Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Time for a fresh start

The current discussion has obviously bogged down and the present article has many problems. For a start, it's not even a real article - it's simply a timeline with many deficiencies. It lacks historical context; it lists events but does not explain why they happened. It is strangely over-detailed in many places and under-detailed in others. Most of it is not even sourced, so it fails verifiability badly; I suspect that some of the content is also original research. Neutrality is problematic, since it does not seem to reflect Spanish viewpoints or sources to much of an extent. The tone of voice and quality of writing is all over the place, presumably reflecting the various disputes and contributors that have shaped the article since it was created.

These problems can't be fixed by tinkering with the current version of the article; a complete rewrite from scratch is needed - preferably by an uninvolved party, given the bitterness that's apparent on this talk page. Over the last few weeks, I've been writing a new version of the article in my userspace, with the intention of producing something of featured article quality (see User:ChrisO/drafts). If you want to see my previous featured article work, see Inner German border for my most recent effort; it was one of the most-read featured articles this year.

The new draft is already fairly substantial, though still at an early stage. I'm using William Jackson's book The Rock of the Gibraltarians to provide the backbone of the account; when I'm done with the first pass through, I'll use additional sources such as Hills and some Spanish accounts to provide a more rounded view. If you have any comments, please leave them at User talk:ChrisO/drafts. Please don't edit the draft page itself. As for the current article, I'm following its structure fairly closely and using it as a guide to identify the key events that need to be covered. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great (And a superb idea). I'd suggest using a few books, obviously. Jeremy Black does a few good books on the period (I'm reading him at the moment, if you can't guess) --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking good so far, thanks for your efforts. Justin talk 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and frankly most of the Gib related articles could do with a work over. They all read like they were written by committee now, so they flow like treacle up hill. There are also strong feelings both ways and many of us who, frankly, never gave much of a shit appear to have given up (watching wikipedians whale on each other is only fun for about 2 days tops by my reckoning). So yes, whatever you can do across the articles is more than welcome, at least by me. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look. Thank you (with lots of emphatic body language). I will try to help with whatever I can, but it looks like there will not be much to add. --Imalbornoz (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great effort, Chris. The funny thing is that I had already noticed your article (I was verifying What Links Here articles in Giovanni Battista Calvi, an article I'm working in) and wondered why the hell such a text was not used as base of a refurbished article. Now I see what your purpose was and think it's superb. If you need further bibliography, please, count on me. I have an extensive library:

1. Isidro Sepúlveda (2004). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza (in Spanish). Madrid: Alianza. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
2. Máximo Cajal. Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar. ¿Dónde acaba España?. ISBN 84-323-1138-3.
3. George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.
4. William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
5. Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de España (1966). Documentos sobre Gibraltar presentados a las Cortes Españolas por el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores (Libro Rojo). Madrid: Imprenta del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores.
6. United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1966). Gibraltar talks with Spain (May-October 1966). Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by Command of Her Majesty. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
7. Peter Gold (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-34795-5.
8. Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.
9. Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.

