Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 15 December 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 – June 2010 May – October 2010 October 2010 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Territorial disputes

We now have five alternative texts. I have put them in my preferred order with a couple of comments:

1.

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock and its port, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

This seems to make all the important points and is still commendably brief. If it's confirmed that the UK government does not entirely agree with the Spanish government on the exact territory covered by the T of U, this would be my preferred text.

2.

"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should be taken into account and the modern concept of territorial waters is applicable.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

This leaves out the T of U entirely, which may be appropriate if in fact the governments do entirely agree on the exact territory covered by the Treaty.

3.

"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."

This may not give enough detail for our target audience, a new reader who doesn't have any background on the dispute. It also assumes that the interpretation of the Treaty does in fact differ importantly between the two sides, which we've yet to confirm or reject with appropriate references. But it still strikes me as acceptable.

4.

Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response.

This is basically 3. with the addition of a debating point. A perfectly good one, but suitable only for the overview article. If we are to document the entire wrangle we could include an awful lot more before we get to this point. We do need to know: does the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht about the land ceded differ importantly between the two sides? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And less is often more:

.

I find the reluctance to mention the ICJ issue puzzling. Justin talk 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that be support for option 4, then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me add one more option, in order to illustrate why I think that some of the above view the question a bit too much from the British POV:

5.

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law.

Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV. Some others might think that similar texts (replacing Spain's by Britain's position) are too British POV. That's why I support the first option which only mentions the two positions and its arguments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's another debating point, even lower down the list than the other, but I take your point. That's support for option 1 then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is support for option 1.

It is also a kind request to include this last text for debate alongside the other ones as yet another option. I think that it will help put each option in perspective.

One question: Pfainuk offered some allegations to option number 1 which I think are reasonable. I think that making some changes in line with Pfainuk's allegations might help make it more accurate (and, therefore, more acceptable to all sides). Would anybody mind if I made those changes in option number 1?

• Adding "and its port" to "the Rock" in the first sentence
• Adding "and airspace" to "territorial waters" in the last sentence

Thank you -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just added them, to save you the trouble. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. This strongly implies that the Rock and the port are a list of bits that Spain recognises. It isn't. Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.

Point 2: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. Spain recognises British sovereignty beyond the Rock: specifically, Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.

Point 3: I support. It gives a proper amount of detail and accurately represents Spain's position, giving examples. If readers want more detail then they are perfectly welcome to visit the two full articles that we have on the subject of the dispute. I'm willing to discuss the first sentence if necessary, but it must be accurate. Neither point 1 or point 2 is accurate.

Point 4: I find it amusing that you say that this point is too much detail, but a rather longer and more drawn out discussion of the territorial waters dispute is "commendably brief". As it happens, I do agree with you that it's a detail too far. But I don't accept that you can consistently say that this one is too much detail without also accepting that options 1 and 2 are also too much detail.

Point 5: "Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV". It's not a matter of thinking it's biased. It does not require much thought to realise that a text that says that the poor, innocent EU and Spain are being persecuted through the courts by the evil British is pretty clearly biased. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1 and 2 are innacurate I would oppose those as an option. 3 I could support, 4 I support. My personal preference only for its brevity and the avoidance of any dispute about Utrecht is my proposal:

6.

.

5. is biased and the author has deliberately been so to create a strawman to rubbish other options. This is decidedly pointy behaviour, not helpful, yet another example Richard of disruptive behaviour that you do not confront and indeed appear to encourage.

Pfainuk you know that I respect your opinion, could you perhaps elucidate why you think the mention of the ICJ is a point too far. The case I would put forward for mentioning it is that the ICJ is the only body that is capable of delivering a binding legal judgement that would settle the dispute once and for all. Do you not think it worthy of mention that one party is prepared to put its case to the test, whereas the other let us say prefers not to. Is that not significant? Justin talk 20:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's worthy of mention, and is a significant point, but I'm not convinced that it belongs here.

(In principle, incidentally, the UN Security Council is also capable of giving a legally binding judgement - albeit one based on politics rather than international law. But given Britain's veto-wielding membership of the UNSC, there's only one side they could support - and I'd imagine the other members would rather feel that a British attempt to push that through would be a little too close to pushing national interests over international interests.)

This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:

• The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
  • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
  • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty

• The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it. (As I've mentioned before, I don't entirely accept that this is independently relevant - but accept that removal will never get consensus.)

Everything in this section should be there to explain these points. Anything that does not explain these points should go in Disputed status of Gibraltar or Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. And if the reader wants more detail, we should and (I assume) will point them at those two articles.

The reason for this is because I think there's a significant risk of our three or four paragraphs turning into to seven or eight unless we're prepared to restrict ourselves. We already have two articles on the dispute and I think there's a significant risk of this article becoming a third. We need the basics in here, but the detail belongs on the dedicated articles. Pfainuk talk 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I would be prepared to compromise and put that detail in Disputed status of Gibraltar or Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain or possibly both. Thank you. I guess that leaves Option 3 as the basis for moving forward in my opinion. Justin talk 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I would also compromise. If Justin is ready to put the detail about the GoG's wishes about the ICJ in another article, I can accept to do the same with the EC's ruling.

In that case, option 5bis would be:

5bis.

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock.

Regarding option 3, I think it is symmetrical to number 5bis. I think that they run the risk of being biased by making a comparison between the two POVs. Would Justin and Pfainuk accept 5bis?

Options 5 and 4 have been discarded for options 5bis and 3, so I won't comment on them.

Regarding option 1:

• The long sentence in the ToU can be summarised as: "the limits expressly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht". That would bring us nearer to Painuk's first proposal. Looking at the map, I think that "the Rock and its port" also summarises it (but maybe I'm wrong, Pfainuk, what do you think?)
• The source from the government of Spain and other sources summarise the controversy about the territorial limits mentioning no further claims than the territorial waters, isthmus and airspace, so I think this should be enough for this overview article.

Would this solve Painuk's allegations of inaccuracy? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, 1 bis would be as follows:

1 bis.

Spain claims that British sovereignty is only acceptable in the areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Would you find this to be more accurate and neutral? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your version 1b still is still far too detailed as per my previous message. Richard has also argued that it is not clear what is explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht.

On your version 5b (and noting in passing that, assuming I understand your use of the word "symmetrical" correctly, your 3 and 5b are not "symmetrical"), could you explain what your objection to Justin's original version is - i.e. your version 4 without the second sentence? I mean, since you're insisting it be changed, one assumes that you must have have an objection? Pfainuk talk 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Given your silence on this matter, perhaps we could assume that you accept the first sentence of Justin's proposal for inclusion? Pfainuk talk 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy lately. I think I have explained my position several times, but without success (it seems). Let's see if I can be clearer this time so that we can find a consensus:

• First of all, I think that sentence is bad English (i.e. if you read it again, you'll see that it makes no sense: what is the alternative clause for "or to recognize..."?)
• Also, it mentions territorial waters and the isthmus but it does not mention airspace (I thought you said that this was not right).
• In any case, most importantly, I think that it runs the risk of being a bit biased. We should should not have to choose between saying that Spain disputes/doesn't recognize British sovereignty and the opposite (which is also true). I would not accept Justin's sentence for the same reasons that you wouldn't accept the following one:

• There's an alternative: let's just make the effort to agree on a neutral paragraph that explains both positions. I agree that we shouldn't make it too long (your first proposal was about 40 words long, so I would agree to make it in less than 80 words).

Am I very unreasonable? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the words "or to recognize..." in the first sentence of the proposal I cited, which I remind you was:

Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

Second point, I think you ought to read my points more closely because you are entirely misinterpreting them. I have never, at any point, said that I consider airspace dispute to be significant enough for inclusion on its own merits. I have used it as an alternative example to the territorial waters dispute, which is not the same thing at all.

Third point, if you think it's biased then why on earth are you proposing in its place something that you have stated is the exact equivalent on the other side? In what way is proposing things that you consider unacceptably POV helpful in finding consensus? Pfainuk talk 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another draft (omitting references for the moment), using Pfainuk's excellent headings which I repeat first, and everyone else's ideas:

• The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
  • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
  • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty

• The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it.

A bit longer than ideal, but still worth including if it, or some variant, can bring consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will accept this proposal as-is, but would suggest that the second sentence of the first paragraph might be better off worded in such a way as to not appear to be a definitive list? While the isthmus and territorial waters are the main points of contention, Spain's position on airspace and land Gibraltar has reclaimed from the sea - along with, I believe, other matters - is similar (on that latter point, this is linked to territorial waters: Spain believes that land reclaimed from the sea was originally in Spanish waters).

