is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I am happy to ditch it for a compromise position using Spanish sovereignty.
• As Narson says, you still have not commented on the phrases using Spanish sovereignty. Pfainuk talk 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are we spending all this time and effort in talking about integrating Gibraltar with Spain when we could talk about the Spanish manned Mars programme? --Gibnews (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, maybe I was not clear when I agreed that the term is synonymous to "friendly co-operative act". Integrate simply means to incorporate into something, to include into a larger entity, and it has no positive (friendly) or negative implications. I hope this has clarified my point. In any case I am not pushing for "integration" necessarily, just a neutral option that does not lean towards either side. Like I said before (3 times already): "political union", "incorporation" or any of the terms used in the Hong Kong example are suitable: "handover", "restoration" or others. I think the expression "Spanish sovereignty" is better, but by no means the best. For one, the word "sovereignty" has already been used many times.

I always assume good faith in those that disagree with me. I would ask others to do the same, and to read my explanations more carefully. Gibnews, we are spending "all this time and effort" son that the article is neutral and unbiased. Be patient. we are almost there. MEGV (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you could spend your time more productively in updating the nonsense in the Spanish Wikipedia that trying to make political union with Spain sound attractive in the context of Gibraltar, where it has all the appeal and friendly warmth of a dog turd pinchito. --Gibnews (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice and foul language will take us nowhere. This is a final suggestion for the 3 remaining points. If still cannot reach an agreement we will take it to WP:DR.

Point 2: I have explained why "Spanish sovereignty" is not a good option. I have offered alternatives such as "handover" or "restoration" which were used in the Hong Kong example of 1997, and many other terms like integration, union or incorporation which have been unreasonably rejected. There is not much point in searching further. This will need to go to dispute resolution.

Point 3: "Franco-Spanish troops failed to retake the town, and British sovereignty over Gibraltar was subsequently recognised by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. In this treaty, Spain ceded Gibraltar (Article X) and Minorca (article XI) to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. However, Spain has sometimes claimed that it did not transfer sovereignty but only the property of the land. Great Britain has retained sovereignty over the former ever since, despite all attempts by Spain to recapture it."

Point 4: "Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, fearing ill treatment by the British and Dutch forces. Parts of the town were later plundered by the occupation forces." [21] (page 91). Also: (George Hills, Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar, p. 179-183. Robert Hale & Company, 1974, First Edition. ISBN: 0709143524), and: (Tito Benady, Las querellas de los vecinos de Gibraltar presentadas a los inspectores del ejército británico en 1712, pp. 203-213. Almoraima: revista de estudios campogibraltareños, Nº 13, 1995. ISSN 1133-5319).

If you have reliable sources about any other events (Gibraltarians murdering British soldiers or alike) you are welcome to include them. MEGV (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already cited my source regarding the Spanish colonists who were occupying Gibraltar in 1704 and who broke the terms of surrender by murdering British servicemen. As Gibraltar at the time was a very unpopular place to be due to water shortages and disease, Spain encouraged its criminals to relocate here so their behaviour is hardly surprising.

We have now wasted over 28,000 words in an attempt to whitewash the introduction to be favourable to the Spanish irredentist position, firstly by trying to deny absolute British sovereignty and secondly by trying to find nice words to describe the desire of Spain to annex the territory contrary the repeated democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians.

There are a lot of other useful articles that could have written in time wasted on pushing this POV, and whatever spicy words are used the pinchito remains inedible. --Gibnews (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point it out, but dispute resolution is a non starter. You won't get everyone here to agree to it, so the mediation process won't work and this is about article content so ArbCom don't care. Narson (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Spanish colonists"? Such an absurd and biased way to describe the original inhabitants of Gibraltar is inappropriate for a serious forum like Wikipedia, with standards and policies, specially WP:NPOV. The original population of Gibraltar was local, not colonists. Colonists are those who occupied Gibraltar after the war and made the territory a Colony. The original Gibraltarians had to flee and resettle in a new town called San Roque, Cadiz fearing the plunder of the occupation forces in 1704.

Your comment about "whitewashing" is also out of line, as is your impertinent interpretation that I favour the Spanish position. Your accusation that I try to deny "absolute British sovereignty" is also unfounded. Your continous disruption of a serious academic debate, and your aggressive tone and comments are unacceptable. If there are no constructive suggestions by other editors to Points 3, 4 and 5 above, I will go ahead and make those changes. MEGV (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which version of point 3 and what the heck is point 5? Narson (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

MEGV, you ask for "constructive suggestions" (on what I assume are points 2-4 as we don't have a point 5). We've all made constructive comments before and more often than not you've ignored them and acted as though our points had never been made. You objected to "Spanish sovereignty" on the grounds that it repeated the word "sovereignty", even after two suggestions were made which would use that word once in the entire lead. You asked for a source on Gibnews' point on the circumstances behind the departure of the residents of the territory in 1704 even after Gibnews provided one. You already have my comments on all three points. They do not need repeating.

