Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 28 November 2009

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

United Kingdom 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spain 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Gibraltar 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Well what shall we do with our blank page? There's loads of stuff to include:

• Anglo-Spanish War (1585)
• Anglo-Spanish War (1654)
• Anglo-Spanish War has others
• Gibraltar
• ...

There's Scottish-Spanish relations too.

Secretlondon 14:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Some things that should probably be mentioned

• Spain restricting trade to its western hemisphere possessions, and subjecting random Protestant sailors in trading ships touching at Spanish ports to the inquisition and heresy trials (two factors which greatly inclreased tensions in the run-up to 1588).
• Spain being identified in the English mind with the unhappy legacy of "Bloody" Mary I of England and the policy of Regnans in Excelsis. AnonMoos 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Tireless and Sceptre in Gibraltar: not much heard of in the UK but caused much ill-feeling in Spain William Avery 20:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Spain's support of the UK and America going into Iraq? If I remember rightly, the Spanish PM was up there with Blair and Bush. But I can't cite or anything =/ 81.158.109.6 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spain did not participate in the invasion but sent troops afterwards. A number were killed in a air crash and there was little domestic support for them being there. After the last election they were withdrawn. None of this has anything to do with Gibraltar, albeit the Gib regiment had more troops involved in the invasion than Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The author's reference to the Jenkins' Ear war only mentions British capture of Portobello and I ask why? Portobello was a very minor event. Portobello was eventually re-captured by the Spanish and the British were defeated in much more pivotal battles like Cartagena (1739), Cuba, and Florida. Its fairly typical of Anglo-centric historians to only mention militarily minor events like Portobello and the battle of the Bloody Marsh to give uneducated readers the the false impression that the British won that war when they actually lost it. After that war, the Spanish Empire that remained intact and with minor casualties.--Charles A 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an error in the text. Spain entered the EU in 1986 together with Portugal, not in 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.96.81 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic and cultural relations

This article deals almost exclusively on military and political conflict. There is no discussion of trade, tourism or cultural interacion. As such, it offers a very limited view of a much larger subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

This article need not describe the technicalities of Spain's position (or the UK's position for that matter); we already have an article for that, Disputed status of Gibraltar. The recent edits are effectively skewing the paragraph in favour of the Spanish POV and excluding the British/Gibraltar POV on self-determination. Best stick to the facts. RedCoat10 • talk 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Half of the paragraph states that there have been 2 referendums on sovereingty and the outcome in favor of the status quo. But there should be noted that spain does not accept those referendums and on what grounds. By not doing so we are skewing the paragraph in favour of the British POV actually. Notice that I've just modified the sentence related to the Spanish POV, but not the British one. So I don't get your point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk • contribs)

Please see my reply further down. Thanks, RedCoat10 • talk 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish position on self determination

You erased a referenced statement in favour of leaving the text unreferenced), Spain considers that Gibraltarians are colonists and Gibraltar colonised land, therefore understands that according international law, Gibraltarians have no right to self-determination. Again, you may not agree with this position, but it has be included if we intend to be neutral.

The disputed paragraph states:

In two referendums, held in September 1967 and November 2002, the people of Gibraltar rejected any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty to Spain. The 2002 referendum was on a proposal for joint sovereignty which at one stage was supported by the UK Government. Spain claims that the Gibraltar issue is a bilateral question between Spain and the UK and ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians, and thereby denying self-determination.

As it stands now the Spanish point of view (in bold) is not properly included. The article just says "Spain claims" to further add that it ignores the "democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians", without elaborating in why Spain dismisses Gibraltarian's right to self determination.

