Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 9 October 2010

	Gibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:V0.5

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gibraltar Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. August 4, 2004, April 30, 2005, April 30, 2006, April 30, 2007, August 4, 2007, September 10, 2007, September 10, 2008, August 4, 2009, September 10, 2009, and August 4, 2010

Archives

2004 – March 2006 March 2006 - June 2006 June 2006 - July 2006 July 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - June 2007 June 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - December 2007 December 2007 - June 2008 July 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - November 2008 November 2008 - July 2009 July 2009 - August 2009 August 2009 - December 2009 December 2009 prior to RFC RFC to January 2010 RFC to February 2010 February 2010 onwards Further on

WP:UNDUE in the second paragraph of the introduction

Hi all, I don't want to be deeply involved in the edition of this article, as we've just left a quite traumatic arbitration case.

However, I'd like to get your comments about the second paragraph of the article. It starts by extensively quoting a report by a private organization focused on defense, geopolitics, transport and police issues (see its web site). I personally think we're giving undue height to it by mentioning it in the second paragraph of the article. However, regardless of that, don't you think that the last sentence of such a paragraph ("Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service.") should be in fact the first one? I mean, a neutral description on the degree of self government of the territory must be given more prominence that a report by a private organization with unknown impact and relevance. That way, the second paragraph would be that way:

Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.

Opinions? --Ecemaml (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your version is better. I think the reference to United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories should appear in this paragraph. Gibraltar has a internal self governing BUT UN think gibraltar should be decolonized. You are better with "diplomatic versions" and i think you could adapt this idea. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not in the business of discussing where the mention to the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories must be. Although not topic banned, I'd been admonished by the Arbitration Committee on the grounds of tendentious editting and therefore I don't want to be in a position that might lead to a similar situation (even if I don't think my editions are biased). Sorry --Ecemaml (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) PS: anyway, there is plenty of people in this talk page that might handle your suggestion

If i make this, in five minutes someone will undo this aclaration.If you are admonished, what is the neutral point of view? the point of view of elisabeth and caruana? lol. It´s imposible to found the word colony in the history of a crown colony,and it is imposible to add a reference about UN resolution or comitte Special Committee on Decolonization in the introducction of gibraltaron ( only 16 territories in all world´s are in the list). Thank for your attention.you are more neutral than the most of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, either. Most of the people involved in this discussion are quite balanced and neutral guys. Please, don't forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL --Ecemaml (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It´s a way to express my disagree ,it´s not real, but i always crashed against the royal guards and knights of british empire . It´s a very pro british article and all things i try to improve, always appear someone and say "you are difunding spanish propaganda, troll etc". Gibraltar was a crow colony and this was silenciate. Gibraltar is in the UN list and no talk about this in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please, assume good faith and avoid uncivil comments (such as those of the like "royal guards and knights of british empire"). --Ecemaml (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ecemaml. I appreciate that feelings are still sore here. That makes it all the more important for all of us to assume good faith, and keep all discussions tightly focused on improving the article.

The suggested rearrangement makes sense to me. However, I also find the lead too long in general and I would suggest a second paragraph that reads:

Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which estimates political, social, economic, external/military and security risks, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory.

Personally I'd be quite happy to have the first sentence only, I think that the second is lead bias though it may deserve mention later, but removing it from the lead may be a step too far for some editors.

I incline to think that the claim of ongoing colonial status should not be in the lead, although I realize that it is a notable claim (a truism to one group, a deep insult to another, but all the more notable for that) with many reliable sources that needs mention in the article. Perhaps we could have comments on the wording:

Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still widely regarded as a colony by Spanish commentators.(refs here)

and then discuss where in the article the result should go? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Richard,I think this sentence in the lead finish with the polemic and improve so much the neutral point of view.85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also i think in the history of gibraltar should talk about the period "crown colony" (cremallera proposed this before)85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I promise you that i will use the good faith and polite language in the future85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting in statements about Spanish commentators' views that Gibraltar is a colony. State the facts of the matter - where Gib has self government, where it does not, state the UN list, state the governments' views, then let the reader make up their own mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about stating an official Spanish point of view that it's a colony? I've just been reading a Foreign Ministry document that says so.

Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard; I was going to wrote exactly the same. It´s the official point of view, and politicians, mass media and normal spanish people usually refers to gibraltar "la colonia". This document it is a report (in spanish) of spanish foreign ministery and it talk about the colonial situation. ]85.136.157.123 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason whatsoever to go into vast amounts of detail about the different POVs on the dispute in the intro or indeed in this particular article. This is supposed to be an article about Gibraltar, not a coatrack article for the dispute. In this article, we should state the facts as neutrally as we can without descending into the epithets used by one side or the other. If in doubt, we should stick to official usage within the territory. The detail of the different positions on the dispute should go on Disputed status of Gibraltar, an article that could do with significant improvement.

There is, in my view, very little benefit in citing Jane's Country Risk in the lead. The lead is supposed to introduce the topic, but this information is not provided later on in the article. It is also not provided on equivalent articles on countries and territories. I would thus suggest we change the first two paragraphs to:

Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north.

Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. The territory has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base.

Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk here. His proposed intro is good. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pfainuk, the problem is that if you say "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government....", you should say that UN say "gibraltar is a non self governing territory" and spain support the version UN. The other way you can induce an erroneous idea in an uninformed person.I think Richard´s idea is correct.85.136.157.123 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see neither need nor benefit in going into large amounts of detail about the dispute in the lead, as you propose. Indeed, we shouldn't be going into large amounts of detail about the dispute in this article. This article should be dealing with fact, not the arguments made on either side of the dispute: that's what Disputed status of Gibraltar is for. Pfainuk talk 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It´s only a short sentence. With this short sentence in the lead an uninformed person will look in disputed status of gibraltar. If you dont say this, the people dont know to exist problems.

Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)

It´s only the reason of the disputed status85.136.157.123 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't think that people are going to go on to read the very next paragraph, which notes the existence of the dispute? I'm afraid we have to work on the assumption that our readers are actually going to read the article. Which means that there is no need to put every little detail of the dispute in the lead (and that would be the case, incidentally even if your suggestion wasn't strongly POV, which it is). We have an article on the dispute. This is an article on Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A neutral point of view should talk about both points of view. If only talk about internal self governing, the people will not know that gibraltar is a colony in spain. I think the best polite and neutral way to express this,it is the richard´s sentence. In the history of gibraltar no appear the words "crown colony"" or in the lead only appear "self governing territory" when the united nations say that gibraltar is a "non self governing territory". I am writing this becouse i think this aclaration improve the encyclopedia.I don´t think that to say the spanish goverment consider gibraltar a colony and a reference about UN list is a personal view of point. A personal view of point is silence other points of view 85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the main article,the reference number 6, it´s a failled document "informe sobre la cuestion de gibraltar" of spanish foreign ministery. The correct direction is the pdf document that i said and appear with number 20 in this section.I dont sure the way to correct this. could someone to repare the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To sum up

Well, I think that many things are being mixed. Thus, we'd better settle them down one by one.

With regard to the movement of the mention of the Jane Group report, there seems to be a consensus on its removal from the beginning of the second paragraph. Pfainuk even suggests that it should be removed from such a paragraph (I agree with him). Where should it be included?

With regard to the mention to the "colony", my personal opinion is that the status of Gibraltar as Crown colony should be mentioned either in the history or the politics section. With regard to the Spanish POV with regard to this, I don't consider it being necessary in the introduction at all (although Richard's suggestion seems sensible anyway). After all, such an issue belongs to the dispute on sovereignty and that is already mentioned in the introduction. If a description on how the Spanish media and government mention Gibraltar is wished, its place is Disputed status of Gibraltar.

Finally, with regard to the mention to the UN list, I didn't want to enter in this discussion, but after all... I think that a mention to its permanence in the list might be added after the description of the self-government. It may be complemented with the POV of the Gibraltar and UK governements (of the like "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. However, both the governments of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has requested to the C24 that Gibraltar should be pulled out of the list"

My €0.02. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. Jane's list should just go, I think.
2. Gibraltar has not been a "Crown colony" since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force in 1983, renaming all Crown colonies British Dependent Territories.
3. UN list is fine where it is in the politics section - no need to move to the intro.