Now: if you edit the article against consensus to reflect your position, you can expect others to revert it back to the previous consensus position. This is how it works. Without consensus, you can't expect your edit to stand.

Other thing, please remember to assume good faith. Describing another editor's comments on a talk page as "disruption", for example, does not assume good faith. This is not the first time I've reminded you of this guideline. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Points 2,3 and 4; my mistake. You cannot say that I have "ignored" other editors' comments when we have come all this way in the discussion. First, I object to the word "sovereignty" because it has been used many times in the article, not just in that particular sentence. The text would be much richer if other terms and expressions were used. Why you repeatedly object to "hand over", "union", "integration", or other suggestions, I really do not know. It seems there is a political issue underneath, which there should not be. Second, I have looked here for the sources you say Gibnews quoted about the "murder of British soldiers" and I still cannot find them. Would you be so kind as to provide a new link and reproduce them here? Third, you say we have your comments on all 3 points and "they do not need repeating". Well, if no consensus has been reached I'm afraid you will need to repeat them, listen to those of other editors, and reassess them. That's how consensus is built: by listening, giving way, and assuming good faith like you say. If we are to move forward there needs to be more discussion. Fourth, I will not make any edits without a consensus. My offer to make those changes was subject to constructive opinions by other editors.

Finally, your reminder about assuming good faith is directed at the wrong editor. Please read my comment above more carefully. It is I who has been accused of "whitewashing" the article, favouring the "Spanish position" and denying "absolute British sovereignty" in Gibraltar. It is other editors who use an aggressive tone and vocabulary (somebody also mentioned pedantry) and who should be reminded about good faith and civility. There are certain policies in Wikipedia about false accusations and foul language. All this is out of line, as is the political tone of parts of this discussion. Regarding "disruption", the WP section on "Preventing Incivility" reads "Several policies and guidelines seek to lessen the disruption and drama caused by incivility" [22]. I trust we can now return to the academic discussion on the article. MEGV (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On AGF: you just said: Why you repeatedly object to "hand over", "union", "integration", or other suggestions, I really do not know. It seems there is a political issue underneath, which there should not be. That's not an assumption of good faith. An assumption of good faith is the assumption that we are all working for the good of the encyclopaedia. You appear to be assuming that we are just arguing for the sake of arguing or for political reasons. I, for one, am not.

A brief check of the previous discussion will reveal that these words were specifically objected to here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here at least - this doesn't include posts advocating "annexation" or "Spanish sovereignty" and most of these posts give reasons for our objections. You've just apparently failed to take in any of these comments. Putting that list together took less than five minutes - these objections are all on the talk page and in the history - suggesting that this is simply a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

On the source, you originally asked in the diff supplied for a source about "Gibraltarians murdering British soldiers or alike". The source Gibnews gave you earlier in the month in the diff I gave you is such a source. It is located in the second paragraph of the green bit at the top. It doesn't mention soldiers specifically, but how many English/Dutch tourists do you think there were in Gibraltar at the time?

Other thing: Wikipedia is not an academic forum or a debating society. It is an encyclopaedia. I have little interest in continuing what has become a long and circular argument, and there is little point in my repeating arguments that have been made repeatedly before and which still apply. Thus I don't intend to write out another long reply here. My objections previously stated stand, and if I didn't agree the first five times, I'm not likely to agree the sixth time. Pfainuk talk 11:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pfainuk, most of the "here" links that you provide refer to unreasonable or incomplete arguments against the perfectly neutral terms I suggested. Plus they contain an aggressive tone which is completely out of line according to the principle of civility. All this you miss or fail to understand.

For example, about "reintegration" (which I long ago agreed was not appropriate) the editor Gibnews replied here: "Spain bears 100% of the blame for the dispute over Gibraltar, because it continues despite there being no prospect of success. Yes its a very negative thing, and the sentence does not convey the disgust and shame that should attach to such a policy". The political and belligerant tone of this statement is unacceptable.

In the second quote you link to here editor Narson says about "annexation": "I'm sure a more acceptable word /could/ be found, just don't know what it is.". Indeed, and that is when I suggested here many other terms that exclude the concept of "return". For example: integration (not reintegration), or incorporation (not reincorporation). It is also then that I first said that "the discussion has been too political and many personal opinions have been thrown around". This comment has also been ignored, as no other editors (except JCRB) requested that the political tone be dropped. In any case I am still waiting for alternative suggestions for a "more acceptable word" beyond "sovereignty".