One other thing, the adjective form of "Gibraltar" is "Gibraltar". "Gibraltarian" explicitly refers to people. So, "Both the British and Gibraltar governments" and "Gibraltar self-determination" would be more appropriate. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree mostly, but I suggest a couple of precisions. I think they should not be controversial:

• "Additionally, Spain's position (...) or over any territorial waters." -> "Additionally, Spain's position (...) nor over any territorial waters or airspace." That way, we cover all the significant territorial issues (why give a sample of two issues when the universe of relevant issues amounts to three?)
• "(...) over all the territory of modern Gibraltar." -> "(...) over the Rock and the southern part of the isthmus, and the right to control its territorial waters and airspace." I'm not sure what "modern" Gibraltar is according to each POV... Let's mention the objective geographical places and avoid the controversy. Besides, I'm not too sure that Britain claims sovereignty on territorial waters and airspace (I think it always talks about "control").
• "Gibraltar remains in (...)" -> "Gibraltar is in (...) since 1946." The word remains seemed (to me) a bit awkward. If we try to say that it was included long ago, I think it's better to say it this way.
• Let's solve the first (and larger) part of the text and we will discuss about the last paragraph later on. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the isthmus, water and airspace are necessarily the sum total of what Spain disputes. If they are, I don't believe that such a list is necessarily accurate in implication, given the issues with land reclamation. Better to treat territorial waters and the isthmus as examples IMO.

The territory of modern Gibraltar would be the territory on which Gibraltar exists on the ground. In the same way, we use a map of modern Gibraltar, based on the realities on the ground. Spain disputes the legality of British control of the isthmus, but does not dispute the fact of it.

You state that Britain doesn't claim to have sovereignty over territorial waters and airspace. Could you give us an exceptional source to demonstrate this exceptional claim please? We already have sources cited on this page that make the opposite point, and logic would seem to support them: it would seem distinctly strange for the British to argue that they were infringing Spanish rights by exercising control over territorial waters and airspace, as you seem to be suggesting.

Your last point I can accept, given a grammatical correction. The word "since" in English, unlike in French and Spanish, always takes the past tense. Gibraltar has been... is better. Pfainuk talk 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, "has been..." then, thanks.

Regarding the words "control" or "sovereignty", I was only talking about the "preference" of the UK Gvt, not its official position. Most importantly, I think this is a side issue (and I'm sorry to have got us sidetracked with it).

Regarding the term "modern Gibraltar", I don't think it is uncontroversial and neutral: it's not clear that the isthmus -the airport and everything- is Gibraltar (or "modern Gibraltar"). Most papers refer to the Rock and the isthmus, not to the territory of "modern Gibraltar". I would ask you to look for a less controversial term. Doesn't the UK Government talk about "the Rock and the isthmus"? (look here in page 58, for example).

Regarding the list of issues in the dispute, let's look at the Spanish and British official positions:

• the official report by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008: "La controversia sobre los límites del territorio cedido afecta al istmo, a las aguas territoriales y al espacio aéreo." ("The controversy regarding the limits of the territory affects the isthmus, the territorial waters and the air space").
• a memorandum submitted by the UK FCO to the Parliament in 2008: "Sovereignty is also an ongoing issue for Gibraltar, where Spain recognises British sovereignty over the Rock, but not over the isthmus, waters surrounding the Rock (with the exception of the port), or adjoining the isthmus, or airspace over the entire Territory."

According to what they officially say, these are the issues that UK and Spain consider noteworthy. Have you found any other official position regarding this issue that says otherwise? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, try this:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first three paragraphs. Like I said before, I think the last one needs some changes, but we can talk about it right after we reach some consensus on the larger part of the text. Thank you very much for all the good work, Richard. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the words "if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar". One problem with quoting 300-year old documents is that sometimes words have changed in meaning. The word "alienate" does not work in this sentence in modern English IMO, and the entire sentence seems a touch laboured. Maybe:

It argues that Gibraltar has a right to self-determination, subject to the Treaty of Utrecht, which states that if Britain chooses to leave Gibraltar the territory must be offered to Spain.

I also notice that you mention sovereignty being "agreed to be British" without first explaining who is agreeing. I believe it would be better to introduce the fact of the dispute before going into details of people's positions on it.

The phrase "with all attached rights" also seems a touch awkward to me. If "modern Gibraltar" is a problem for Imalbornoz (and I don't accept his reasoning: there is no plausible doubt that the isthmus, including the airport, are controlled by Gibraltar), then it would be better for us to come up with a different phrase that means the same thing. I note that I cannot account for his claim that the British government uses the phrase "the rock and the isthmus".

I also still don't think I can go with the "Rock and the port". If we're listing the areas that Spain recognises as British, we should list the areas that Spain recognises as British. That means the town and castle, and their port, fortifications and defences. Pfainuk talk 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that the phraseology of the T of U was never precise enough to draw a fully-agreed line on any map, or on the ground. Approximately, the present disagreements have to do with the southern part of the isthmus and so on, but if we try for precision we will be setting ourselves up to fail. I suggest that we actually need to give a correct, but approximate guide. I think it's unambiguously true that the G of S recognizes British sovereignty over the Rock and the port? It may recognize other snippets as well, but we will do well to leave them out of this article. Anyway, here's a redraft, using your other points:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days but rejoining the discussion I would oppose this suggestion as it omits clearly relevant facts. Gibraltar was listed as colony only because Britain chose to list it, this fact is relevant. This fact becomes relevant as a result of from function creep where the text has grown and grown and grown, so that where previously a sentence would have been more than adequate it is now giving more and more prominence to the dispute and its no longer appropriate for an overview. This could be covered in a few words instead we're stretching it into an opus again. Just like adding two words self-governing was stretched into an opus to avoid mentioning those two words. Every attempt to add text to this article, no matter how brief is turned into an excuse to add more and more text to give additional prominince to territorial claims. I also have to observe that the reasons for rejecting shorter versions don't stand up to scrutiny. Its becoming a WP:COATRACK as feared and I'd personally just give up on the whole idea if we're going down this route. Sorry but I really do have very strong feelinsg about this and I oppose this. Justin talk 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that Pfainuk's suggestions are reasonable, so long as we can find a text brief enough to satisfy them (I think it's possible). If we need other ideas for the wording, I think we can use some official diplomatic sources (who usually are very precise when they write official papers) -> you can take a look at the official papers from the Foreign Affairs Offices from Spain and the UK that I cited above.

I think that Richard's text is a very good effort to satisfy Pfainuk's (and my) suggestions. Thank you.

Regarding Justin's comment, if what he means is that he will agree with the text if we mention the UK's role in including Gibraltar in the UN list, I am ready to agree for the sake of consensus. Anyway, I have not yet given my opinion about the last paragraph (I prefer to reach consensus on the larger part of the text). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No I am saying I am not prepared to accept it because it has become way too big for an overview article. We need to go back to the brief comments that were originally proposed and actually address what was wrong with those. I waited patiently for you to explain your objection to them and you didn't. Instead we have more and more devoted to the issue and I'm saying its too much. So no I won't accept it going into the article. Justin talk 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the text above would allow us to dispense with the present paragraph:

"More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states." which seems clearly pointy, POV, and verbose, making far fewer points than our present proposal in over half the amount of space. And I too would be prepared to include the UK's role in putting Gibraltar on the UN list if this would bring agreement by all editors, but I really don't see it as required for this overview. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

None of which addresses the point that the proposed text is of itself needlessly verbose, requiring more points to address neutrality issues, which in turn will require more points to address neutrality issues. Sorry but I oppose this for that reason, it will simply get worse and grow from here. Imalbornoz is already talking about addressing another paragraph, which from experience always mean even more verbose coverage. Please address the issue, what was wrong with the earlier briefer text? Its been rejected for no good reason to reach the state where more and more unnecessary detail is added. Detail goes into the Disputed article, not here. Justin talk 17:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if we stay with the developing consensus text above, which is about the same length as the text it will be replacing, rather than expand further? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a wording of mine:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.

Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Significant points:

• This does not mention "modern Gibraltar", but makes it clear what Britain's position is.
• It does not attempt to detail either side's arguments, putting them both in general terms only. Notably, it does not attempt to define Spain's position on where the border is.
• It notes the origin of Gibraltar's inclusion on the UN list.
• It removes the sentence about Spanish commentators, and replaces it with a more appropriate Spanish government position sourced from the commonly cited Spanish government document (page 17).
• It is significantly shorter than previous proposals, while effectively putting across the points that need to be put across. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but again no. We have suggestions above for brief coverage which are appropriate for an overview. The expanded text I oppose, there is more to Gibraltar than territorial disputes. Too verbose. I also question why you insist on persisting with a text I have indicated a problem with. This to my mind demonstrates a lack of respect to me, in that you're brushing aside any views that I have. Richard, when Imalbornoz was the sole voice of dissent you defended his position making allegations I was being uncivil, allegations you repeated at AN/I.