Finally, this article could be improved in a multitude of ways instead of continually going on about the Spain v Britain thing. Its main problem is that its an assorted jumble of information and a chore to read from top to bottom (try it). That climate section is about as enjoyable as eating cardboard. How about we concentrate on improving the article as a whole? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Red Hat. The lead section currently has a threefold structure. I'd just get rid of the second paragraph which deals both with the "almost complete internal self-government" status of Gibraltar, "the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" which is awkward and not-really-vital information to stay in the lede (moreover when the same wording can be found below in the 'politics section'); and the Jane's Country Risk Ratings, which just looks like fanservice to me. From my perspective, this wording is likely to be more encyclopaedic:

• Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory itself is a 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) peninsula whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar constitutes the major landmark of the area and gives its name to the densely populated town, home to almost 30.000 Gibraltarians.
  Formerly a Crown Colony, the enclave has historically been an important base for the Royal Navy, although the budgetary weight of the military facilities has diminished significantly for the last decades in favor of an Offshore Financial Centre, tourism and service sector, and the supply of shipping fuel.
  The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. It was ceded by the Crown of Spain to the Crown of Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.

With WP:lede in mind (that is few paragraphs, not a teaser, defining the topic and context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarizing the most important points—including any notable controversies), this locates the place broadly, briefly explains the international situation, recent history and mentions relevant data (in my opinion) such as population, main economic activities, landmarks... What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. About Jane´s list, the best is Pfainuk´s version
2. In the history of gibraltar should talk about the period "crown colony"
3. About the richard´s suggestion, i think should appear after "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service". This way permit to contrast in the diferents POV (British,UN and Spanish goverment) and will be more neutral.
4. Also, the Richard´s suggestion shows why the subject is interesting or notable,the context and it summarice one of the most important points—including any notable controversy.
5. The point of view of spanish politicians ( moratinos called colony to gibraltar ] , Cospedal said "gibraltar is a colony that shouldn´t exist" ])and mass media, nationalist movements etc, should appear in disputed status of gibraltar

Best regards150.214.9.254 (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a user subpage at User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar, which contains my current draft of the lead, and then various chunks of text which have been removed from the lead or suggested for the rest of the article. Before I make any bold changes, I'll leave this up for comments for a day or two. If anyone else is feeling bolder than I am, go for it.

As Red Hat points out, there are several indefensible items in the article, for example the second paragraph on Climate. Repetitive and unreadable. I might abbreviate them today. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to your proposal. We don't go on about any other BOT being "ormerly a Crown Colony" in the lede, and there seems no benefit in doing it here - particularly given how offensive Gibraltarians find the suggestion that they live in a colony. Your source for "offshore financial centre" is ten years out of date and would not back up the point made (that offshore financial services make up a large and increasing sector of the Gibraltar economy) even if it were current. You cite the Spanish government document arguing the Spanish case as though it were neutral and reliable. You give the Spanish view of the Spanish claim, without giving corresponding views from Britain or Gibraltar. In short, I find your text to be strongly POV and thus object to its inclusion in the article. Pfainuk talk 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, the british POV is "self governing territory" but the point of view of spain and UN is that gibraltar is a colony.Spain say "la colonia" and UN "Non self governing territory" (It´s the same). If you want to be neutral you should show both points of view. You say that for gibraltarian to be a colony is offensive... Untill 1981 they were so happy with their "officially" colonial status (no tax and bussiness derivated, More patriotics than all england,for example). Also, you should understand for spaniards who read here is offensive to read the wonderful place is gibraltar and not found a word about the colonial situation. If you think is a self governing territory, ok, but spain, UN and the most of spaniard think that gibraltar is a colony. I support the Richard´s version.85.136.157.123 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BOTs being previously known as Crown Colonies is a fact for the BOT page. It has no virtue other than to further a POV here. On the old Self Governing vs Non-selfgoverning debate, it is worth noting both POVs, that the UK describes it as self governing but the spanish disagree pointing to its presence on the UN non-self governing lists. Though can we please stop describing the view of a subcommittee as the view of the UN as a whole? It is merely the view of those on that panel. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As a point of interest, if you take a tour (like I did a couple of years ago) of the UN HQ in Manhattan, along one of the corridors leading to the halls where the various bodies like the SC and GA meet, your tour guide will pause at an enormous map showing the non-decolonized territories around the world (downloadable in PDF format from the UN website). It's not like this is an offshoot of the UN that has come up with this list which the rest of the UN does not endorse. This is a UN list. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the map I'm talking about. It's an exact copy of the one on display in the UN building. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The UN and Spanish positions are not the same. The UN included Gibraltar as a colony during the post-war de-colonization process, which stated that colonies had self-determination and should become either independent or affiliated states or absorbed into the colonial country. Spain however holds that Gibraltar is part of Spain that has been colonized and therefore should be absorbed into Spain based on the Treaty of Utrecht 1713. They reject the right of self-determination (and even residence) for the citizens of Gibraltar, and would likely annex Gibraltar if they achieved independence. TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m not agree with you, The UN say the same that spain, Gibraltar should be de-colanizated and returns to Spain. The Comittee against colonization diferenciate between territories where there arent a claim of soveraignity and there is a claim. In this document ] pages 9-14, spanish foreign ministery talk about the UN resolutions and gibraltar. The final points of UN Points of view are:

1. Gibraltar is a colony
2. The colony of Gibraltar destroy national unity and territorial integrity Spain and is in contradiction with Resolution 1514 (XV), paragraph 6, 1960 decolonization in general. Gibraltar and the Falklands are the only cases in which the UN has not recognized the right to self-determination
3. The Gibraltar issue must be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Spain and the UK, recommended by UN continuously since 1964
4. In the negotiations must take into account the interests and aspirations the population of the colony.
5. The decolonization process is different in those cases where, as in Gibraltar, there is a sovereignty dispute. In the case of Gibraltar, the existence of a dispute over sovereignty is an exception to principle that, in the process of decolonization of the dependents, there is no alternative to self-determination.
6. Only the UN can decide when it has completed the process of decolonization of Gibraltar and to date, Gibraltar will be included in the United Nations list of dependent territories

I have used a automatic translator for the final points .Inside the document came the exactly the numbers of resolutions. It´s a spanish document and I´m sure that foreign office is not agree with some afirmations but the UN Special comitee support spain in the claim of gibraltar. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor, dos cosas: first of all, please register. It is helpful! Secondly: let's try to follow a structured discussion. The purpose of this talk page section is to discuss the lead section. In order to an analyse UN resolutions and/or the 'colonial status of Gibraltar', we should create another because they are different issues and deserve distinct attentions (or none at all).

To Pfainuk: I've been reading the Hong Kong article lately and it does mention the former colonial situation of the territories in the lead section. The information is not really groundbreaking, but of course that's just my perception of the issue and you are very entitled to think otherwise. Personally I do think that Gibraltar being a former Crown Colony is really notable data, the kind lead-ins are usually made of; however I have no strong opinion on whether this should be mentioned in the lead or in the part devoted to history.
Finally, concerning the Offshore Finance Centre: you are right. The source provided is not actualised, but its no secret that gibraltarian officials pursue "the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre" and that this represents a significant portion of the BOT's economy. More references here (some of them fairly recent).

With all that said, I am perfectly content with the current draft in Richard's userpage.

Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cremallera, i have commented my thougs about the lead and history of gibraltar. I only was describing the position of UN and Spain becouse other editor say that the positions was differents.And i agree with you in other point... i´m going to have to register.85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I remind everyone strongly that we are here to document disagreements and not to join in. Pfainuk, I accept your comment about former colonial status not being something that would normally go in a lead, and I have removed it. Some mention will be appropriate later in the article. 85.136.157.123, both sides of the controversy are briefly documented in the body of the article, as they should be.