In your 4th "here" you say "Integration" and "re-integration" would be Spanish POV IMO, implying that Gibraltar is an unintegrated part of Spain, which it is not. Again, I countered this argument here by saying (at the bottom) that RE-integration could have a POV, but not "integration". I said "If "reintegration" has an element of Spanish point of view, maybe the best word is "integration". Later I asked you to show why integration (without the "REturn" impication) is a POV. You just said that my argument "sounded like WP:IDHT". That's all. Again, the discussion stopped there.

I will not go into all the other "here"s as this discussion has been long enough. The question is that 3 out of 4 points have not been solved, and I have been the last editor to post reasonable non-political arguments about them, which remain unanswered. The term "unanswered" includes references to previous arguments, which of course do need repeating or counter-explaining when they have been challenged. Finally, you make no comments about the examples of incivility which I quoted. You are free not to comment. But if a consensus is to be reached, this is more likely to happen in a civil and friendly context. I would appreciate your support in this sense. MEGV (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus would seem to be to leave the sentence 'as is' trying to promote a POV by repeating arguments at length is pointless. I have explained that 'Integration with Spain' is simply not an option for Gibraltar or the United Kingdom, and the present wording describes the unilateral desire to impose it well. Let us move on. --Gibnews (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Random Section Break For Ease of Use

Yes, some of us have asked that the political tone be dropped. It seems we have not advanced much in that direction. The question is not whether "integration is an option for Gibtraltar or the UK", that's political. Please refrain from making such statements. The question is whether "integration" is fit for the sentence as a substitute for "annexation". Somebody showed that the latter carries a negative implication. Personally I think "integration" is fine. The Ceuta article uses it in describing Morocco's claim to the city: "The government of Morocco has called for the integration of Ceuta and Melilla" [23].

Regarding the other issues, I agree with Megv's last suggestion for Point 3. As for the "terms of surrender" sentence (point 4), I suggest:

Terms of surrender were agreed upon, after which much of the population chose to leave, fearing ill treatment by the British and Dutch forces. Parts of the town were later plundered by the occupation forces and some British soldiers were murdered by the local inhabitants." (Please provide the relevant sources for all of the above)

If all editors agree we can now move on to other more productive issues. JCRB (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link to the Ceuta article. It seems that someone has already corrected the POV over there. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. On whether all editors agree to your (JCRB) proposed edits, I think it's abundantly clear that most here do not. Pfainuk talk 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I might as well give point 4 a go since I haven't dealt with it before. I would view your suggestion, JCRB, as the reversal of cause and effect. It implies that the murders happened because of the plundering after most people had left. Our sources do not back this up. Rather, it is clear that the inhabitants left following the murders, afraid of action taken against them (legal or otherwise).

The sources tell us:

• That Englishmen and Dutchmen were murdered by the inhabitants of Gibraltar (Gibnews' source). We can reasonably assume that these Englishmen & Dutchmen were soldiers.
• That many of the few inhabitants "wished or dared to remain" following this (Gibnews' source). This appears to suggest that they feared reprisals for said actions.
• That the town was plundered by occupying soldiers, "when the people left". (MEGV's source) This suggests that the plundering didn't happen until the departure was ongoing - and certainly not before the murdering.

I would thus view the following as a neutral, accurate and referenced representation of the sources we have on point 4 (and for the sections in brackets, I prefer the first version but will accept the second):

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). Parts of the town were then plundered by the (occupying/occupation) forces.

I'm not interested in the sort of "debate" that we've had before because that's a waste of all of our time. But note that I won't accept any version that implies that the plundering came before either the murdering or the departure, since the sources we have suggest the opposite - note that MEGV's source suggests that the townspeople were already leaving when the town was plundered. Pfainuk talk 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree with Pfainuk's suggestion for point 4. As to the sections in brackets I would see the following as most fit:

Terms of surrender were agreed upon, and much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers. Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.