I suggest returning to the point where there was general agreement and proceed from there, you're significantly divergent from a point I'd support and now propose moving further in that direction. My opposition to that move will only harden. Justin talk 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I already have look above you, it really doesn't help to suggest I haven't. I suggest coverage needs to be brief, at most a few sentences. Justin talk 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have seven sentences at present (awaiting comments on the last paragraph in particular), replacing about the same amount of text.

Warning, parody alert:

Your suggestion above is, I think, "Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters." Or, possibly, "The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights". I hope that the symmetry of these two expressions may be sufficient to indicate their unsuitability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your "parody", unhelpful Richard, the two sentences are rather obviously not in the least symmetric. The first is reasonable, the second is not and serves only as a strawman to paint the first as unreasonable. If you're reduced to that sort of petty tactic then obviously you lack confidence in your content suggestion. Parody Alert: So Richard, when did you stop beating your wife?

Still oppose, implacably so now. Justin talk 09:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly we may need to proceed with a consensus that doesn't include Justin. We await further comment, but for the moment the proposal is to remove the present comments:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

And replace with:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.

Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

As you'll see, these are almost exactly the same length, and the second seems very clearly better on all criteria relevant to an encyclopedia. I propose to make a bold edit soon, unless anyone can come up with any relevant comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• OpposeAh, we see an obvious double standard here. I make a reasonable content suggestion and my comments are ignored time and time again. Richard is already talking of imposing his solution again. This is not acceptable, nor is it consensus. To achieve consensus requires addressing my comments.

I oppose this text as too verbose and unsuitable to an overview. I have proposed a more compact alternative, which has been ignored, for no good reason whatsoever. So I remain implacably opposed to this suggestion. The only way you can then impose it is by tag team edit warring as you did previously but don't pretend this is "consensus". Are you announcing this as your intention? Justin talk 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor query, the text says that Britain states the Gibraltarians should have self detirmination, then the text says that the gibraltarians believe they have self detirmination but otherwise agree with the British - implying the British /don't/ agree with self detirmination. I do agree that the old text is far too casual and open to bias, I remain convinced that a less verbose solution is preferable. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose there is a possible ambiguity. What about

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Alternative texts would be welcome, of course, and if they're shorter and still fulfil all other criteria for a major issue in Gibraltar's current politics, that would be great. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion as too verbose and request again an explanation for ignoring suggestions for much briefer texts that cover only the pertinent issues appropriate for an overview. Justin talk 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested texts would naturally be welcome. Or an alternative list of the pertinent issues might move matters forward. Pfainuk's list seems to have achieved a good measure of acceptance.

I suppose we could abbreviate the present proposal slightly by removing the remark on the way that Gibraltar appeared on the NSGT list.

I have made a couple of minor changes to the last version above - de facto limits rather than borders, in case anyone either nitpicks about airspace and waters not having conventional borders, or gets upset about any hint that there is an international land border with Spain. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Both sides do agree that there is an international land border with Spain. They don't agree on where it is, but no significant viewpoint disputes the fact that it exists.

More to the point, Spain does not dispute the fact of British control of the isthmus. Or are you seriously suggesting that the Spanish government think there's a whole line of border controls at the southern end of the isthmus that no-one has noticed? This notion makes no sense at all and has no basis whatsoever in sources. So, I oppose this change. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Richard, I have proposed a text, which you're studiously ignoring providing a criticism relevant to wikipedia's policies and your only response has been a rather poor attempt to construct a rather pathetic strawman to criticise by comparison with a clear partisan text. That is not relevant and so I reject it. The more you ask for a proposal to be provided, when one already has, the clearer it appears to me that you're not seriously engaged in trying to build a consensus.

Worse to my mind is continuing to push your own text, which being more verbose introduces further problems by requiring additional text to counterpoint its tendency to favour a particular position. Its been criticised as too verbose but rather than addressing the point you continue pushing it. My preference is to focus on and discuss a content proposal but a) pushing a text I've already indicated my opposition to and b) pretending that my proposal doesn't exist doesn't leave much room for discussion. And again I oppose this change. Justin talk 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I note what you've written, Justin. An alternative text with some credibility would really help. So far you haven't given us one, and I'm sorry that you can't see the rather obvious flaws in your suggestion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk for constructive comments. I see your point and no, I wasn't trying to rewrite reality. What about this version?

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Too verbose, and I note the editor responsible doesn't appear to be listening, a somewhat vital part of the consensus building process. Again you have not given a reasonable reason to reject my less verbose suggestion; I give you my reasons for rejecting this and you simply persist with more of the same. Not helpful Richard, not helpful at all. Justin talk 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference list 2

1. La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
2. Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
3. Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
4. [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
5. La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
6. Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
7. Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
8. Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
9. Mercopress: Spain plans to help the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision relating to the Rock’s territorial waters, reports the Gibraltar Chronicle. Lawyers representing the Spanish government filed an application to join the controversial case last Friday, a day after the British government confirmed that it would support Gibraltar in court.(...) The Gibraltar Government is challenging the Commission’s decision last December to approve a Spanish request designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law.
10. La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
11. Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
12. Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
13. [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]

More territorial disputes

We have been working on Pfainuk's suggestion, which seemed to attain widespread support:

This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:

• The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
  • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
  • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty

• The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it.

Attempts to put this into grammatical English, with one point added at Justin's insistence, have so far led us to:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a prov,ision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

This would replace the present text:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

We have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:

Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

This is clearly unsatisfactory, as can be seen from its mirror image from the other side of the dispute:

The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights.

Both prejudge the relevant claims.

We are not in a hurry, but this change has now received a lot of attention. It's about time to make the edit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Too verbose, and your attempt to rubbish my suggestion with a deliberately POV text is not helpful; this isn't grounds that are relevant to[REDACTED] nor a reasonable means of discussing content on wikipedia. Nor does my content suggestion prejudge claims in any manner. Again I ask is it your intention to tag team edit war your content into the article. You're refusing to discuss this in a reasonable manner or to take criticism on board, you keep talking about imposing this edit and you have a track record of doing so. I will oppose any attempt to do so and will seek admin intervention. Justin talk 09:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oh lord. False equals. I may agree on many points but you lost me on the 'We can just switch it around and it is all the same'. NPOV is not viewing both situations as equal, because they are not. The claims we should not prejudge, correct, but the situation itself is not the same. Both Spain and the UK claim Sovereignty over the disputed area. The difference is that the UK exercises sovereignty over it while Spain does not. My issue with the reverse is it implies the opposite. That Spain has the land over which it claims sovereignty and Britain does not have it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly, worse still is the deliberate use of POV terms to make the second sentence deliberately POV and claiming the two are equivalent. This is simply obstructive. Justin talk 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, given the situation on the ground the two comments aren't quite precisely symmetrical. The point is that in a disputed area we need to write for the opponent. By this criterion, sorry, both of these fail badly. I've recently read through the entire talk archives of this page and I'd really like to avoid the wounded feelings that have resulted from good-faith, but ill-judged, attempts to make this a better encyclopedia. I'd really, really like to obtain a consensus on a clear, NPOV text that outlines all the major issues. I think we're very close. Kudos again to Pfainuk for his outline of the main points. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense, the two texts aren't remotely symmetrical. Your argument boils down to this: compare apple with orange and claim that apple is biased. No, those aren't grounds for deciding content on wikipedia. It doesn't fail and lets get down to it, its not the text, its the editor who wrote it. You've personally vetoed each and every content suggestion I've made. This is not about NPOV its about ownership.