I remind everyone to avoid any inflammatory language - such as complaints that documented facts are offensive. They may be, but offensiveness is not a reason to exclude them here. Gibraltar is - with some slight reservations - self-governing, stable, and prosperous, and this should be mentioned. I rather liked using the official Spanish site for the sources of Gibraltar's prosperity in recent decades - not years by the way. Although their views are not mine, they do a good professional job and could give some Misplaced Pages editors lessons on WP:Writing for the enemy. More and better references would of course be welcome; thanks in advance. Narson, could you provide a really definitive reference for the status of the UN committee's pronouncements? Is it the official UN view, as I suppose at present, or just an official view? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,i´m the anonymous editor and i used the link of cremallera . It was easier than i though.Verboom (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the link provided, Spain considers that Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, dealing with non-self-governing territories has been amended by United Nations General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960, 2353 (XXII) 19 December 1967 and 2429 (XXIII) 18 December 1968. First, UN resolutions, unlike the Charter, are non-binding (and may even contradict one another). Second, the resolutions do not state that Gibraltar is part of Spain. Third, you need to show that the Spanish interpretation of the status of Gibraltar is accepted in international law. It may well be that Gibraltar is an indivisible part of Spain and must be returned, but that has not been adjudicated and there is no binding treaty. TFD (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m not lawyer,but i think the resolutions are clear 1 gibraltar is a colony, 2 spain and great britain should finish colonial situation talking, 3 the national integrity cannot be destroyed by de-colonization proccess. Finally, if resolutions were accepted by all countries, the issue of gibraltar was finished in 60´s.Verboom (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding on UN members, and any state is free to ignore them. I'd also note that the Spanish government does actually accept British sovereignty over Gibraltar (per the PDF that's been cited several times now), based on the 1713 cession. They dispute the border and the extent of British sovereignty, but they do not dispute the fact of British sovereignty. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) General comments here:

To Verboom, if Spain says that the UN agrees with them, that does not mean that the UN shares that view. As per TFD above, the UN position is not, in fact, that Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain.

To Cremallera: your cite to a Gibraltar website does not back up the claim that offshore financial services form a large and increasing part of the Gibraltar economy. I haven't looked through all the IMF documents because they're quite long - but from their titles it seems unlikely that they will back it up either. I note in particular that they all predate the Financial Crisis, an event likely to have had a significant impact on the Gibraltar finance industry. A source from 2009 or 2010 would be far better IMO. If people want this, could they please give a recent and reliable source for it.

To Richard: I appreciate that offensiveness is not, in and of itself, a reason not to include things. But at the same time I do feel that we ought to be careful with potentially offensive language, only using it where it is actually necessary. Since it has been removed, it's no longer an issue. I do not have a strong issue with using the words "Crown Colony" in reference to Gibraltar pre-1981 in the article, beyond a general feeling that this article is already far too long and making it even more bloated would seem to be a bad idea.

Finally a general point. I agree with Red Hat in his post of 00:17, 14 May. There are plenty of ways this article could be improved without going over and over with the dispute. It may be a good idea to do that: following recent events I think it would be a good idea to build up some good faith by working together on other parts of this article. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, Don´t exist a resolution that say "gibraltar should return to spain". Exist a lot of resolutions that say "gibraltar is a colony who should be decolonizated with the agree of spain and UK and the self determination is not valid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verboom (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough:

• The Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs): IMF Staff Assessments page, updated last 23 October 2008, actually includes Gibraltar.
• The Final report of the independent Review of British offshore financial centres for HM treasury, published October 2009, includes Gibraltar as well.
• Both Investmentinternational and Hedgeweek describe Gibraltar as such. Cremallera (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the current version in Richard's subpage:

• I agree that Jane's report should go. I have not seen one article in WP mentioning that report in the lede.
• The line about economics seems about right to me:

• The UK FCO mentions offshore banking several times, one of them as "fundamental in generating income and providing new jobs". It you look, it also considers "internet gaming" as one of the four main sectors (it is not in Richard's version). One language question: could "bunkering" be a shorter expression for "supply of shipping fuel"?
• The CIA also mentions offshore banking

• The former crown colony status should be mentioned. I would prefer it in the lede (as many people don't know what a BOT is) but, if it is going to a problem to have it there, it can be mentioned in the History or Politics section.
• The sovereignty dispute surely is notable enough to be in the lede. I think Richard's line about the issue is good enough and seemingly acceptable to all editors. It already includes Spain's and UK's POV. If any improvement can be suggested (unless it breaks consensus) I would suggest including Gib's and the UN's POV.
• All POVs (Spain, Gib, UK, and the UN) about Gib's self-governing/colony status should be equally mentioned in the same place, but it does not necessarily have to be the lede.

That's all. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Gibraltar is still consider as a colony by special UN comitee and Spanish goverments.

Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments reject this view." It´s better becouse it remark the "oficially" POV, What dou you think?

And the place in article, i think is better in lead becouse it give a general idea about status problem.

best regards Verboom (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• For people who don't know what a BOT is, it is wikilinked.
• Why would be feature non-self governing first? A country's self identification should come first and any disagreements after.
• No problem with offshore banking going in the article, but in the lede? Does the Icelandic article mention its primary exports are Bjork, Lazy Town and Fish in its lede?
• My point about the UN above was that the position on the list is detirmined by the recommedation of the Committee of 24 rather than being a free choice of the assembly/UNSC, and that the UN has a stated POV (And I would like to thank Imal for acknowledging that the UN itself has a POV and a agenda on this and isn't the arbiter of NPOV) --Narson ~ Talk • 09:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Narson, I made a major edit before your comment immediately above. I take your point, and I'd suggest inserting references, probably not article text, that make clear the exact status of the UN resolution. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of minor points; "bunkering" is definitely shorter than "supply of shipping fuel" but I hadn't seen or heard it before and had to guess the meaning from context. It seems to be a technical term and I think is best omitted from a general article in an encyclopedia.

I have left out internet gaming, as its brief period seems to be ending. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly made some fairly major changes to the article, per discussions above. The lead is shorter and, I think, now rather good. The words "self-government" and "colony" do not appear in the lead although the dispute is prominently mentioned. Both are treated briefly in the Politics section, which I have put into approximate chronological and thematic order, with a few edits for clarity and brevity. I really, really hope that this is a stepping stone on the way to a more stable account that will enable all editors to concentrate on improving the article to Good or even Featured status. I don't think that we will make any progress in that direction while reasonable editors feel strongly that important points of view are not fairly represented. But maybe I'm wrong, in which case I've just wasted another couple of hours. Even if I'm right there are doubtless improvements to be made. Anyway, comments are welcome! Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still haven't cited your claim that financial services are a large and growing sector of the Gibraltar economy. A ten-year-old cite that doesn't make that claim simply won't do. Nor, indeed, will any other cite that doesn't make the claim in question. I have now found some suitable sources and rewritten that part to reflect them. I have also added the Gibraltarians' POV to balance out the Spanish POV that Gibraltar should be handed over. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Economy line: Iceland's Bjork and Lazy Town are not mentioned by the CIA or the UK FCO, but Fish is. In the case of Gibraltar, internet gaming is mentioned as one of the four main sectors (together with financial services), and offshore financing is called "fundamental". Even the GoG talks about "the need for the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre". To be honest, I believe that Gibraltarians have been very intelligent to take that approach in order to bring business in; I don't think Gibraltar is a very active "City" for M&As, stocktrading, etc. So let's call it for what it is (and what the UK FCO, the GoG and the CIA call it): offshore financing. And let's also include internet gaming together with tourism and oil shipping/bunkering, if you think it's alright.

Regarding the "former" or "current" colony status, I think it could be relevant for the lede, but I'd not get stuck with it and move on with Richard's current proposal.

