Talk:Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain

Organisation of references

I'm a bit at a loss as to how to nicely tidy up the references in this article. I think at the moment there's a mix of plain links, cites etc.. Could the source list be merged into one list with a prefix in the link e.g. "(Spanish)", "(British)" if a need to differentiate is required (if indeed at all)? NathanLee 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitution

I've removed the excerpt from the constitution, as it's not directly related to the territorial dispute. Miken32 (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some propaganda

Sorry, but sometimes source are analyzed and found not only inconsistent, but rather a propaganda pamphlet not only unworthy to be referenced here but simply not complying with our standards on sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). This statement relates to some "report" by an unknown "Europa Historical Society" that talks about a certain agreement in the Treaty of Seville. Unfortunately, without resorting to proper secondary sources, it is nowadays possible to access the text of the Treaty of Seville (see here) and, unfortunately (and I say unfortunately for the enthusiast propagandist of said page) Gibraltar is not even mentioned not only in the text of the Treaty but in the Preliminaries (the immediately previous text). Therefore, I'll remove such weird statement (which, on the other hand, is not claimed at all by the UK). --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed this sentence:

When peace prevailed, the Spanish occupied half of the 'neutral territory' and the British a corresponding half, with a fence demarcating the frontier.

As it describes as factual what is actually the UK POV. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It meets WP:RS, you're inventing reasons to remove content. No. Justin talk 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to.

You've been provided explanations of my changes above (two weeks ago), as duly said in the edition summaries (see here) in Talk:La Línea de la Concepción, and in the user's talk page. By your blind reversions, the following is being lost:

• A new reference on the British position (Gold book)
• A proper reference on the Spanish position (Spanish Foreign Minister report)
• A map on the Spanish position
• A template asking for references.

It seems a rather incomprehensible attitude. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're removing sources you don't like dismissing them as "propaganda". Don't play the innocent, you know full well why I've reverted. As usual you edit war again to try and get your own way. Nothing incomprehensible about it. Sources you agree with, funnily enough they're alright but sources you disagree with get removed. Curious. Justin talk 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying "something is reliable" is not an argument. Some cut and paste from short on facts:

Everybody is possibly aware of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is the "source" we're considering a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems it's none of them. Let's see. Is the "Europa Historical Society" referenced by anyone? Well, a quick check to Google Scholar shows no mention. I've carefully read through the bibliography of my extensive Gibraltar-related library and no mention to such a prestigious "historical society". No mentions to it in google besides directories and the like. The Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society does not mention them ever. Although it's pretty simple to collect a group of guys and pretend they're more than that, a group of friends, it's not so easy to make them write a "reliable source". So, it's unknown whether it's "reliable" (nobody is able to provide any assessment), it's not a "third-party" source, it's unknown whether it has "published" anything ever, and it has no "reputation" since nobody in the "business" is aware of its existence.

However, it could be possible that what they say were useful or at least sensible. However, that's also again wishful thinking. The main "finding" of the analysis is some agreement in the Treaty of Seville. Unfortunately, without resorting to proper secondary sources, it is nowadays possible to access the text of the Treaty of Seville (see here) and, unfortunately Gibraltar is not even mentioned, not only in the text of the Treaty but in the Preliminaries (the immediately previous text). So, we have an unknown "historic society" that is unable to fulfill at least one of the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Given the invention of the contents of the Treaty of Seville, it cannot described as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". On the contrary.

If someone thinks it's a reliable source, he should provide an argument. Saying that "it's reliable" is simply a variation of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified reversions

On 8, 9 and 100 January, I started an attempt to improve the status of this article, IMHO very much faulty. The summary of the changes can be seen below (with a full description of the changes in User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain)

Edition #1 (23:59, 8 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: British position: Removing false information, as explained in the talk page and in Talk:La Línea de la Concepción Summary of changes: As explained in the talk page and in the talk page of the article on La Línea de la Concepción, an unknown Historical Society claims that something was agreed on the Treaty of Seville. A simple inspection of such Treaty reveals that its false Actual changes: the section (which has been challenged for two weeks) has been removed Type (Editorial/Content): C