We're not even remotely close whilst you continue to ignore reasonable objections and continue to push the same text, which editors have already indicated clearly and concisely what is wrong with it. Justin talk 08:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree on a few facts and then we'll try to agree on a text as neutral as possible:

• Isthmus: Britain holds de facto control over the southern part of the isthmus since the mid 19th century. Britain claims its sovereignty based on its continuous occupation. Spain claims its sovereignty arguing that the ToU didn't include the cession of the isthmus and, although it has allowed the UK its temporary use (to treat some epidemy in the mid 19th century), it has never ceded its sovereignty and has periodically asked Britain to leave that territory.
• Territorial waters: Britain holds some de facto control over the waters nearer (I'm not sure at all that up to 3 NM, does anybody have some info?) Gibraltar (periodically interrupted by Spanish fishermen, Security forces...) Britain claims the sovereignty of the waters up to the 3 NM limit, arguing that both conventional (the UN convention) and customary international law support this position. Spain (I'm not sure that it doesn't hold some de facto control over some of the waters inside the 3 NM limit, anybody? ) claims the sovereignty of all the waters around Gibraltar (except inside the port) arguing that the ToU didn't allow Britain to gain control outside Gibraltar.
• Airspace: I don't know who holds de facto control (any reliable source?). Both the UK and Spain claim sovereignty with the same arguments as with the territorial waters.

Do we all agree on these facts before we start summarising them? (if someone has some additional info to share, it will be welcome) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeat the same position, thats always a good consensus building ploy.

Why mention Utrecht at all? A 300 year old treaty? The dispute is over the isthmus and territorial waters, thats pretty much all that needs mentioning. Everything else is details that go into the Dispute article. A few sentences at most is needed. Justin talk 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is of course a rational argument that nothing else matters enough to be worth including here. Personally I'd go with Pfainuk's list, the one that we've been working on. Does anyone else agree with Justin's suggestion - though we don't yet have a text - that we can leave out the T of U and several other points? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW if you're going to revert to restore a text that is in violation of wikipedia's policies, it would be better to do a complete revert and restore the NPOV tag. Justin talk 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that we have a consensus minus Justin. Unless this changes in the next day or so I plan to remove the present text:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

And replace it with:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No you clearly don't have a consensus, other editors have indicated their opposition. Pretending they don't exist is disruptive. Be warned if you plan on tag team edit warring again, I will seek admin intervention. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To amplify that point, I note that Pfainuk has not been able to comment since his last visit, where he indicated problems with this proposal. Narson has also indicated his dissatisfaction, I have clearly indicated my issues with the proposal. To therefore claim there is consensus and I am the sole voice of "unreasonable opposition" is simply not sustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're at or even particularly close to the point where leaving people out of the consensus-building process is appropriate. Justin is entitled to make points and should not be ignored just because it may be convenient for others. The fact that others disagree with Justin's points does not invalidate them.

Clearly, no editor has a final veto on content, but we should still be looking to include all editors in any given consensus.

My perspective on the point at hand is this:

I have an issue with "present de facto limits" because it doesn't mean anything, and can perfectly easily be substituted with words that do. Like, for example, "existing borders", the wording that I originally proposed and that no-one raised any objection to.

I think that, whereas verbosity is to be avoided, we ought to explain the very basics of the dispute in this section. The fact of the Spanish claim over areas that both sides agree are British territory (the whole self-determination vs. territorial integrity bit) is significant. I rather feel that if we are limiting ourselves to a single sentence, there is not a lot of point in bothering - since that point is already made rather more expansively in the lede. Hence my suggestion that it be a bit longer. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Less is often more, we need to cover this briefly and not create WP:COATRACKs to skew the article into nothing but the sovereignty dispute. I am not insisting on a single sentence but it does demonstrate that less verbose text is possible and that is achieved by including only essential facts. For instance do we need to mention Utrecht at all, its possible to simply state what is disputed. Note I suggested a few sentences were all that is needed - and they can be short sentences. This is an overview after all, the details can go elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk, as I've mentioned I find your list of essential points on the dispute to be particularly useful. The reason for avoiding the word "border" is that the official Spanish view says that there isn't one. Again, a really good NPOV text will where convenient avoid using words that provoke any position however silly or even counterfactual. Such words at best require further explanation or justification, and are a standing temptation to POV warriors.

I'd love to include all editors in a final consensus. On reviewing Justin's contributions since his return, it's clear that only outside intervention will allow that. Simply, we have had from him incompetent and POV edits, immense but ill-directed argumentation, and far-fetched accusations of most crimes in the Wikibook, and the only time that this has calmed down is after a concisely-expressed outside opinion on his content proposals. He repeatedly threatens administrative action and indeed, apart from walking away and letting him take full ownership of the article, I can see no other solution. It seems only fair to give him the chance to improve his editing or frame his argument first, but if he doesn't do that soon then I intend to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, on your description of the official Spanish view. Please cite me a source that says that Spain does not accept that there is a border between Spain and Gibraltar, and then please explain to me what they believe divides British sovereign territory from Spanish sovereign territory if no border exists. Alternatively, please cite me a source that says that Spain thinks that there is a line of border posts at the southern end of the isthmus, some distance inside British-controlled territory. In either case, the sources will have to be fairly exceptional, because both the claims made are absurd.

Secondly, you say that a really good NPOV text will avoid using words to provoke any position however silly or counterfactual. Frankly, that's crap. Do you think we should avoid reference to the curvature of the Earth because it might provoke the Flat Earth Society? Perhaps you feel that Barack Obama should express doubt as to his birthplace, to appease those who believe that he was born outside the United States? And should AIDS avoid naming HIV as the virus that causes it for fear of provoking those who think that it isn't? You just argued that we should do all of those things.

Nowhere does WP:NPOV require us to pretend that things are accurate when we can demonstrate that they are inaccurate. And specific to this case, nowhere does WP:NPOV require us to pretend that Spain might have control over the isthmus when it is clear - indeed, undisputed - that it does not. There is no way that I can accept this as a basis for this wording. I'll respond to the second paragraph below. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Putting it like that makes clear that I have overstated my case. Sorry, and thanks for the enlightenment. However, I don't think it's useful to use the word "border" when the Spanish view is that there isn't one at La Linea or at any rate shouldn't be one, and when there are other good ways of putting it. The land area "under de facto British control" is unambiguous and doesn't raise hackles un-necessarily, it doesn't imply anything incorrect and merely leaves the de jure issue for discussion elsewhere. I still suggest it's a useful form of words, but no doubt there are others and I'd appreciate your suggestions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, what some sources say is that the limit in the middle of the isthmus is not a border. For example, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "España no reconoce que el límite marcado por la verja constituya una frontera internacional" (in the official paper cited above). Unlike the curvature of the Earth, international borders are a social and legal convention (i.e. something that is accepted by some persons). Spain, one of the parts in this controversy (one of the sides of the theoretical "border") does not agree the "convention" that a border exists in the middle of the isthmus. On the other hand, Britain calls it a border. If WP calls the line in the middle of the isthmus a border, then it is not NPOV (unless it explains it is a Brtish claim). If it calls the limit of the Rock a border, it's not NPOV either (that's a Spanish claim). Let's use other less pointy (as in POV) words if possible? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see your source for this mysterious line of border controls at the southern end of the isthmus that you say that Spain says exists. Please supply one. Sure, Spain doesn't recognise the legality of the border. But that is not what you're arguing: you're arguing that Spain says that there is no border at all.

Nowhere does NPOV require us to pretend that things are accurate when they are plainly inaccruate. As such, the fact that one side of the dispute does not like the fact that these buildings exist does not mean that we have to pretend that they do not, or express any particular doubt about the matter. Your argument that we do is absurd, and there is no way I can possibly accept it. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of you about the length of the text: the issue should be covered in no more than 2-4 paragraphs, but it has to be covered with enough length to explain all the noteworthy points (and I must add that the topics of sovereignty and territorial limits in Gibraltar are VERY noteworthy both in scholar papers and newspapers, and in all kinds of POVs -from the most extreme to the most neutral).

I agree with Richard that we should try to avoid sentences and/or expressions that are used only by one side, unless we attribute that expression to the position of that side (e.g. "Britain claims that... borders..." or "Spain claims that... colony...) Otherwise, WP would be assuming one POV, not a neutral POV.

In any case, this should not be hard. If you take a look at the papers from the Governments of Spain and the UK, their position is very clear and easy to summarize (I think).

Finally, I must say that I also want everyone to be included in the consensus. But in order to do it, Justin / Monster must change his attitude. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, Justin is not required to take your position. You go on about his changing his attitude - well, if that's what you want, perhaps you should change yours as well. In order to reach consensus, we need to reach a compromise. Systematically dismissing his arguments, often without actually making any counter-argument, is not the way to do this. It's not reasonable of you to expect him to compromise and compromise until he reaches your position, and that's not the way to get consensus on this. But that's what you seem to expect. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin needs not change his position. He just needs to change his attitude. It would be helpful if he stopped making unilateral edits and reversals in topics that are subject to a very hard and long discussion in order to reach consensus. For example, his edits about the capture and the exodus. Wouldn't you have complained and said something about BRD if it was someone else removing text (and reverting the reversal) which was uncomfortable to the Spanish POV while we were discussing it? Please ask him to stop that behaviour and self-revert to the previous text. (BTW, it must be quite disorienting for outside editors -if there are any at this point- to see continuous references to "Justin needs this or that" when no signature appears to resemble that name anymore... What should we do?) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was Richard, not Justin, who torpedoed discussion on this point. It was Richard, not Justin, who wrecked our chances of getting a friendly consensus on this matter in the short term. It was Richard, not Justin, who pushed this from discussing the article to discussing the editors. All through this post.