Finally, regarding the UN and Gib POV on the sovereignty dispute (thanks Narson!), what do you think about including them in the lede together with GB's and Spain's? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't see Richard's comment about internet gaming, so maybe my previous comment is wrong. What do you mean with the brief period coming to an end? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, thanks for the FCO reference. It seems recent and reliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see need or benefit in going into the precise details of the financial services offered in Gibraltar in the lede. It is enough to say that it is financial services. The lede is supposed to be a brief introduction, with only limited detail. I also see no reason at all to get into "colony" in the lede - as Narson has said before it belongs on British Overseas Territory. Here, it would serve no purpose there other than to further a POV, which is unacceptable. On Internet gambling, I don't know the current state of the industry, beyond the fact that the CEOs of online gambling firms aren't able to go to the US for fear of arrest - but that's been the case for a few years now. But I think it's better off in the economy section.

Richard's version of the sovereignty dispute only put Spain's POV, excluding all others. I have added the Gibraltar POV, but think that the sentence would be better off with the British POV. I do not see any need for the C24's POV because the C24 do not play a clear and active role in the dispute. Similarly, I see no need to put the US POV, the Chinese POV or the Argentine POV. Pfainuk talk 14:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Crown colony" in the politics section

I'm not keen on this sentence at all - "Gibraltar was ruled directly by the British Governor from 1704, and was described formally as a Crown colony from 1830 until 1983." This is the politics section. Politics sections describe the politics of the country as they are now. For example, see Angola or Belize, two countries that were until relatively recently also European colonies. This information should be in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed: this was one of Richard's changes this morning. Given the objection, I think it fair to remove it and ask for its suitability in this section to be discussed. Pfainuk talk 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the point. Is there any objection to it going in the History section? Perhaps at the end of the second paragraph? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

None from me, if you write "was a cc" rather than "was described formally as a cc". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "the second paragraph", since that appears to be discussing the Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Romans. I would not object to its going in the British period section, provided we also mention the later statuses as well (British Dependent Territory, British Overseas Territory). Pfainuk talk 16:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, British period section. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's now in the British period section of history. Pfainuk, you might want to put in a brief remark about later BDT and BOT status? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

The following are areas where I think we can immediately improve the article.

1. There are too many pictures which means the article does not follow the WP:MOS.
2. The history section too long, particularly "recent history", much of which is too recent to be considered "history", and frankly not really very notable (e.g. the one-off 2009 public holiday)
3. Climate section: do we really need to know the average morning humidity?
4. Why does the one-off tercentenary have its own subsection in the culture section?
5. Military - I've said this before, but the attempted IRA bombing has way too much airtime. What does it have to do with Gibraltar that the inquest ruled the SAS's action was lawful, or the breakdown of the voting? There should be a one sentence mention of the bombing in the history section, with a link to the article on this subject.

Would there be any objections if I went ahead and tackled these? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. I note that my edit to the Climate section has been reverted, so there are others who may disagree, and I'd maybe give two sentences to the IRA business. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I tackled some of these, performing each as an individual edit so I hope noone will come along and revert the whole lot if they have a problem with just one of them. Also please note that when you edit the article you get the message "This page is XX kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles". We should be heeding that advice... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the UN and the UK POV about sovereignty should also be included in the lead:

Note: I'm sure that the UN's position is very notable, although -from the UK's and Gib's POV- very controversial. The last sentence reflects what seems to be the UN's last POV about the controversy and is directly related to one of the referenda mentioned in the current lede (it is from a resolution quite a few years old, so in case I'm wrong I'll accept any sources proving otherwise). In any case, the word "colonial" should be edited or formatted so that it is clear that it is not a fact assumed by WP, but only the POV of the UN (I'm not sure how to do it so some suggestions would be welcome). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about putting these viewpoints in the lead, Imalbornoz. The lead should summarise the article. As it stands, the lead mentions that there is a disagreement over sovereignty. It links to the main article on this, and the reader can read more about it in the body. Let's not get fixated over the lead. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try not to get fixated on it, but the truth is that the "dispute" is one of the most notable things about Gibraltar (look at the proportion of news, papers, reports about the dispute and about other things...) Looking at my text again maybe that wording is not such a good idea (I wasn't too sure of mentioning the word "colonial" in the first place). Anyway, I think that the UK and the UN POV should be very briefly mentioned, together with Spain's and Gibraltar's, and as uncontroversially as possible. I wouldn't want to propose a text that can be described as "one sided", so please tell me if you think if following text is neutral:

Don't want to get tiresome, but I really think the UK's and UN's POV should be included in this very notable issue. What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the UN's position should have a place in this article, let alone the lede. This is not an article about the dispute, it is an article about Gibraltar in general. The fact that newspaper coverage often deals with the dispute does not change the fact that there is a hell of a lot more to Gibraltar than simply a sovereignty dispute. We are at serious risk of making this article a WP:COATRACK article for the dispute: whereby this is in theory an article about Gibraltar as a whole but in practice nothing more than a content fork of Disputed status of Gibraltar.

Unless the UN's position has had clear practical effects on Gibraltar, it should not be included in this article - any more than the American, Canadian, Greek or Argentine positions. Instead, it and all of these other points that people insist are vital but that are only relevant in the context of the dispute, should be left out of this article and instead put in the main article about the dispute: Disputed status of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity (since I see it's open to misinterpretation), by the "UN position" I mean the GA resolutions (which you seek to include in the lede). I don't have a problem with some mention of the C24 list being included in the Politics section of the article (though I do have a problem with its going in the lede). Pfainuk talk 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the article needing a trim in order for it to perform its purpose as an overview article. However, can I kindly ask all editors to check if the information they're removing from this article is available in another? If it isn't, I believe it should be added to a relevant article rather than losing it altogether. --Gibmetal 77 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure - sorry I agree I should have done that. I promise to do this tomorrow with the information that I have trimmed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done Red Hat for lots of good work. Per Gibmetal I'd encourage you to find homes for the fairly large amount of good material that has to go in order to trim the article to MoS length. Imalbornoz, I'd see the "colonial" epithet as part of the dispute, and not something that can be neatly summarized in the lead. The dispute certainly needs mention in the lead but I'd suggest "colony" in the body, as we now have it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Information about the dispute should go, first and foremost, in the article about the dispute. Only if it is particularly pertinent to Gibraltar in general - if it has some actual practical effect on Gibraltar - should it go in this article. Even with Red Hat's changes the article is still far too long, and I don't see much benefit in making it even longer by putting every detail of a subject that we already have a separate dedicated article for. Pfainuk talk 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Richard and Pfainuk, though I think it's fine to continue to mention the list in the politics section. There are plenty of other things we could be putting in the lead that are very notable. the fact that it's location is very strategic, for example, more on the very famous rock itself, the very famous barbary apes, or the fact that almost the entire civilian population was evacuated during WW2. Imalbornoz - sometimes you have to ask yourself, for whose benefit do you want to add this information - yours or the reader's? Assume that the reader will be reading the whole article top to bottom, then ask - if the issue is briefly summarized in the lead and expanded on in the body, or even linked to in another article, why is it so important to get into the lead here?The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree about the word "colonial" in the lead, on second thought it was too controversial and not necessary. Red Hat, it wasn't me I was thinking of, but of the many readers who probably come to the Gib article looking for info on the dispute (that's the main reason why I came here the first time, for example). Pfainuk, Red Hat and Richard, having it in the lead is not so fundamental, as long as 1) the lead is not misguiding (which I think it isn't) and 2) it is easy to find further info in the article (which I think can be improved right now). To make it short: OK, let's leave the lead alone and make sure there's enough NPOV overview info further down in the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that would really help, as it would take too long to write what's been removed and find all the relevant citations. Remember if you can't find an existing article to include this info in, it may be a good idea to start one of the articles in the WikiProject's to-do list. --Gibmetal 77 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is disproportionately large and needs a bit of a hacksaw job on it. Are people OK if I get my hedge trimmers out, ensuring that History of Gibraltar contains all the excised info? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. It needs shortening. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK - took a first stab at it. Things can be shortened further but better to see what everyone thinks so far. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed, Red Hat. I have corrected a minor typo and with extreme boldness - over six months after I first thought I'd make a brief but considered comment, at the request of a stranger, on a town and an issue I'd never heard of - re-inserted mention of San Roque as the destination of most of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, it's true, and it's mentioned by historians ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article. I will also add my personal comment, which is that the fact is also important to people who want to understand what the arguments on either side actually are. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that bold move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the bold move and with the trimming. Maybe I was wrong to put too much emphasis on the dispute in the lead. On the other hand, I'm sure that the dispute is important and notable enough to have a very brief and very neutral section or subsection in the body of the article (summarising the 3 or 4 main facts and POVs on the dispute and redirecting to the main articles dealing with the dispute). The resolutions of the UN about Gibraltar should be mentioned either in the History section or in the new "Dispute" section. See Israel, Cyprus or Western Sahara for example: they have several mentions of UN resolutions in the body of the article. Also, they have a History or Politics subsection about the conflicts, which mentions several main articles (e.g.: List of UN resolutions, several conflicts, positions on Jerusalem...) I insist: this section should be very brief and very neutral (this last thing means -among other things- that I'd rather have consensus before being too bold). What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A brief dispute section could be a good idea - I would support it if there is consensus for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I support a reference about the dispute in the lead becouse in my opinion is a important fact. Best regards Verboom (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways of addressing this. Either put in the more notable facts in approximate chronological order, as we now have them. Or write a separate section, presumably using most of the facts and removing them from elsewhere. Either seems fine to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Having a section on the dispute is sensible. It's not only a notable issue (you can see the large amount of books devoted to the issue) but, in a purely empiric way, you may simply verify the number of readers of Disputed status of Gibraltar. You'll see that it's one of the most visited articles in the "Gibraltar space". --Ecemaml (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The interest of the public is not a great barometre of inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, which is the barometre then? --Ecemaml (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also those hits don't exclude the editors themselves. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but you can compare the number of viewer in, let's say, March (here) and the history of the article (12 editions in March). --Ecemaml (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see much need for a new section for the dispute. I don't see significant benefit over simply noting the relevant parts of the dispute in relevant parts of this article as and when the need arises (as we do now). This article is already too long, and I feel that we should be thinking of cutting it down, not adding new sections. Our time would be better spent improving Disputed status of Gibraltar, to give it some actual structure and make it into a usable article. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk in that we need to be looking at improving the quality of the Gibraltar-related articles (such as that on the dispute) rather than just making this article a higgeldy-piggeldy summary of all others. --Gibmetal 77 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To that end, what other sections can we shorten? I think the economy one definitely can. There is way too much on that new project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above, I understand (RHPF) your excision of the interesting (albeit uncited) Military subsection on conscription. Then I was unable to find the material in History of Gibraltar. Maybe it's just the way you work. M'self, I'd do the restoration edit (and look for a citation) ahead of making the deletion. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was, as you say, without any source, and it was added very recently. It also struck me as rather trivia-esque. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Flavius and Radical Rehaul of the History Section