My edition stated:

Considering the Gibraltar issue equal to other decolonisation processes, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the UK, thus asserting that Gibraltarians have no right to self-determination. What is exactly the problem? Stating that Spain considers Gibraltar's population as colonists and this issue as a decolonisation process, therefore not accepting any right of self-determination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it excludes the Gibraltar/British POV; namely, that the people of Gibraltar enjoy the right to self-determination because it is enshrined in the UN Charter and, at least according to the C24, is the driving force behind decolonisation. In any case, we need not expatiate on such issues here. I think you'll find that they're adequately discussed at Disputed status of Gibraltar. RedCoat10 • talk 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If Gibraltarians have voted in 2 referendums already it is quite clear that they have the right of self-determination in their opinion. Spain thinks otherwise and backs it up with legal arguments. Therefore a neutral article should not say that Spain "ignores the democratically expressed" wishes... As an illegal referendum lacks the legitimacy of democracy.

Of course, the article shouldn't state that the referendum is illegal, because that's taking a position. But the current wording points exactly to the opposite direction.

With that said, that's why I opted to leave the referendums phrase as it was, while stating that Spain does not recognise their validity on legal grounds related to the decolonisation process particularities. Of course, Gibraltarian people does not share this, but their point of view can't be forced in a phrase that begins with "Spain claims".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternate wording: In two referendums, held in September 1967 and November 2002, the people of Gibraltar rejected any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty to Spain. The 2002 referendum was on a proposal for joint sovereignty which at one stage was supported by the UK Government. Considering the Gibraltarians decolonisation subjects, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the United Kingdom, thus asserting that Gibraltarian people has no right to self-determination.

I think that's more sensible while still expressing Spain's position on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It may imply that in their opinion they have the right to self-determination, but by no means does your proposed edit make clear why this is so. According to WP:NPOV, we must publish all "significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It would be biased to write why Spain thinks the people of Gibraltar do not enjoy the right to self-determination, while at the same time not saying why the people of Gibraltar think they do, who incidentally, like Spain, back it up with legal arguments. I refer specifically to Article 73 of the UN Charter, and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, both of which are driving force behind decolonisation. However, we could avoid this whole matter altogether by not delving into the technicalities of self-determination in Gibraltar and limiting ourselves only to the undisputed facts that 1) two referenda were held and 2) Spain denies self-determination to the people of Gibraltar. RedCoat10 • talk 07:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if gibraltarians are colonists (i.e. decolonisation subjects), they do not have the right to self determination. That's the position of Spain, which you may not share. Gibraltarians do not consider themselves decolonisation subjects but the legitimate inhabitants of gibraltar. Here lies the quid of the whole issue, and that's what I tried to state with my later proposal: Considering the Gibraltarians decolonisation subjects, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the United Kingdom, thus asserting that Gibraltarian people has no right to self-determination.

How do you feel about it? Please, notice that it's exclusively the Spanish position, which follows the two referenda already held bit. Besides, this is the Spain-UK relations article, therefore it's quite important to include this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.57.186 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but you are not speaking for the Government of Spain, and if you are - you should not be editing wikipedia. The claim that discussions on sovereignty are a bilateral matter is separate from the issue of whether Gibraltarians are 'a people' and thus entitled to self determination under the UN Charter. I don't think we need go into the details on this page, or debate the case here. Virtual genocide is, as you are aware, a highly offensive point of view to Gibraltarians. But if you want to mention it, there should be suitable references to show the official view of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, from them. --Gibnews (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

89.129.57.186, I am well aware that's the Spanish position. If we wish to include it, however, we would also need to include the Gibraltar position (per WP:NPOV). The Gibraltar position is that they enjoy the right to self-determination because it is enshrined in the UN Charter and is, according to the C24, the principle means by which colonies are decolonised. Your proposed change does not include that compensatory Gibraltar position. The fact that two referenda were held does not outline Gibraltar's position on why they enjoy self-determination (we are, after all, saying why the Government of Spain does not believe that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination; we should do likewise for Gibraltar). Nonetheless, I still fail to see the importance of including the technicalities. Please explain. Thanks, RedCoat10 • talk 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar waters

I asked for a cite that shows that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar. Although there is a lot of hot air in the Spanish media about this topic, there does not seem to be any formal assertion that the waters are Spanish.