You demand I tell Justin to do things but seem totally unwilling to say anything to the person who actually sank this. You demand WP:BRD - so perhaps you and Richard ought to stop with the unhelpful personal remarks and actually engage in discussion. We can do it. But it needs all sides to be careful about what they say and tolerant of others.

For my part, I support Justin's edit. It is neutral and gives due weight to the points concerned. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Which edit would that be? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Border?

When is a border not a border?

If there isn't a border, could somone tell me why there are border guards, passport and customs controls on the Spanish side of the ... er border? Note the second from a neutral third party source Google brings up over 2,000,000 hits. Mmmm, to be honest WP:DUCK springs to mind, not calling it a border just seems, well, extraordinarily silly to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On this point, I couldn't agree with you more. But the word is a partisan issue. I'm just trying to find a convenient way of not upsetting anybody. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a border there. Spain may not believe that it is a legal border, but that does not change the fact that it is there. There are customs facilities and passport control and everything. The legality of the border may be an issue - that being the whole point of the sentence - but the existence of the border is undeniable. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Monster's link leads to the following definition: "The line or frontier area separating political or geographical regions." The geographical regions are very clear (the Rock and the isthmus), although I think that you mean it in the political sense. And we can spend months discussing where each "political region" begins and ends. It's much easier to use alternative expressions that are sure to satisfy all POVs. This one obviously doesn't satisfy one of two very respectable POVs, because the British POV says that the political regions are separated in the middle of the isthmus, and the Spanish POV says that the limit is between the Rock and the isthmus.

If you insist in talking about borders, I will insist that the two (not only the British or the Spanish) POVs are mentioned each time this word appears, in order to guarantee NPOV. But I'm afraid this will make the text unnecessarily long... That's why I ptopose to use alternative uncontroversial expressions (there are many!!!). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Given what can only be described as your threats, and as the person who initially proposed both the change in question and the form that we are discussing, I feel that it is now clear that no consensus that contains both you and me is possible on that basis.

I do not think it is very much to expect you to acknowledge that these buildings exist, and that they are in the location that all the sources say they are in - but apparently it is. In my view, your argument that we must mislead our readers in order to appease the POV of one side of a dispute represents the most serious form of intellectual dishonesty, dishonesty of a kind that has no place in the writing of an encyclopædia, or indeed elsewhere. Though I dislike what we have, it is far better than what you propose. Pfainuk talk 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, when we see such an obvious statement of an outrageously intransigent POV position that simply flies in the face of common sense it is highly unlikely that a reasonable consensus position can be achievable.

I would also point out to Richard, does it not also occur to you that not calling it a border is perhaps equally partisan? In trying to find a way to please everyone, you end up actually being patronising, pleasing no one and failing to provide the NPOV that is the cornerstone of wikipedia's policy. It is perhaps better to use the term border and also include the alternate POV as a direct quote. When it is really that silly it condemns itself. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Denying that it is a border would be even more partisan - as you say the physical and social reality is there. We simply don't need to argue this point in the overview article and can leave it for the Dispute article. That's all there is to this issue... Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

1. Of course the buildings are there. What I'm saying is that the GoSpain (a very relevant source in this controversy) claims that those buildings are not seating on an international border that separates two nations, but on top of Spanish ground (implying the not undisputably insane idea that wherever a country unilaterally decides to build some customs and a barrier is not automatically an international border). You don't need to share this POV to respect it in the article. To mention a border in the middle of the isthmus strongly implies that the southern half is under British sovereignty and the northern half is under Spanish. I hope you (Justin, Pfainuk, Richard) agree that to imply this is clearly non-NPOV. Do you? Please, answer this question.
2. One more thing: Pfainuk has said that he does not think that he can be in a consensus with me. I hope this is the result of a temporary misunderstanding. BTW, I have not made any threats like Pfainuk said (of course). I just proposed what I honestly and in good faith thought was the only alternative to guarantee NPOV if we start to mention borders in the article. BTW I thought Pfainuk strongly believed that previous consensus text should prevail as per BRD. Please,Pfainuk, could you confirm that you stll stand by your comments here?
3. Richard, of course that denying that the international border is in the middle of the isthmus is partisan (Spanish partisanship). Just as partisan as asserting that the international border is there (British partisanship). Both are respectable, but non-NPOV (see my point #1).
4. Finally, I think that after the last comments and Justin/Monster's unilateral non-consensus edits/reverts, we've reached a point where formal mediation or WP:AE is the only way out. Does anybody reject dispute resolution? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To an outsider watching this page this is all a bit daft you are all going round in circles. The de facto border is the border it is not bias it is a fact of life all you need to say is the although the border is at wherever the Spanish claim that it is in the wrong place. You can all use some fancy phrases but I am afraid the border is physically where it is, all you need to mention is that Spain doesnt agree. MilborneOne (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I (and I think everybody else) have always agreed that the southern part of the isthmus is "de facto" under British control (that means, there are barriers, custom facilities, etc at the limit of this territory). I believe that the "de facto" situation is clear all along the article (and it's fine with me, I have never disputed it).

The thing is that this subsection deals specifically with the territorial dispute, and this has more to do with political and legal concepts. Although the "de facto" limit is clear, the political and legal border (the "de iure" border) is very much under dispute.

The "de facto" border is the "de facto" border, not "the border". The "de iure" border is the "de iure" border (not "the border" either). It is the British (and only British) position that the "de iure" and "de facto" borders are the same in Gibraltar. The Spanish position is that the "de iure" border lies south of the "de facto" border. The fact is that, for example, EU directives (on airspace, airports, customs, etc) never include the "de facto" border of Gibraltar: they explicitly leave it to Spain and the UK to manage the isthmus according to "de facto" temporary agreements.

To say that "the border" is at wherever the "de facto border" is, IS BIASED (sorry to contradict you, MilborneOne, I say this very respectfully).The article should take this into account, especially in the subsection about territorial disputes.

Pfainuk, Justin/Monster, Richard, please, can you take a look at the other points I mentioned above? It is very important. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mixing the political debate with what is actually happening on the ground this is an encyclopedia and is giving an overview of the place. The border is at x (sorry I dont know the name) and Spain disputes it, no more or no less. Nothing wrong in one of the other articles explaining why they dont like it but most readers expect the article to be a simple overview. The fact that Spain doesnt recognise it can be explained elsewhere we just need to say that Spain doesnt like it. If readers are interested in the dispute then they can read the more detailed explanation you cant explain everything in an overview, keep it simple. Nobody disputes that Britain and Spain dont agree but in the real world the border exists and practicaly it is recognised by everybody except for the politicians. Does the spanish customs and immigration service ignore the "border" they seem to use it as a place to check passports and papers, looks like a border everybody treats it as a border WP:DUCK it is the current border. Dont get me wrong it is clear that Spain doesnt like it and Britain/Gibralter ignores Spains protests but that can be explained elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help MilborneOne - much appreciated. You are absolutely right that the border fulfils every practical definition of a border. I merely suggest that the word is controversial and, in a simple overview, we simply need to say that Spain doesn't like the present situation. I would be very grateful for your comment on the current proposal, which explains the situation, quite well I think, without actually using the word in any context that anyone doesn't like:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

The other proposal was to use "borders" instead of "de facto limits", which is where this little fracas came from. I'd rather side-step the entire issue and provide a text that is accurate and that nobody will think is biased.

Finally, we also have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:

Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

I am fairly sure that this prejudges a number of issues, such as whether Gibraltar is part of Spain, and it omits the various rationales for the positions. However, it's shorter, we do have specific articles on the disputes, and the issues could be put right. Perhaps:

Spain requests the return of the entire territory, and believes that it has legal sovereignty over the isthmus south of La Linea and over all territorial waters and airspace.