The more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to see this as being important enough to include in a potted history of Gibraltar. It's an extra paragraph in a subsection that is already disproportionately long (50% of the history section is devoted to the last 60 years) in a section that is disproportionately long in the article as a whole. I suggest we remove it entirely - it still gets coverage in History of Gibraltar. What are people's thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What do people think of this radical rehaul of the history section? .

1. It's of a length comparable to other sections.
2. Voting results to two decimal places is a bit excessive - you can click on links if you want to read more.
3. Each "era" of history roughly gets the same paragraph size.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm close to the point of saying that we should just remove the section and replacing it with a link to the history article. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We all seem to be getting along very well here and tackling the article problems together. It's great if you want to be part of that, but if not, in the interests of maintaining the new-found collaborative atmosphere, may I ask that you only post constructive comments here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was a serious suggestion, so you can cut out the holier than thou thing. It doesn't suit you - it definitely doesn't fit. If we do not have the space, sometimes it is better to send people to the full history article, as what remains becomes of little use and it frees up bytes. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding your intent, Narson. It's the norm for these country/territory articles to have a small history section, so I don't think we need to go so far as to remove the section entirely. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me pretty good. I have corrected a couple of typos. Also, there's probably some information that can be added/modified by several editors. Some proposed changes:

• trying to put myself in a Gibraltarian's shoes, the last sentence feels a bit too much like a happy ending (with the Spaniards retiring sanctions) when only some practical issues have been dealt with and all sides (not only Spain) have given way; I think it would sound more objective if it just said that "A process of tripartite negotiations started in 2006 between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK, ending some restrictions and dealing with disputes in some specific areas such as air movements, customs procedures, telecommunications, pensions and cultural exchange. ."
• I think that the UN resolutions at the end of the 60s should be briefly mentioned together with the UK's, Gibraltar's and Spain's position. The UN was a very important player in that crisis and all books about that episode mention the UN resolutions: "In the 1950s, Franco renewed Spain's claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and restricted movement between Gibraltar and Spain. In 1964 the UN requested the UK and Spain to undertake formal negotiations. During the process, Gibraltarians rejected Spain's proposals and voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in a 1967 referendum. The UN General Assembly criticised the referendum and invited the Governments of Spain and the UK to resume negotiations, without success: Gibraltar and the UK approved the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order and Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar severing all communication links."

Maybe the language has to be improved, but I think this important episode has all the important facts this way, leaving all detail to other articles. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over my proposal, Imalbornoz. I agree it seems like a happy ending the way I've worded it. Another solution could be to add (briefly) what the outstanding restrictions are? (What are they?) On your second point, though, I don't agree we need to mention the UN here, because again it's TMI ("too much information"), and better mentioned at the "dispute" and "history" articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what restrictions are left. What I mean is that the tripartite talks have not only been about restrictions and not only Spain has given way (e.g. the UK has agreed to increase pensions to the Spanish workers who had to leave after the closure of the fence, Gibraltar has accepted a Cervantes Institute...). I think we don't need to go into the details of which restrictions have been retired, that's why I propose to just mention the areas of negotiation.

Regarding the UN, I understand that too much detail is not good and I think you have done a very good job trimming the History section. Therefore, I agree that the UN participation in Gibraltar's history should not be explained in detail. On the other hand, I see that its resolutions are mentioned in many other articles about countries with territorial disputes:

• Israel UN gets 7 mentions, UN resolutions get 5. BTW this is a featured article (in spite of the very contentious issues it deals with)
• Western Sahara: UN 14 mentions, resolutions 3
• Cyprus: UN 5 mentions, resolutions 1

There are (at least) 3 specific UN resolutions, a specific UN list, and a Committee dealing with Gib every year. So, I can't see why the UN are only mentioned once and the expression "UN resolution" is not even mentioned... That's what I think, I'd like to know what other people think (I admit that the UN resolutions are not too nice for Gibraltar and may be contentious here). If I find out I am the only one to think that (or only Spaniards seem to support this), then maybe I am wrong... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat, there are outstanding restrictions such as those at the frontier where Spain agreed to implement two green channels as are used on the Gibraltar side to ease traffic flow, but to date have only done so sporadiccally. However, I agree with Imalbornnoz in that this would be too much information for the "new" Gibraltar article and mentioning the areas of negotiation should suffice. Similarly I believe that mentioning of the specific UN resolutions would be too much info for this article. We could perhaps explore the possibility of mentioning that the UN GA have passed various resolutions on Gibraltar whivh have had no/negligible effect in the territory? --Gibmetal 77 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Imalbornoz, if you have references for the info you provided above in relation to the Trialateral Forum, why not jot them down so we can start an article on Trilateral Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar?