Edition #2 (00:00, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: British position: Expanding (with references) Summary of changes: As the source provided (by the UK government) does not provide a definition according to Public International Law (about how it got the sovereignty on the disputed territory), it is complemented by a secondary source stating that the British claims on "continious possession" translates into prescription. The secondary source is from a British scholar, Peter Gold. Its works are used, for instance, to support the assertion on Gibraltarians being a nation (see Gibraltarian people) Actual changes: the section on the British position is enhanced with the Gold source. The source by the British government remains Type (E/C): C

Edition #3 (00:01, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: Positions of each side: Non neutral, as it takes one of the parts' POV as neutral statements Summary of changes: A sentence is removed. It is placed in the general section in clause "Positions of each side" and describes the problem according to the British POV. As WP:NPOV clearly states: A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth Actual changes: the sentence is removed Type (E/C): C

Edition #4 (00:04, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: Spanish position: Moving to the British position section Summary of changes: The Spanish position is provided a source by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain. A statement on the British position on the Airport of Gibraltar (which lays in the disputed territory) is removed in order to be moved to the coresponding section Actual changes: reference from the Spanish Government is provided. A section on the British position on the dispute is removed (it will be included in next edition) Type (E/C): C

Edition #5 (00:04, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: British position: Moved Summary of changes: The text removed in the previous edition is restored Actual changes: The text removed from the clause "Spanish position" is included in "British position" Type (E/C): E

Edition #6 (00:05, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: Sources: As with History of Gibraltar Summary of changes: To apply to biography the same edition that was already done in History of Gibraltar and was not challenged at all. The edition was that and was explained in the following way: "Bibliography: - rm irrelevant biog info - this is not a biography of historians" Actual changes: The description on the author of each source (but not the sources themselves) is removed Type (E/C): C

Edition #7 (00:08, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: Moving references Summary of changes: A reference is moved from the "Notes" section to the "British position" section. It was used only once Actual changes: The reference is moved. It used the {{note}} template Type (E/C): E

Edition #8 (00:10, 9 January 2010; see Diff) Summary: Gibraltar position: {{unreferenced section}} Summary of changes: As the section describing the Gibraltarian position is not referenced, sources are required Actual changes: {{unreferenced section}} Type (E/C): C

Edition #9 (22:50, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff) Summary: Making the map a little bit smaller Summary of changes: The initial map is reduced Actual changes: 300px changes to 280px. It is also precissed that the isthmus is larger, only its South part is under de facto British sovereignty and is claimed but Spain (the rest is under Spanish sovereignty) Type (E/C): E

Edition #10 (23:03, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff) Summary: Sources: Merging Summary of changes: Instead of having the sources classified by nationality, and given the difficults to made it properly, all the sources are listed in a single section (much in the same fashion as in History of Gibraltar Actual changes: the four sources (actually not used) are listed in a single section ("Sources"). The {{note}} templates are also removed Type (E/C): C

Edition #11 (23:05, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff) Summary: Moving to sources section Summary of changes: The Gold's book is moved to the "Sources" section, as it is foreseen that it will be used several times. Actual changes: Inline references are moved to the "Sources" section. Sources are also ordered (alphabetically) Type (E/C): E

Edition #12 (23:06, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff) Summary: Moving Summary of changes: Sections "References" and "See also" are moved according to the Manual of Style. Actual changes: Sections "References" and "See also" are moved before the "Sources" section Type (E/C): E

Edition #13 (23:07, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff) Summary: Spanish position: +Map Summary of changes: there is no map depicting the dispute. Actual changes: A map illustrating the Spanish position is added to the section "Spanish position" (unfortunately it's in Galician language) Type (E/C): C

Summarizing:

1. Editions 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are purely editorial.
2. Edition 1 removes text that comes from an unreliable source asserting information that happens to be false (it had a {{disputed}} template for two weeks)
3. Edition 2 enhances the description of the British position including an additional source
4. Edition 3 removes a sentence describing the dispute wording as reality one of the conflicting POVs
5. Edition 4 includes a proper source of the Spanish position (from the Spanish Ministry of Foreing Affairs instead from a newspaper)
6. Edition 6 removes the short bio attached to each author of the bibliography mentioned. Such an edition is modelled on a similar edition done in History of Gibraltar months ago and unchallenged
7. Edition 8 asks for source about the Gibraltarian stance (no one is currently provided)
8. Edition 10 removes grouping by nationality in the sections clause. As with edition 6, it is modelled on a similar edition done in History of Gibraltar months ago and unchallenged
9. Edition 13 introducies a map illustrating the Spanish position. No similar map was previously available.

Well, the issue here is a set of three of hardly justified reversions that have wiped all my changes. Here you have it:

1. "rs content and cites removed" (00:45, 9 January 2010). Reversion between editions 8 and 9 above. It remains edition 1 above.
2. "rs sources and material, if you embed other changes when removing content - tough and do not post on my talk page" (23:12, 10 January 2010). Reversion after edition 13 above.
3. "Undid revision 337086705 by Ecemaml (talk) rs material again. Reversion after edition 13 above.

After the first reversion I tried to contact the editor in order to figure out what he was exactly referring to (the edition summary was not much helpful). As his reversion was made after edition 8 and edition 1 was not reverted I guessed he was referring to edition 3 (a clear POV sentence, as it takes one of the sides' POV as the neutral description of facts). However, the revertion removed two valid references. It also wiped {{unreferenced-section}}. Therefore, I talked to the editor (22:59, 10 January 2010, see here):

...could you please don't use the reversion as editorial tool? If you feel other guys' editions are faulty, try to fix them by editing a bit instead of simply using the reversion. In this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputed_status_of_the_isthmus_between_Gibraltar_and_Spain&action=historysubmit&diff=336709650&oldid=336703417 particular case, apart from providing a incorrect reason (the only quotation in the text was simply relocated, it was duly explained which texts were removed and why and in fact the only sources removed were the ones that you wiped with your reversion -the Gold book and the Spanish Foreign Affairs report, the FCO text was also relocated), you removed a template asking for references ({{unreferenced section}}), something that shouldn't be done

The editor did the following:

1. He left (23:11, 10 January 2010) a short message in this talk page (see above) asserting that the source my edition 1 refers to (that is, the source that states that the Treaty of Seville said something that it didn't actually say) is reliable (see here). However, as such a statement has been extensively refuted (see Talk:La Línea de la Concepción#short on facts), a mere statement on its validity (sort of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) is not enough. Funny enough, the comment by the reversor refers to a text that has not actually reverted (edition 1).
2. He partially reverted my editions (23:12, 10 January 2010; all but edition 1)
3. He left me a message (23:14, 10 January 2010), stating that he does not read my messages
4. He removed my message (23:14, 10 January 2010)

In the meantime, I had returned to my editions (I reverted on 22:47, 10 January 2010, see here, stating that "No content or cites has been removed beyond what has been explained in the talk page. Please, don't use the reversion as edit tool. If you disagree, restore only what is disputed (and explain it)" and clarified (22:49, 10 January 2010) why I had done edition 3 above (it had an edition summary, but just in case; the message can be seen above).

As the reversion on 23:12, 10 January 2010 was even more meaningless (edition summary says "rs sources and material, if you embed other changes when removing content - tough and do not post on my talk page"), I reverted again (23:19, 10 January 2010), explaining, again, the reason of my edition ("Restoring. The user has been provided duly explanations both in the talk page, in the user's talk page and as said in the summaries in the talk page of La Línea de la Concepción")

To sum up, it seems to be a disagreement on the presence of a sentence of 23 words ("When peace prevailed, the Spanish occupied half of the 'neutral territory' and the British a corresponding half, with a fence demarcating the frontier"). And I say "it seems" as it is really difficult to figure out the rationale behind the reversions. Because of that, two valid references, a map describing the dispute and a template asking for references, as blind and unhelpful reversions are used instead of specific editions. I can't help thinking that reversion is not a valid editorial tool. Again, if there is disagreement about a specific removal, it's that text what must be reintroduced (explaining why) instead of simply reverting.