If I could impose so far upon your good-will, I hope that a well-considered external choice at this point may put an end to years of wrangling. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at your suggestions, but bare with me I know little about Gibralter and I am not inclined to read any of the verbose talk page discussions so I will have just have a look at the suggestions on merit. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry excuse my ignorance but what is the current text in the article that is under dispute? MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise, you wouldn't be the first editor to be deterred by this talk page. The current text is:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

Thanks in advance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else demonstrates why we never get anywhere, the above was published a good 5 minutes after I'd answered Milbourne1's question. Clearly someone doesn't read my contributions. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"suggestions on merit" there is a radical idea, one I endorse wholeheartedly and its refreshing to hear a spot of common sense. I have suggested that we allow text to stand on merit but two editors refuse to allow that. You'll note that rather than letting suggestions stand on merit only, Richard has immediately tried to rubbish my own contribution. Please also note that following a discussion with Pfainuk I'd already agreed to reconsider that, ie its out of date but misrepresenting my position is common sadly. I will present some text here later today or tomorrow for your consideration but thats all I'll be doing. In answer to your question, we were discussing changing the penultimate paragraph of the history section:

Personally the way discussion are going, with walls of text going up I'm inclined to give up and leave the current consensus to stand. All I can see ahead are fruitless and unproductive discussions leading nowhere fast. We were talking about improvements and a less verbose paragraph but thats not the way its headed. I do appreciate the Blue Helmet intervention by the way from MilborneOne, an outside opinion is most welcome and I have to say he is rather brave to offer it. Kudos. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Curry Monster. I see little prospect of consensus here, though I welcome the outside intervention.

My intention when I made the original proposal here was for an addition to the politics section, rather than for the history section, since there isn't any mention of the dispute there at all. I hadn't noticed the paragraph that Curry Monster quotes at the time, but if we get a text here I'd still put it in the politics section and remove that paragraph from the history section altogether.

I will note that Richard is not being entirely accurate in his representation of contribution either. My original proposal (in this section) was:

Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.

It is the words "existing borders" that are being disputed here (as I'm sure you've read in great detail). Pfainuk talk 11:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The current statement as a continuation of the history section appears to discuss a continuing dispute about territorial waters. Is it the contention that it should also summarise the current disputed situation not just the territorial waters dispute? (simple answers only) MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we were trying to summarize the totality of the disputed situation, insofar as it's required for this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have a reasonable summary in the lead The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. so I think a more expanded version is needed but only as far as to set the scene. The detail can be in the child-articles, although it seems strange that the History of article stops in the 19th century! I will take the suggested long version, please note I am not bothered which of you suggested what far to confusing:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity.

• Looks ok but as a continuation of the previous history section perhaps it should contain Spain continues to request rather than Spain requests.

Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

• Dont see a problem in that statement.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain.

• rejects this request could be clearer the request that all the territory be returned or just the isthmus, should it be these requests.

Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

• Dont like this bit already stated that the UK rejects both requests (total or partial handover) so I dont think it is needed.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

• Doesnt actually make sense to somebody like me without a detailed knowledge of the subject not sure what it is trying to say, perhaps consider not using it.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

• Not sure it needs the Britain added Gibraltar to the list just that it is on the list. The rest appear to be be OK.

I think that the shorter texts are not really giving the reader a flavour of the recent history so I would suggest use a version of the above text but take notice of my comments. Note that longer explanations can be delegated to the child articles. Note that I have given an opinion I dont intend to debate my conclusions its up to the regulars on this page to take or ignore them. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that leaves us with something like (possible omissions in italics.):

All versions strike me as entirely acceptable. The first possible omission removes the Gibraltarian view, and I'd tend to keep it. The second removes a text on which Justin / Wee Monster has strong feelings, and if it would mean a consensus I'd accept it joyfully.

MilborneOne, many thanks for your help so far. I understand your intention to avoid further debate, but could I ask you to follow this edit, perhaps over the next week at most, until we have achieved a better version? As you may notice, we have got stuck. As an administrator you have relevant powers, and under the recent Arbcom decision on this page these are quite extensive enough to ensure that a sensible decision is in fact reached in that time.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this until Tuesday evening, but - unless there is any disagreement - will then make the edit. I propose to leave out the phrase added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now. However, if anybody wants to keep the phrase, for the sake of consensus, I'd personally be happy to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast please, I said I intended to offer a suggestion. My suggestion:

Britain doesn't reject the Spanish position, it will only negotiate with the consent of the Gibraltarians. The legality of certain Spanish claims is also questionable. I will expand this with the provision of cites later. I just need time to format them. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The part about "legal advice" is wrong (it refers to some controversial unofficial report recently published in a blog by a retired diplomat who once upon a time was the director of the Legal Services of Spain's Foreign Affairs Ministry, not to an official legal advice). It is also anecdotal. In someone thinks it is relevant, I suppose we would also have to cite the official "Kershaw Report" by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which questioned British jurisdiction over the isthmus... which is cited by several secondary sources. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For my money, the legal advice point is tangential. One of those details that could not unreasonably be described as "significant", but that aren't important enough to belong here. I would support the text otherwise.

(I note in passing that I would consider this blog to be as reliable as an autobiography or similar. It's not like it was written by an unconnected person speculating or something. That blogs are unreliable is a good general rule, but does not hold in all cases.) Pfainuk talk 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions for Richard's text in order to improve it while keeping the same information. Of course, given that English is not my native tongue, I maybe wrong, but here I go:

• I think it'd be better to use a more direct wording for the first sentence (subject+verb+predicate) not beginning with "While recognising...Spain..." but with "Spain recognises...but..."
• The text begins with the Spanish claim about sovereignty. Then the Spanish claim about territorial limits. Then it explains that "Britain rejects this request" (meaning the claim about sovereignty, not the one about territorial limits). I think this is confusing, because "this request" seems to be the one abut territorial limits. I propose that we reorder the text so that Britain's rejection goes right after the Spanish claim about sovereignty.
• The text says that "Spain claims the isthmus northward of the Rock". Actually, Spain only claims the southern half of the isthmus (the northern part has always been under Spanish control).
• Finally, from the text it would seem that Britain's argument regarding "international law" refers to all the Spanish territorial claims (isthmus, territorial waters, airspace) but it actually only refers to the territorial waters and airspace ( page 80). The title to the isthmus is defended by the UK FCO with the argument of "continuous possession" ( page 58).

The text of the two first paragraphs would be:

I hope this makes the text more accurate and understandable. What do you think, MilborneOne? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the issue I had with these texts before: it contains large amounts of unnecessary detail that would be better left to the article on the dispute. Thus I oppose it. Pfainuk talk 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose this text, it contains too much detail that is unnecessary. It is also inaccurate, Britains doesn't reject Spanish requests it will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Also as already noted above it contains text that has been rejected as confusing. I would draw attention to the fact I have not yet supplied any cites, so wonder at the prescience of the editor who commented on my proposed edit. My cite is not a blog but a news item. Nevertheless I am prepared to compromise over that, provided its included in the Dispute article. Is that a suitable suggestion? Assuming this is accepted I now propose:

This is distinctly less verbose than previous texts, so I hope it meets with approval. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It meets with mine. I have gone back to Pfainuk's list of the essential points, and tried to reconsider your text and Imalbornoz's from the view of the intended target audience - who don't know the background - and sensitive psyches on either side of the debate. Minor suggestions on this basis lead me to:

It takes the same space - six lines on my edit screen - as Justin / Wee Monster's suggestion.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The middle paragraph seems contrived, a detail too much? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A suggested amendment:

Although more accurate than the above I'm not entirely happy with this though, it seems to be going into too much detail for an overview. I would suggest my earlier draft may strike a better balance. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was indeed somethat contrived, but we could avoid any hint of an assumption that Britain is actually ever going to withdraw. Perhaps :

would be even better?

As I think I've mentioned above a shorter version does strike me as acceptable, but the current text is based on Pfainuk's list of main points, has been backed by MilborneOne, and seems acceptable to everyone else so far. I'd suggest sticking with it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the provision states the Spanish crown not Spain per se, slight tinkering:

I'm not going to insist on Spain vs Spanish Crown but I think the above is slightly better. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and it's conditional enough. We therefore have:

Do we have a consensus? It's only Monday and I still propose to leave the edit until tomorrow evening, unless of course anyone else does it first.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I support this text but suggest we add cites before putting it into the article. I also suggest as per Pfainuk removing the last paragraph of the history and placing this text under Government. Is this acceptable? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding this text will replace the last paragraph of the present History section? Yes, I agree it should all go in the Government and Politics section - it's about a current situation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the first two paragraphs are good and neutral enough (the last one is not -IMHO- but I prefer to reach agreement about the larger part first and then discuss the last paragraph later), but I still have a couple of issues regarding their accuracy:

• Spain does not claim the isthmus, but the southern part of the isthmus.
• The UK is willing to consider the request of the return of Gibraltar, not the request regarding the territorial limits (at least that I know, does anybody have any more information regarding this point?).
• The text lacks some information which I think is relevant: The arguments from each side dealing with the territorial limits.