I don't think we need them. They have not had any practical effect on Gibraltar itself and do not form a particularly significant part of the dispute. This is unlike the three situations you cite, where the UN resolutions cited have generally had a significant effect on the disputes concerned. Note in particular that most of the resolutions cited in those three articles are UN Security Council resolutions, which are part of international law and are binding on UN member states. The resolutions we're discussing here are UN General Assembly resolutions, which are not part of international law and which UN member states are free to ignore if they wish. The resolutions should absolutely be mentioned at Disputed status of Gibraltar. But I don't think they belong here. Pfainuk talk 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We can't refer to the 1967 referendum without mentioning the prior UN resolutions which are its background. But a simple mention and a wikilink should suffice. On the following phrase: "After three days of violence on the part of the invaders and reprisal attacks by the townspeople", I think that the accurate representation of soldiers plundering the town and the civilian population defending themselves should include the word 'sacking'. Perhaps it ain't nice, but it's neutral and correct. Other than that, I think that this edition its a further step in the good direction.

Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can meet in the middle on the UN resolutions - one sentence prior to the referendum sentence? Re "sacking", what verbs do the sources use? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat, yes, I'm sure we can find a very brief way to mention it.

Cremallera, I agree that the crisis in the 60s (referendum and all) cannot be explained without the role of the UN.

Pfainuk, I've quickly checked it (before going to bed) and the first two resolutions mentioned in the Israel article are from the GA. One is about the creation of the State of Israel (right, it surely had effect) but the other one has been completely ignored by Israel and had no effect (other than moral). I suppose that at some point maybe it was discussed whether "this is an article about Israel not the UN", but in the end that content was included and the final result seems to work pretty well! Back to Gibraltar: do you think that we can find a way to mention the UN resolutions without giving it undue coverage? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Peter Gold mentions that the constitution was granted by the UK only because of the UN procedings as a means to "impress the UN" (Gibraltar, British or Spanish?, page 377, note 7). The source is a FCO declassified document. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One sentence would be perfect in my opinion. There's no need to write a thesis here, its just that the 1964 UN resolutions, the 1967 referendum and the 1969 Constitution Order are very closely related. As for the verbs used in the sources, here's a recollection made some time ago by Ecemaml (thanks!) where we can read:

• "women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes";
• "Great disorders all over the town committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines";
• "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed";
• "There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance";
• "What shocked Spaniards most was the profanation by the Englishmen of places of worship and their mockery of religious objects";
• "all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered (...)";
• "al igual que sucedió en los pueblos aledaños a Cádiz dos años antes, la soldadesca se entregó a la profanación y saqueo del templo, al robo de todos los objetos de valor de los refugiados y, lo más grave, a la vejación y violación de algunas mujeres" (roughly translated as: "as it happened two years before near Cádiz, the soldiery profanated and sacked the temple, robbed every valuable object belonging to the refugees and vexated and raped some women").

I think that 'sacking' sums it up quite well whilst being concise and aseptic enough (at least more than the current "drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings"). Any thoughts? Cremallera (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "atrocities" sums it all up pretty well: It is the word many sources (Jackson among them) use. It is a word with specific meaning in a military context, and it is sourced. I have found it is used in 1.010 articles in WP in combination with the word "siege" . (I think sacking is more related with robbing than with rape and desecration: ). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, Imalbornoz, but it is still a valorative term. 'Sacking' is a descriptive one and I'd rather publish the latter than the former. Not that sacking earns you a nobel prize (unless you are Henry Kissinger...). I am just suggesting and thus, very open to what the community thinks, though. Cremallera (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"To sack" carries the implication that the British encouraged or were indifferent to the acts of their soldiers. I'm not going to trawl through the archives now to find the source, but I believe it is clear from sources that this is not accurate in this case. Thus, unless it is clearly the word preferred by reliable sources (including pro-British sources), I oppose its use here.

On the resolutions, yes, Israel mentions some GA resolutions. The first resolution that confirmed the partition in 1947, which obviously had a major practical impact on the future history of Israeli-Arab relations. The second deals with multiple resolutions (not sure how many, but given the number of resolutions the Security Council has passed on Israel we're probably talking about dozens of them) sustained over a long period of time on the same subject, used to demonstrate the international position on a major point in the dispute.

By contrast, we're referring to two GA resolutions passed within the space of a year. They did not have a significant impact on the dispute and have not been followed up since 1968. They deal with a relatively minor point in the dispute (whether a referendum should have been held or not in 1967). I would suggest that the fact that the referendum was held and the consequences of that referendum can perfectly well be understood without noting the UN resolutions, given the lack of significant impact. I would suggest that no particular conclusion about broader international opinion long-term can be drawn from the existence or content of the resolutions. The UN resolutions are a detail, and so I think it reasonable to suggest that they belong on a more detailed article. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I've been thinking about it and I can't see why "sacking" carries the implication that the British encouraged or were indifferent to the acts of their soldiers. I don't think so, it just means that the town was sacked (which, as a matter of fact, it was). Anyway, if you can synthesize in a better wording/word what the excerpts I've provided tell us, please be my guest! What would you suggest? Cremallera (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording as it is now makes that implication very clearly. Indeed, the implication of the current wording is that the poor innocent townspeople were driven out by the evil British. Which is misleading - sources show that the British had the opposite intention. The townspeople were not entirely innocent in what happened in 1704: sources demonstrate that they themselves killed English and Dutchmen at the time as well; that the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure. The current wording is strongly pro-Spanish POV. Brevity is not a good reason for us to put a biased position, as we currently do. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The implication is not as you describe it. Coalition (not British) troops (not their commanders) committed excesses. The townspeople fled because of those excesses. It does not involve that there was a master plan to drive out the inhabitants of the town. But they felt so unsecure that they left. And sorry, but "that the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure" is a clear example of WP:SYN. No source says that (and believe me, I've got all the relevant sources describing the capture) and therefore there's no room for our speculations. And your edition is plainly POV in the sense that presents two equivalent sides (something odd as we're considering some thousand soldiers agains some hundreds of civilian inhabitants). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The implication is exactly as I describe it. The piece pretty clearly implies that, as I say, the poor innocent townspeople were driven out by the evil British. That's what the current wording says. It puts the Spanish POV as fact and completely ignores the British. Of course that's unacceptable. Obviously that's unacceptable. We have to have neutrality here. What we have isn't it.

My edit pointed out that there were attacks on both sides. Given that we have it sourced that English and Dutch soldiers were killed by the townspeople and left in cesspits, I think that's not an unreasonable description. If there were fewer Spanish then that does not mean that those that were there did not kill people.

"That the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure" can be sourced to Gibnews' oft-quoted passage. You've seen it many times before. That's what that passage says, or at least very strongly implies. So, I reject the notion that it is synthesis.

I have reverted this section to the last position that had consensus until new consensus can be reached. Pfainuk talk 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, Pfainuk, don't talk about something someone quoted somewhere some time in the past. Are you able to find at least one reliable source talking about such "fear of reprisals" (mind that NONE of the books I have, and they're not few and mainly British ones, mention nothing similar to that)? At least, can you provide "Gibnews' oft-quoted passage"? Because as far as I can remember, such "passage" was entirely his invention (I mean, his synthesis). This request is not rhetoric, since IMHO, such kind of synthesis has been one of the main reasons of the toxic atmosphere we're suffering before the arbitration case (and therefore it's very important to discard such invented versions and stick to the sources) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be falling down on a spot of WP:AGF. It is never good to put yourself forward as an absolute expert, stating you have 'all the relevent sources' or all the information is a road that shuts down debate rather than opens it. The wording was niggling at me (and sacking does imply, somehow, an organised and directed pillage. I know this is not its dictionary definition, but it is how the term is often used) and Pfain has really put his finger on that niggling and ellaborated better than I could. I support him in this. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pfainuk on this one; the (very) slightly longer sentence here is more faithful to the sources, giving similar implications as well, and it gives a better description of a very unpleasant few days. I think it's a particularly good example of encyclopedic prose: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems everyone is OK with the radical overhaul and we just need to iron out the final details, so I went ahead and put up the preliminary version from my workshop page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Pfainuk: the wording has been reverted in favor of a description of the sacking. I have no problem at all with that. But let's be clear about my intentions and the sources, because I don't really enjoy implications like the one you left in the edit summary stating that I "assert the Spanish POV as fact while ignoring the British". I based my edition purely on the sources, which are authored mainly by British historians, and tried to write it down pretty dispassionately. The result being:

• "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Gibraltar surrendered to a combined Anglo-Dutch force".
• "The town was sacked by the invading forces".
• "and the villagers fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain".