When challenged by the Gibraltar police, the Spanish patrol vessels leave, which rather indicates they know they are in the wrong.

The reference given is by way of a remark on signing the UN Convention on the law of the sea (1982) and remarks do not have any legal significance. Its rather bizarre that it refers to the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), as this was before the concept of territorial waters existed.

However, there is currently a case in the European court which should decide the matter finally. In the meantime, there does not seem to be a reliable cite that Spain CLAIMS the waters, only that it disputes that Gibraltar, which is included in the convention, exists. --Gibnews (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I asked for a cite that shows that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar". You've been given it. Here you have an additional one. Is the claim right? I don't know (I don't mind, in fact). But the statement in the text does not say that the waters are Spanish, but only that Spain claims them. Full stop. The rest of your digressions are not simply relevant for the discussion (BTW, Spain does not dispute anything with Gibraltar... Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view, so a sovereign state cannot dispute anything but with other sovereign state). --Ecemaml (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, an expression of the traditional Spanish POV that Gibraltar 'does not exist'. How quaint. Many things are claimed not all are true. --Gibnews (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean, Ecemaml, by "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view"? What a ludicrous assertion. RedCoat10 • talk 14:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, RedCoat, you asked the same question long ago and I forgot to reply. Gibraltar is simply not a subject of the Public International Law, since it rules the relationships between sovereign states. As a lately development, supranational organizations were also introduced (although the text in wikipedia is not that good, you can try a search in google by "Public International Law" and "manual" for instance, and you will get a surely more precise description). Therefore, the subjects of it are states and supranational organizations. It has nothing to do with the role or importance of Gibraltar. It's simply a statement of fact. That's the reason, for instance, why the UK is the entity which signs the Convention of the Sea. That's the reason why, as the Government of Gibraltar acknowledges (it couldn't be otherwise), the waters around Gibraltar are "British" waters. You can see it from the reference already in the text:

Nothing more (and nothing less). I hope it's clearer now. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've broken in 2 the issues you were discussing, as both are distinct chronologically, in substance and in form. And last, but not least, we should refrain from affirming that those are Gibraltar's waters just as we refrain from stating that are Spain's. This is an encyclopedia, neither a battleground nor a court. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference I have provided, uses data from the House of Commons library and states that they are Gibraltar waters, the reference from the MAE states that Spain claims the waters. So its quite in order to say they are Gibraltar waters, and not Spanish or UK. There is a case in the European court about their designation for environmental protection which will no doubt drag on for a few years. In the meantime Gibraltar exercises effective control of the designated waters. So I see no reason to refrain from stating what is evidenced and obvious except that it may upset 'Spanish sensitivities' like shooting at a red and yellow bouy (the standard NATO target). --Gibnews (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in short, you equate some declarations of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom with The Truth, when it is just the point of view of one of the involved parties. You should know better, Gibnews.Cremallera (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So should you because the 'truth' has no bearing. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." -. RedCoat10 • talk 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Do you object to the issue discussed here or you are just chatting?Cremallera (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the original version which describes the waters as de facto British but claimed de jure by Spain and Gibraltar/UK. Is there still a problem? RedCoat10 • talk 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Do we have a reference to the statement that the waters are de facto British? Because what I think we've got is a lot of references stating that those waters are either British or Spanish, and I don't dare to dismiss any of them. I hope you'll see my point. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-

A very cursory Google search turns up this. It seems that even the Spanish recognise that Gibraltar exerts de facto/effective sovereignty over its waters. Saying otherwise would be an error of fact. I think the original version describes the status quo accurately without engaging in unfitting theoretical discussion about sovereignty. RedCoat10 • talk 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the layout is awful. Would not be more sensible to state the dispute and afterwards to list some of the incidents? --Ecemaml (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Unassessed Spain articles
• Unknown-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Unassessed Gibraltar articles
• Unknown-importance Gibraltar articles
• All WikiProject Gibraltar pages