Finally, the first two paragraphs in this text amount to 105 words. My previous proposal, which gave more detail of all these points in order to avoid the inaccuracies, was 138 words long (it's not like it was twice or 10 times larger...) I don't want to sound like "I only will accept my own text!" But I think that if we are able to be be more accurate without being too lengthy, it is better for the reader. If we manage to be more accurate in a shorter text than the one I proposed, which would be the limit: 105 words, 120 words, 140? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying again (and I note with approval that this brings us back again to a close facsimile of Pfainuk's list):

Again, do we have a consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly no, we're veering into too verbose territory again. If its only the Southern part how about.

I oppose more verbose texts as this is an overview and the arguments "its just a few more words", well bitter experience sadly says that those "few more words" usually result in an opus. Also arm waving generalities that the last paragraph is POV are not helpful. If there is an issue state it, we should be expected to guess what your objections are. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the latest text above. However, Imalbornoz is right I think, nobody on the UK side is discussing the possibility of handing over just the waters and the airspace. And, would it seem more NPOV (and a tiny bit clearer) if the last paragraph is reordered? I've made a couple more minor changes for clarity:

Again, have we reached a consensus?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, ish. Can I ask you look again at the previous suggestion, as I don't believe the additions you've added are necessary. I made some subtle changes of phrasing you may have overlooked. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm stuck. I was intending to add a couple of words to your last version, only for clarity and without changing any meaning, and I don't see the problem. Could you enlighten my ignorance? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In my version, the first line is Spain requests the return of Gibraltar, which leads to the next paragraph that Britain is willing to consider that request. It avoids the confusion with territorial waters/airspace altogether resulting in a more compact text that doesn't require a qualifier. I removed requests plural to replace it with the singular connected to the previous paragraph. I have a preference for my final paragraph simply because its shorter. Clear? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd prefer my last version as being slightly clearer - I appreciate your grammatical points but thought that for a newcomer the extra clarity would be a little better. But I'd be happy with either. Any more comments from anyone? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said I have a preference for the less verbose text. A slightlu modified version:

Slight tweaks here and there making it slimmer and less verbose. It doesn't need any qualifiers I believe if you state it like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support this version. Pfainuk talk 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks, it is indeed shorter and clearer. Does anybody want to put references in? Or to disagree? The last sentence strikes me as acceptable but the previous version

is a little clearer for newcomers, because it starts with the fact and only then gives the arguments. So I'd suggest that order - doubtless a better version could be produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Close I have one more minor tweak to suggest but wouldn't oppose the above:

How about that? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of it: the first sentence states a fact; the second sentence explains the position of the UK and Gibraltar. The last sentence does not explain the Spanish position: it fails to comply with the principle "Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view."

An alternative symmetrical to the one above will give you a clear example of what I mean:

A merger of both alternatives would reflect all viewpoints fairly representing the weight of authority for each view:

I hope we are nearer to consensus and to a NPOV text now. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in hope. What about an even shorter version, the whole thing now reading:

With UN resolutions left for child articles and, if appropriate, references, this might be the best outcome? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reluctantly Oppose Sorry but I don't think this is the best outcome, I thought we had a really good consensus building process going but I just really don't know what to say right now. I think it best if I simply register my opposition and take time to rethink what to do next. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, could I make the suggestion that the last text above is quite a lot better than the text in the article at present, and that it might be reasonable to remove

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

and substitute what we now have, in the Politics section, while leaving open the possibility of improving the new text? I agree that we are doing well here - thanks to all and especially to MilborneOne - and would hope to establish some of the progress actually made. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to get a clear consensus position before doing this - given circumstances, it's probably best to do it by the book. I am willing to support both your text of 16:40 and Curry Monster's of 14:06 (they being identical other than the third paragraph). I do not accept Imalbornoz's claim that his suggestion and Curry Monster's are symmetrical, and strongly oppose his proposal of 16:30 as being a very long way over the "too detailed" line. Pfainuk talk 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's leave the UN resolutions out for now if you think they're too detailed. I would support this text if -at least- we adopt a slightly less Gibraltarian POV to describe Spain's position. I understand that from a Gibraltarian POV "Spain opposes" is the right way to describe Spain's position. From Spain's (and the UN'S position) the text should say that Spain supports the UN position, not that "UN says this, G and UK say the contrary, and Spain opposes the opposition". I believe that explaining each one's opinion from their own POV is the right thing to do, don't you think?

This text is just as detailed as Richard's or Justin's. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A question to all: What virtue is there in mentioning that spain supports the retention on the list? It seems clunky. It also ascribes some sense that the UN would require Spainish support to keep it on the list - It is a UN list, the UN (as in the constituted parts of it) could put France on it if it wants. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this suggestion. It is this sentence above causes me concern:

I'm troubled by this intervention, deeply troubled to be honest given the positive nature of previous discussions. I'm compelled to say it struck a strongly discordant note with me but I will try to put that behind me to explain my opposition.

Spain's position is based on the principle of Territorial integrity claiming that the population is implanted and does not enjoy the right to self-determination under UN resolution 1514 and the UN Charter. As I will show below the resolutions mentioned have nothing to do with decolonisation, rather they're usually cited in regard to the Spanish sovereignty claim. The Spanish position on sovereignty is already covered in the article. So this would be giving prominence to the Spanish position twice. Hence, I don't find this sentence would contribute to a NPOV, rather it would detract from it.

1. wikisource:Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964 Simply calls for negotiations between the two powers, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
2. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2070 Again simply calls for negotiations, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
3. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2231 Again simply calls for negotiations, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
4. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2353 Scolds Britain for asking the people of a dependent territory for their views in a democratic referendum, cites the principle of territorial integrity and calls for negotiations.
5. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 Defines what is a non-self-governing territory and the criteria by which it would be judged to no longer be a dependent territory. This is one of the bedrock UN resolutions on the matter.
6. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 Is the resolution that called for an end to colonisation.

If we look at the resolutions cited in the sentence quoted above, they're clearly not related to the NSG territory list, which is the topic of this paragraph. However, 5 is clearly relevant, 6 is also relevant but as a general principle only and could be suborned to the child article.

Focusing now on 1541, this defines the criteria for a non-self-governing territory, it doesn't favour one side or the other. Of itself its worthy of inclusion as one of the bed rock resolutions of decolonisation and for its relevance to the list we're discussing. I don't think the same can be argued for the other resolutions.

I would hope there is agreement that I've demonstrated the resolutions the above sentence calls up aren't relevant to the topic of this paragraph. Hence, the paragraph suggested following this intervention, removed the one resolution (1541) that is significantly relevant, results in a proposed text that is poorer for it and is diverging from wikipedia's mission of educating our readers on this topic.

I would like to see a minimalist approach but have been prepared to compromise and see more details included than is perhaps necessary for an overview IMHO. I have been prepared to compromise on the Spanish refusal to refer the matter to the ICJ, leaving it to another article. I've been prepared to compromise that the legal advice advice on the Spanish position indicates it is illegal under International Law, leaving it to another article. I can acknowledge those comments as perhaps too detailed for an overview. I don't think this applies to 1541 though. Hence, for me this is just a compromise too far - if we go for more verbose text, inevitably certain details simply have to be covered. I have one final suggestion.

I hope we can finally agree on a consensus text. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So do I and I'd be happy with this one, and with Imalbornoz's too - for all that I've been keen to get it right, it is possible to get a little too concerned about detail. I'd tend to agree that the other resolutions mentioned are in some sense subsidiary to 1541 and 1514 and I suggest that it is possible to include them and leave out the others here. What about, approximately, Imalbornoz's order but including 1541 and 1514, perhaps thus:

Mentioning the Resolutions does make it slightly longer, but as I say I find that entirely defensible. Thanks everyone for your efforts so far. Can I ask for you all to overcome the last little obstacle and achieve a significant improvement in the article?

To answer Narson's question, I guess that if it wasn't for strong Spanish feelings, Gib would have been removed from the list of NSGT some time ago. I can't reference that idea, unless Wikileaks produces something, but nobody else cares enough. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're correct without Spain's opposition, Gibraltar would have been delisted - I can cite that as the opinion of a number of authors but we need to separate fact from opinion here. Spain actually classes Gibraltar as a Dependent territory, which is why I included the link. I like this text as it brings in 1514 and it is defensible but I have a weak preference for the previous text simply because it brings in the wikilink. I am off to cogitate some more on the matter but I believe we're close. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A point I would make is that there is a semantic difference - albeit a small one - between the two wordings.