Nowhere in these 3 phrases the townspeople are qualified as poor and innocent, but as villagers. Equally, the British and Dutch troops aren't qualified as evil nor their commanders are accused of promoting the plunder. How on Earth did you manage to think that villagers weren't "entirely innocent" because they defended themselves against the uncontrolled soldiery which after the surrender started beating them, desecrating the churches, looting their houses and raping their women and daughters, is beyond my grasp. However, neither your opinion nor mine made it to the published draft, what's written above are the plain facts as all the reliable sources tell us it happened. As for the intention of the British, whilst William Jackson wrote that "Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline" in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" (Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101); George Hills in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" (London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174) states that "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed". So, probably, George Rooke was sincere when he offered the Terms of Surrender, and most certainly he wasn't competent enough to impose them to his own officers and troops. Presumably, the villagers were as innocent as any other civilian could've been; and in all probability no reliable source states that the fear of reprisals was part of the motivation for the "departure" (sic.) of the townsfolk. Nevertheless, when devoid of any emotive language and putative intentions attributed by people who assuredly wasn't there at that time, what's supported by the references is the aforementioned text. I understand that this was not the most brilliant episode in the Royal Marines' history, but that's no reason to accuse me of bias. Especially without providing a single reliable source to back up your diatribe.

With all that said, if y'all think that the current wording is preferable and more encyclopaedic, you've got my blessing. I don't like it, but I won't oppose to it. Cremallera (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You put the Spanish POV, and state it as though it were fact. You base it on your own interpretation of sources. We should be being neutral. The clear implication of the phrase that we had was that the poor innocent villagers were driven out by the evil British. Which is pure POV. We can't neutrally mention what the soldiers and marines did to the town without also mentioning what the townspeople did to the soldiers and marines. We can't accurately imply that the British officers supported or were at least indifferent to attacks on the town when sources show that the opposite is true. You seek to do both, and I will not accept that. Propose another wording and I'll consider it on its merits. But I won't accept this one. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating that the town and its people were abused by the invading British and Dutch forces is not my opinion stated as though it were fact, but William Jackson's, George Hill's, Isidro Sepúlveda's and Maurice Harvey's opinion. All of them coincide. And it is explained in every reliable source dealing with the issue at stake because it is relevant to understand why the population fled. With regard to my own interpretation of sources (as if you had something different to your own interpretation of them) it stood in the talk page. What I published are three phrases devoid of emotional asserts, and that's why you complain about their 'implications' and not their actual 'content'. Well, in my opinion, you are wrong. The text does not suggest any positive nor negative intent. It just remains silent because -from my perspective- there is a pretty clear difference between every single source describing a factual event and a single source describing an intention.

Anyway, if you feel that mentioning that the civilians defended themselves against the sacking infantry is needed for neutrality; just be bold and do it. If you want to add the motives as attributed by a source whose author wasn't born in 1704. I say, be bold and do it. You can propose a wording too. But please, cut out the holier than thou thing. Cremallera (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I might suggest that accusations such as that of people being "holier than thou" are part of the reason we ended up at arbcom? It's also very likely that it had something to do with some editors' unwillingness to take any account of the concerns of others when writing text.

You make it sound like you think I'm trying to deceive you or something. I'm not. I have concerns about the text you propose and have given you reasons for them. I have expressed these reasons very clearly on several occasions now, and have proposed an alternative text (which was reverted). You've told me my concerns don't matter - well, they do. I have done all of this in good faith.

The implications that readers are likely to draw from our text matter. If the text implies something that is inaccurate or biased, then that's just as much a problem as if it states something that is inaccurate or biased. It is unacceptable for us to imply something when it is clear from sources that the opposite is true. You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that. Pfainuk talk 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cremallera that we need to explain why a whole town fled. I haven't read the 3 sources I have on this yet so this is just my opinion, but you could argue that the townspeople were minding their own business until they were invaded and their town ransacked, after which they defended themselves and/or sought retribution for the destruction wrought upon them, until such time that they realized they couldn't win so they got out of there. The history of Gibraltar might have been very different had they stayed, they key here is what drove them to leave, we are not attempting to judge both sides for their behaviours at a time when this kind of warcrime was par for the course. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 07:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this episode is both pretty sensible and a very important turning point in the history of Gibraltar, so I can live with a text that goes into a bit more detail about verified facts than other parts of the article (like Pfainuk proposes). I will even accept, for the sake of consensus, things in the current text which I don't find supported by sources (like implying that all of the troops were drunk before they started with the atrocities). I only hope that this matter is done with and we don't have to discuss it any longer. In the end, I think that we can all be happy that we have reached an agreement and this very important episode is undisputedly explained in the History section (something that had not happened since the first writing of the article many years ago). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, so we're all able to live with the current text? This strikes me as a very good moment to leave the matter alone. And concentrate our minds on making the entire article Good or even Featured. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If the fact that they were boozed up is not supported by sources then we should remove that. The entire contingent being constantly drunk for 72 hours strikes me as unlikely anyway! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Brits in Spain being boozed up for days on end? Doesn't strain my personal credulity. Nevertheless, until we can provide a reference for drunkenness we should remove that particular remark, and I shall do so in a minute. Ecemaml, you seem to have a large collection of the relevant reliable sources; do any of them specifically mention drunkenness? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what are we agreeing to here? And isn't Pfain disagreeing still? --Narson ~ Talk • 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A good question. I've just re-read the above and I don't see any substantial disagreements remaining. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer; please, everyone, avoid making guesses about other people's motives, or at least avoid writing them down. Is anyone disagreeing with the current text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording - that is, Richard's current wording. I think a shortened version would probably be better (subject to my concerns as noted above), but if we can't agree on one then this one will do. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you mean everyone happy about the current wording... of the capture episode, don't you? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (I am)

Yes, sorry, the capture episode is what I meant. Everyone prepared to accept the current wording is good. In fact the whole article is looking a lot better, much easier to read and still getting essential facts in. Are there any remaining obstacles in the way of Good Article status? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto

The latin motto is incorrectly translated. Expugnabilis does not mean conquered.--190.22.140.13 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a common mistranslation, which has stuck globally (several things use the same motto, I think it is biblical) --Narson ~ Talk • 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Minorca

Replying to Cremallera's post on my page , the reason I removed Minorca is because we need to stick to the topic at hand - the history of Gibraltar. I don't believe we need to add the fact that Minorca was also ceded in 1713 to the history section purely in order to give background to mention of Minorcans in the demography section. The right place for this information is at Demographics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, in my opinion, that whilst a mention of the relationship between Gibraltar and Minorca might be in order, its' place isn't in the 'demographics' section nor in the Demographics article. As I pointed out in Red Hat's user page, it is virtually impossible to discriminate minorcan from other balearic, valencian or catalan surnames and I have never seen any book studying/classifying Minorcans as an ethnically distinct group within the Spaniards with the exception of the dubious reference found in Archer's book. Cremallera (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's too small a detail. If explanation is needed, it can go in Demographics of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of you too. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for a Good Article application?

Well, this is what it says at Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria:

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

--Gibmetal 77 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I say let's go for it! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I've just re-read the article, trying to take a fresh look at the whole thing, and while we may not have achieved perfection I think that we are doing quite well. Who wants to put in the GA nomination? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK - it's nominated . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

I think it's time to turn the History of Gibraltar article into prose instead of the chronological timeline it currently is. I'm happy to make the first stab at this, but given that it is going to be very time consuming and hard work, I don't want to do this if it's just going to get reverted. So can everyone give their support or opposition to this move? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good thing to do. I will put it on my watchlist. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The other issue is that there are some entries that article which would need to be removed as they are either too detailed or would disrupt the flow (it's a lot easier to insert an isolated entry into a list than it is to insert a sentence into prose and have it continue to read well). So I would propose moving the current article to Timeline of the history of Gibraltar so nothing is lost. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

By the looks of things, you've already seen History of the Falkland Islands and Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands - but just in case you haven't, they may be worth a look.