--Gibmetal 77^talk 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for that, GibMetal/Pfain. I like the ones GibMetal chose, I don't think we should shy away from occupying forces. Narson (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

JCRB has a point about "integration" being used in the Ceuta article, even though someone has conveniently changed the term. Obviously that doesn't change anything. Regarding the Gibraltar population leaving the town because they feared the occupation forces, it is not clear whether they feared reprisals for the murder of some soldiers or the bad reputation British forces had at the time. We know that soldiers were murdered, that the town was plundered, and that most of the population abandoned their homes in fear. But we don't know that they left because they expected reprisals from the murders. We don't know chronologically what came first. The sentence should simply state the facts, and not imply cause-effect relationships between events (unless they can be proven). MEGV (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we don't know what the Spanish population of Gibraltar who ran away were afraid of the most, justice (which is what murderers get, not 'reprisals') Future military action by Spain and its allies, which later destroyed the buildings in the town, or that they took to opportunity to move to a more desirable area. Gibraltar was a Spanish penal colony with disease, water shortages etc. There already is a precedent of the population moving to San Roque to avoid disease. (see below) However the fact that they went marks the end of Spanish Gibraltar forever. --Gibnews (talk)

We do have a sourced chronological order here. Gibnews' source says that [m]any bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left (emphasis mine) citing the murders as an example. So the murdering came before the departure. Your source says that the plundering happened [t]hat day, when the people left [the town] - in other words, not before the departure, let alone the murdering. I think the text I suggested puts this across accurately.

Having another look, the only bit of that sentence that could be considered unsourced are the words fearing reprisals - which both of you have picked up on. As I said before, this came from Gibnews' source, since (based on that source) this seems to me to be a reasonable assumption. But I would not object if those words were removed from my previous suggestion if it will close this point. I don't think the change in POV level would be significant.

I note that my objections to JCRB's version stand unchallenged. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clear, the reprisals referred to were BY and not AGAINST the Spanish inhabitants. The source is William Jackson's book which cites Ayla (Spanish) and Hills (pro Spanish) I would object because it explains one reason they were keen to escape. --Gibnews (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what the source says - that's not the part of the source I feel backs up "fearing reprisals". Rather, I feel the end of the source backs it up - the point that few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain following the unrest. I consider "fearing reprisals" to be fairly strongly implied by this part.

My point though was that from my perspective those two words aren't a dealbreaker. I think "fearing justice" might stretch that source a little far, and you yourself said that there are several reasons why the locals may have wanted to leave Gibraltar at the time. Pfainuk talk 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the word "integration" from the Ceuta article is a cheap way of debating. JCRB (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By someone uninvolved in this discussion? From something irrelevent to the discussion anyway (Wikipedia articles are not guides for other wikipedia articles, the policies and guidelines are)? Y'know, for me, that does it and eats up my last AGF when you attack other editors uninvolved in the debate for correcting POV in other articles. You guy(s) are not listening, you are not being productive, so I'm done. Put in what we have agreed on, leave out what we havn't and lets be done with this. Narson (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No proposed edits have consensus or are ever likely to get it, so no change to the article. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed, any further discussion amounts to fillibustering --Gibnews (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed here too. It is now more than evident that this is just pointless POV pushing. Lets go with what the sources say. --Gibmetal 77^talk 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Colonists

The history of Gibraltar is one of successive invasions and colonisation by different groups, starting with the Neanderthals. The term Gibraltarian is a recent one which has begun to attract significance post WW2 with the emergence of a national identity and self Government, culminating with effective decolonisation under the 2006 Constitution.

• Gibraltar did not prosper under the Spanish Crown as it did under the Guzmans, it was far from popular as a place to live, and soldiers did not like it as a garrison. It became a penal settlement for Christians from the South of Spain and a prisoner of war camp for Moors. .. Hills P104

The recurring problem until modern times was the limited and typhoid bearing water supply. Indeed in 1649 a large group left the Rock for the area of San Roque to take refuge against disease. Of those who remained 25% perished.

It is convenient for the Spanish claim to Gibraltar to dismiss the Gibraltarians as mere 'colonists' neglecting to mention that Spain also colonised the territory. --Gibnews (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbary partridge and apes

The Barbary partridges is also present in Sardinia! Prolagus (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like some monkeys to go with them? --Gibnews (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other mammals found on The Rock include rabbits, foxes, dolphins and whales" Whales ON the rock? To me this means that they are not in the water, but on land, am i wrong? --86.52.89.246 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rock is an informal way of refering to the whole of Gibraltar. --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps on and around would be better? Narson (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would include Spain which isn't the case. using in Gibraltar rather than on The Rock is probably the way to go. --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could just say on and in the seas surrounding but yes, getting a tad long. Either way, not a huge concern, the odds of someone thinking that whales walking around Gib are minimal. Narson (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You would think, but it obviously confused this person... I'll change it to say Gibraltar as I said earlier. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it to something unambiguous. Whales are on occasion found on the beaches, and Wales are sometimes seen at Victoria Stadium. --Gibnews (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)