Therefore, I'm returning to the edition on 23:19, 10 January 2010. I'd like no reversion would be used in this article any more. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NO, if you revert to re-introduce contentious edits I will revert again. I suggest you follow on your own advice and introduce the none contentious element only. There is nothing to stop you doing that. A revert is a valid edit tool. Justin talk 22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Its edition 1 I have a problem with, Gibnet is a reliable secondary source, reporting a primary source. You may not like it but that isn't a reason to remove it, it appears to be be removal by speculation. Justin talk 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing valid contributions

Can you tell us what is exactly the "POV" in this contribution?

"During the negotiations of the Treaty of Utrecht, British tried to get the cession of the Isthmus as well, but they could'nt achieve it, and the isthmus was declared neutral territory after the treaty. In the end, the isthmus was achieved by Britain thanks to a gradual occupation. The final step of the occupation was the construction of the airport in 1938, taking advantage of the Spanish situation during the Spanish civil war. "

Fact: British tried to get the cession of the isthmus as well.

Fact: The isthmus was declared a neutral territory after the treaty.

Fact: The isthmus was achieved through a gradual occupation.

Fact: The final step of it was the construction of the airport in 1938, taking advantage of the civil war going on in Spain.

There is no single POV statement in here, only 4 sourced and clear facts. Take into account that British do not dispute this facts. Their argument is that the territory has been occupied for a long time, not that they didn't occupy it. Please provide sources to counter this sourced facts. If you are not able to provide sources that counter this facts, please stop removing valid contributions. The source is not an opinion, it is a narrative of historical events that have occurred since the capture of Gibraltar. 213.98.230.236 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to go into it in depth, but I'm guessing that it's not the facts that are in dispute, it's the tone/way that it is portrayed. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but the way the facts are written may be perceived as POV, towards a Spanish bias. Again, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - just a thought to try to explain why this keeps getting removed... _Will^Dow (Talk) 10:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's that. There's also the fact that it effectively dismisses the Gibraltar POV that the isthmus was ceded to Britain under the TOU: they argue that it was customary at the time to include all territory in range of the guns of any ceded fort in the cession, and that certain forts on the isthmus were ceded as part of the "fortifications, and forts" belonging to the town of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Its ok that Gibraltar POV in this article is based on random arguments that have no legal basis or source. But then, why did you remove the contribution when I put it in the Spanish position? I will put it in the Spanish position. Gibraltar position is a total mess with no sources. 213.98.230.236 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you don't think they have legal basis. Apparently people in Gibraltar disagree. Your statement is still POV and is still sourced to an opinion piece, which is not an appropriate source. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, stop removing valid contributions at once. The contribution is sourced, and it is placed on the Spanish position. It may seem an opinion piece for you, but it is a compilation of the historical events that have happened. Even if it was an opinion source, it is the Spanish position, so yes, it is Spanish opinion the thing that counts. If you think that the facts adressed are wrong, give references that prove it, if you dont provide the appropiate references, stop vandalising, thanks. Fireinthegol (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in other contributors.

This text still gives positions sourced to an opinion piece as fact and still has a POV tone. You argue that that's OK because it's giving the Spanish position - but that's not backed up by the source. We have no evidence that it's giving anyone's opinion bar the author's.

Note that I don't need a source to point out that yours is not appropriate. Pfainuk talk 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105183128/http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20(27.02.08).doc to http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20Título.%20Prefacio.Índice.%20Informe%20(27.02.08).doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051213211855/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20%2827.02.08%29.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102020537/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36616.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36616.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707141815/http://www.anayainfantilyjuvenil.com/catalogos/capitulos_promocion/LU00046301.pdf to http://www.anayainfantilyjuvenil.com/catalogos/capitulos_promocion/LU00046301.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)