I agree that this would be a useful thing to do. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk - I hadn't - so there is a precedent for such a move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest using the work in progress at User:ChrisO/drafts as a starting point for the first few sections? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice (and hello again - it's been a while). Looks like that has been a work in progress for some time now - how come you never used it? Anyway, it's up there now, and Timeline of the history of Gibraltar has been created from the old page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I got sidetracked by other stuff, I'm afraid... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I originally suggested keeping the existing article as a timeline to ChrisO when he began work on the new article. Thanks for getting this going again Red Hat. --Gibmetal 77 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gibraltar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is mostly very good and the article mostly follows the manual of style. The use of subsections within sections, particularly if they are very short, is discouraged. For example, the currency section should be included under the subsection on banking, and the subsections on cuisine and music should be weaved into the culture section better, to provide a more accurate and improved description of the cultural elements in the city itself.

There are a lot of external links at the end in that section. It might help to review WP:EL for tips and advice on pruning unnecessary ones. The TV, radio, media, and newspaper links are really not necessary if they're mentioned in the 'communications' section. Wiki-links in that section would then be used, instead of external links. The communications section as a whole is kind of a mess as it is -- it's really not very well organized and kind of jumps around a lot. There's a lot of very short "paragraphs", which is really makes the section look like a list in disguise.

There's also an external link in the education section -- external links should not be used in article text.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There's a couple of citations in the lead section, which is an indication that new material is being presented there. In fact, the lead section should be a summary of the article, with information being presented in appropriate sections, and cited in those sections.

A lot of information in the history section is uncited (very skimpy citations used on very random facts). Then, there's six citations on one statement in paragraph three, which seems a bit of an overkill there.

Citations should be placed at the end of sentences and/or punctuation, such as commas. The punctuation should never be placed before the citation. All citations should also have full information -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, and, if it's available on the Internet, a date the URL was last retrieved and/or checked. It would also help to write out dates (for dates of publication or retrieval) in a more human-readable format, instead of numerically (e.g. 6 November 2007 instead of 2007-11-06, which could be easily confused with 11 June 2007).

Please address any and all 'citation needed' tags in the article as well.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article contains most of the main sections that are expected for an article about a nation, or province. Though some sections are very short, such as Sport and Healthcare.

The Education section also really doesn't mention any of the prominent schools in Gibraltar -- are there any Universities? Notable primary/secondary schools? This should probably be covered somewhere.

I'd also change the title of 'Politics' to 'Government' or 'Government and Politics'. The sections on Police & Military should probably fall into that section as subsections as well.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can't find any major WP:NPOV issues in the article, but I'll take a closer look once the other issues are addressed.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Most of the recent editing seems to have been done by two primary editors. No major signs of edit-warring or reverting.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images of the flag, coat of arms, and and the government/mayor coat of arms have invalid copyright tags. They are tagged as being in the public domain, which is not the case. Copyright is owned by the government. These need to be appropriately tagged, and a fair-use rationale template should be added.

The schools comparison image has a tag on it that indicates that categories are needed.

Images have captions, but some of the captions are pretty long (see history section images). Try to shorten some of these to be more concise.

There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article.

Four images in the politics section is a bit heavy as well, and could present display issues for people with small monitors. The image of the parliament building is probably sufficient for this section alone. I've already addressed the overkill in the Rock image, and I would think that the images of the Prime Minister and Governor really aren't needed here (if people want to know what they look like, they can click on their articles).

The multiple images in the demographics section, none of which actually display people, are probably better if included in the culture section, which would then allow you to expand that section and discuss some of the cultural points of interest. I guess these are images of churches, but then again, they appear before the discussion on religion, so are still somewhat out of place.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I believe that the core of the article is mostly in place, but a lot of work is needed to really bring this up to GA standards. It's probably at about the level of C-class at the moment, so I could technically fail it. However, since there appear to be two editors that are taking an active interest in it at the present time, I'll put it on hold until 6/22/2010 (two weeks), so that these issues may be addressed. WTF? (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, WTF?. Hopefully we can all chip in to make the improvements you list. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is already being reviewed so I will let it take its course. While I have not studied the article extensively, I must say that the article is in generally good shape and getting GA is close, in my opinion. TeacherA (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

After over a month being on hold, many issues still remain, and I'm not really seeing evidence of a coordinated effort to improve the article (the article's edit history, in fact, shows a lot of reverting, which goes against the stability criterion). So, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and will be removed from the nominations list. It can be renominated once the issues mentioned above have been dealt with. In the meantime, it may help to review the guidelines under WP:COUNTRIES, as well as some of the other nation and/or city articles currently listed at WP:GA. WTF? (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Communications in Gibraltar section

This was raised in the GA review as needing work, because it's basically a list in disguise. I moved out the media part of this to "culture", but the remainder strikes me as far too technical for this article and would be better served just by getting rid of this section entirely and simply doing a See Also to the Communications in Gibraltar article. Thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it quite a lot, now basically saying only that it has the connectivity you'd expect in a First World country. Or we could get rid of it altogether, as Red Hat suggests. Comments, or bold edits? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes for GA status

I've added some changes in the History section (deduplicating references and adding some new ones and some slight detail according to previous talks) and the Geography section (leaving only one picture of the Rock -of the 3 preexisting ones- if someone has a different preference, please feel free to choose another one).

I still think that the dispute over Gibraltar should be explained in one subsection as in the Israel featured article (the dispute even has one full paragraph in the lead of the Gib article, even though there's no proportional development in the body of the article). Any comments? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to in the Israel article? I don't see it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in the Conflicts and peace treaties subsection, inside the History section, and it has links to "Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and Positions on Jerusalem". I suppose it's easier to put it there in the case of Israel, given that it has such a short history and it fits very well there (even though the wikilinks refer to events outside of that specific period). In the case of Gibraltar, maybe it could go in the Politics section as well... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (BTW, I've eliminated a couple of images in the Politics section, as per GA article, and one image that wasn't too relevant in the History section and overlapped into the Politics section)

Yes, but if you look carefully, it's the final section of a chronologically ordered history section, it's not a separate section specifically for the "dispute", even though the authors seem to only concentrate on foreign affairs and have given the subsection that title.

• "Antiquity" covers up til the Middle Ages.
• "Zionism and the British Mandate" takes things up to the end of WW2.
• "Independence and first years" up to the 1960s
• "Conflicts and peace treaties" up to the present.

As it stands, the Gibraltar history section does exactly the same: issues relating to the dispute are covered in the history section. So, the Israel article is not an example of what you propose, and I strongly disagree that a separate section is required. It's enough that Disputed status of Gibraltar exists. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's enough if we put some redirect such as "Further information: Disputed status of Gibraltar"? Where would you put it? In the History section or the Politics section? (BTW, I've already checked the categories of the chart about education). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Parallels

I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that WP:CIVIL includes a section about not raking up past disputes, please stop it now. Please identify exactly what is wrong with the content I proposed, it is relevant, possibly too long and could be slimmed down but it is relevant and that is what is important. I will discuss content but if you continue to rake up past disputes per WP:CIVIL I will ask for the special conditions imposed by arbcom to be invoked. Justin talk 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. Justin talk 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Parliament.uk, UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report, pg 16
2. http://www.imf.org/external/np/mae/oshore/2000/eng/back.htm#table1
3. Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
4. Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
5. Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
6. Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101:
7. Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
8. Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
9. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
10. Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
11. This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
12. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
13. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
14. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

• Former good article nominees
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gibraltar articles
• Top-importance Gibraltar articles
• All WikiProject Gibraltar pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Spain articles
• Mid-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2010)