Imalbornoz's wording states that Spain actively supports retaining Gibraltar, including in circumstances where Britain is not discussing the issue. The implication is that Spain would speak in support of inclusion even if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it: that Spain's support is a matter for itself, unrelated to Britain and Gibraltar's arguments for removal.

Curry Monster's wording states that Spain responds to Gibraltar and Britain's arguments. It does not imply anything about what Spain would do if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it, because it is written on the premise that they have.

To my mind, Imalbornoz's wording puts the cart before the horse. It goes into Spain's arguing for the status quo before suggesting that there might be disagreement about this. To my mind, this is the wrong way around. I also don't think that it is necessarily on the right side of the semantic difference: I would speculate (and I fully accept that it would be speculation) that Spain would not put the issue of removal or retention on the table if Britain and Gibraltar had not already done so. So, I think Curry Monster's wording is better. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

San Roque and reasons to leave Gibraltar yet again

Yet again the mention of San Roque as the main destination (with current implications for at least one national narrative) of the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been removed. So has the main reason for the evacuation, namely fear after riotous invasion and atrocities committed under guarantees of safety. A passing allusion and a minor speculation replaces this. I appreciate that these facts do not sit well with the other national narrative, but they are multiply-referenced and have achieved a consensus.

I have therefore reverted from: "During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave."

to

"On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain,assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."

Those coming new to this issue may wish to check the quotations currently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Those who wish to reprise the arguments so far may wish to trawl the archives. The specific issue here is a major theme from October 2009.

Justin, you suggest administrative involvement as the best course to solve this issue. I find it quite refreshing to agree with you. It's very nearly a year since I joined this discussion, responding to one of the requests for comments. I came in at Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16, and from well before then the archives record acrimonious and ultimately vain attempts to include you in the consensus. As I have previously argued, I do not feel that you have sufficient competence to contribute usefully to this page. We have had many months of filibustering and disruption, with good editors and wellmeaning mediators being driven away and those who stay the course wasting huge amounts of time. Short of decisive intervention, I see no reason to anticipate improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't appear to be the person feeling the need to angrily resort to personal attacks again; attacking another editor with a bad tempered bad faith attack for the umpteenth time. How many times do you propose to drag up the past?

We asked for outside comment, I asked that walls of text were not used as a means to deter outside comment but the same tried and true technique was used and, guess what, we didn't get any.

If anyone is incompetent Richard, that person is you. You have made this your personal crusade, you have personalised this and you're obsessed with my edits to a point that is completely unhealthy. You have long since ceased to be objective, you see the person and you reject the edit, you don't consider the content. You obsess over my edits, yet when other editors misrepresent their sources or resort to bad faith attacks you defend them.

The claim of concensus is disingenous, there was dissent about this, Pfainuk objected but was driven away by a group of editors who responded with bad faith to his objections.

I would be quite content to allow my content suggestions to stand on their own merit. I'd happily stand back and let the community decide on content, without feeling the need to bombard editors with walls of text to make sure they select the right one. I asked if you were prepared to do that and your answer was no. That says to me you have no confidence in the community to decide content or in the neutrality of the text you propose. Justin talk 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin, your edit has repeatedly been found to be controversial. To include it once and twice (after Richard Keatinge's revert) again in the middle of a very hard process of building consensus is very annoying and does not contribute to build a better encyclopedia. Please, restore the previous consensus as per BRD and do not disrupt this page (even more taking into account the measures that were approved by the ArbCom after your topic ban). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I agree that at this point WP:AE would seem to be required in order to make any progress on your issues on this page. Do you want to make the request for help, or leave it for someone else? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't here to put the national narratives of either side. They belong in Disputed status of Gibraltar, not here. Nor are we here to expound on how evil either side is or was in the past - that doesn't belong anywhere in a neutral encyclopædia. This section is here to give a summary history of Gibraltar.

Richard. Why? Why make this comment, full of personal remarks? The fact is that nothing at all, but bad blood and acrimony, will come of this discussion. And that was true from the moment you pressed the save button. Don't blame Justin for it - from my perspective I find your comment quite extraordinarily ill-judged.

Yes, we've discussed this issue before. But the RFC was filibustered, remember? And you can hardly blame Justin for that filibuster - he was the one who wanted strictly-enforced rules to prevent it. Everyone - including you, Richard - needs to accept that all of us have a responsibility to keep the peace here. All of us needs to make a conscious effort to avoid inflaming tensions. That means bringing contentious edits up here, but it also means not making derogatory personal comments about other people. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin / Wee Curry Monster has interrupted a year long discussion (about the text mentioning the atrocities during the capture and the exodus to San Roque) and gone directly to completely remove this episode from the article. Even though he has been reverted to the previous consensus text (by Richard) and asked to return to the discussion before making an edit he obviously knows is very controversial (as per BRD), he has reverted Richard back. And he has not even responded when he has been warned that this is against the measures approved by the ArbCom!!! I understand perfectly Richard's desperation. I am not going to enter into an edit war with this person.

Pfainuk, could you please tell Justin / Monster to behave, self-revert, and stick to the discussion? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin / Monster (please tell us if you prefer that we call you your new or your old name), you have unilaterally removed some text from the article not once but two times during the last days: (the last one even after one other editor told you to return to the talk page). This makes it already 5 times that you have unilaterally changed the text since your return from your topic ban.

You know that this text has been under discussion for over a year, and that the last consensus was to include the text (although it is true that the consensus was reached while you were topic banned). In any case, according to what the ArbCom reminded all of us, you should try to build consensus by discussing in the talk page and using other dispute resolution tools, not edit warring like you have.

I am not going to edit war with you in order to return to the previous consensus text while we discuss with you about a new one. I kindly ask you to do it yourself, as a sign of your good will to build consensus through discussion and not to impose your POV through edit warring. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I have returned to the previous consensus text as per BRD. I hope this time Justin / Wee Curry Monster does not revert, like he did when Richard Keatinge returned to the previous consensus text. I suppose Pfainuk will agree as he has repeatedly stated that this is the right procedure . Let's "make discussion, not edit war" ;) . -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly throwing around 9-month old diffs does nothing of benefit here. Rather, it serves to significantly reduce my confidence in your willingness to assume good faith because you seem to feel the need to try and force me to agree with you rather than allowing me to come to my own conclusions in good faith. Your threats in the previous thread to go through the article creating hassle if I don't accept your position have a similar effect. As such, I suggest you don't do it again.

As I've said before, the point where WP:BRD broke down here was when Richard launched into a series of derogatory personal remarks instead of actually attempting to discuss the edit. I note that even now, no editor - including you - has bothered to give any substantial objection to the edit in question. If you want to operate WP:BRD then you have to be willing to discuss the edit rather than the editor. So far you have not demonstrated any willingness to do so here. Pfainuk talk 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said previously, policy wins over strong feelings. The text I have replaced has several POV problems. These include WP:CHERRY, cherry picking facts to create a misleading impression, and WP:COATRACK creating a hook for POV edits. I have also indicated a willingness for San Roque to be included, provided it was suitably qualified to indicate that it resulted from the exodus and was not its destination thereby avoiding said WP:COATRACK. I note that any qualification to that statement has been rejected and so I have removed mention - for now. My edit includes details of the violent disorder but also includes other relevant facts that the text replaced did not. I would also draw attention to the fact I have been prepared to compromise over my edits, including qualifiers that were redundant to satisfy certain editors but they have not been prepared to reciprocate. I am prepared to discuss content but will not respond to personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Addedendum: If you're going to revert by the way, do a complete revert and restore the NPOV tag as well. Otherwise your intentions may well be miscontrued. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Enforcement

A request regarding Wee Curry Monster has been filled by me here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the amicable discussion re content underway currently I believe this complaint is unfounded and ill-advised bearing in mind the series of bad faith attacks launched by you. Please respect my talk page in future. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

• See also: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

I have full protected the article for 2 weeks. Sort out what sorts of information you agree to include and what presentation. Keep in mind that you should stick to the sources and cite reputable references. If sources conflict, reflect that in the text. If you need some help sorting out content issues, get some help. Other matters are being sorted out in the enforcement thread linked above. All editors of this page are notified that this article and related topics are subject to discretionary sanctions. See: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. Cool it down and sort it out. Vassyana (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• 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)