Reference 3 is excellent when it comes to the Moor and Spanish periods. Reverence 7 is a must for contemporary history. On the other hand, if your experiment with this article works, I'd like to ask you a similar refurbishing in Disputed status of Gibraltar. It's even worse than this one. Best regards and again, thanks for your effort --Ecemaml (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I should be able to get most if not all of those works myself, since I have access to the British Library and other academic libraries, and I should also be able to get hold of a fair amount of the source material used by the writers of those works. I'll give you a shout if I get stuck. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again: Justin has just reverted the summary of the capitulation. Now it is four paragraphs again instead of half a paragraph (which I even doubt it is needed). The problem is not these four paragraphs or the whole crap of timeline in this article (which from what I've seen in ChrisO's text is about to be corrected), but the whole approach of some editors to edits and discussions around Gibraltar. For the sake of the set of articles about Gibraltar, Narson or somebody who has not yet been attacked, can you please take a look at my edit[1] and the reversal[2] and use it as an example to amiably explain that there is no reason to keep systematically suspecting of edits coming from me (or other Spaniards)? Please, please, I think this is very necessary or we will a) never have balanced Gibraltar articles and b) keep wasting time and effort in long useless discussions. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah because repeating the same question again and again after you've already had a reply is just so conducive toward collaboration isn't it. You may think its a clever tactic its boring as hell and I'm no longer indulging you. I find the repeated allegations of a racial bias tedious in the extreme and you know full well its bullshit but do it all the same. You want to point fingers, take a long look in the mirror first. You seem to think collaboration is getting your own way. You could try starting another thread about me on AN/I but in case you haven't noticed the most common comment is about your tendentious editing and pointy edits. Justin talk 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If 'balance' means whitewashing the bad things successive Spanish governments have done and trying to dig at Gibraltar then its the sort of balance that will prove hard. --Gibnews (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Balance" in my view simply means representing both sides' POVs without endorsing or rejecting either. WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view summarises the requirement rather well. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we perhaps tone down the hostile rhetoric? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, indeed it does, we don't need a lecture on NPOV. What you're seeing here is the culmination of a long series of POV edits such as denying the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing, stating that Gibraltar is a mere colony and that the people living there don't matter. Is that NPOV? Please lets tone down the rhetoric, whilst Gibnews is vocal in his comments, others are more subtle. Justin talk 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that to some extent my rewrite will help to overcome some of the difficulties you're having here. However, the only way collaboration is going to work on this article is if you all assume good faith of each other, refrain from making inflammatory statements and pursue dispute resolution if you really can't agree. Letting things bog down in endless recriminations is not a viable way forward. If it ever came to arbitration, I'm certain that editors on both sides would find themselves being topic-banned; I've seen that happen before in other topic areas where relations between editors became so poisonous that nothing could get done. Don't let it come to that. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My aim when posting my previous comment was exactly to find a solution for the current situation. Let's face the facts: we have a big problem (as Narson said) regarding content and regarding the attitude of the editors involved in the articles. I think that both issues are very much related. And, even though ChrisO's "blue helmet" edition of the History article will be a HUGE step forward, I think that, unless we solve the problem of relationship among us the editors, we won't solve the problem in the rest of articles and will keep wasting lots of time and effort (and maybe even end up blocked, as ChrisO said). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted and then self-reverted because I thought the article had been increased in size, then realised it had actually been reduced. When I agree with something there isn't a problem. What is a repeated issue is the opinion that sources are somehow sacroscanct and that if it is sourced it can be included and consensus doesn't matter. We see edit wars repeatedly because of that. Now on the Spanish wikipedia I've seen utter nonsense included on Falklands articles, that we discussed here and rejected inclusion because it was demonstrably utter bollocks. On the Spanish wikipedia apparently because it has a source we apparently have to include both the bollocks and another source demonstrating its bollocks. So I don't know if it is just a difference in style but the repeated edit wars and screaming bias everytime someone disagrees with you about an edit just because it is sourced is not helpful. Justin talk 10:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Then could you take a look at the reversion of the summary about the English flag incident (which reduced size by 5-fold)? If you take a good look at it here, you can check that both POVs are included (which was your main worry). Please take a look again (I'm not trying to discuss that specific edit -which is not relevant anymore if ChrisO is going to come up with a new text- but to see that too many edits are being rejected and lengthily discussed, because maybe their authors are suspect of "pushing a POV" and maybe not taking into account their content) and think whether is it worth going though all of this for edits like that one. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going through the same arguments again. IMHO the previous text explains it better. I don't agree with the summary you propose because it doesn't do the topic justice. It has nothing to do with POV, mixing arguments is another of your irritating habits as is ignoring comments to demand another explanation. End of. Justin talk 11:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to collaborate with this kind of answers, honestly. Your previous comment was "my position is the desire to maintain all significant views in the article."[3] Now you say that my asking you what view is left out is mixing arguments and it has nothing to do with POVs, that it's all about "explaining it better". It all sounds like "it's my way or the highway" and I'll make up my arguments along the way. I am sure you don't think this is your attitude, but please take a look at what it sounds like and think whether you want to keep discussing, asking for mediators, RfCs, etc. even for every little summary of a paragraph. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"my way or the highway", strange way of putting it, seeing as so often when dealing with you thats exactly how you operate. And it was your text you insisted on putting into the article, after I'd objected to it. What was that "your way or the highway". Having explained myself once, I don't see the need to do so again and again. You do that all the time, its boring and irritating. I've indulged you many times assuming it was a language problem, trying all ways to get you to understand but you keep on doing it. Its seems to be more a tactic to wear people down, so go back and read what I've already said and don't ask again. Justin talk 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] (back to the topic) ChrisO has done a good job on the History of Gibraltar up until 1704, but that and 1713 is the point where the difficulty starts. The Government of Spain has an agenda of attacking the Gibraltarian identity which is something which prevents it 'reclaiming' the territory and exercising total control over the strait of Gibraltar on both sides. Its also an issue which can be used by the PP to beat up the PSOE by alleging the latter are 'going soft' on Gibraltar. To this end it spends a large amount time and effort in the EU and UN. The campaign produces hostile media articles about Gib which wrongly influence well meaning Spanish editors here to 'have a go' a good example being the 'Gibraltar produces more CO2 per head' bullshit, still featured in the Spanish language wikipedia. In reality Gibraltar electricity consumption per capita is lower than either the UK or Spain.

Although argument is preferable to cannonballs or wmd, whilst Spain persists with its agenda there will be conflict, because up with it we will not put. In contrast Gibraltar enjoys good commercial relations with Spain, for instance the private jet which redelivered Miss World is owned by a Malaga company and prior to the Cordoba agreement its use would have been impossible.

The Pages about Gibraltar need to describe Gibraltar, not the Spanish view of Gibraltar and not the view of the ex-colonial power. If in some places they look like they 'are written by a committee' its not surprising, there is no single author. Although some of the pages have got unwieldy - this being a good example - the main page Gibraltar is one of the best introductions to the topic around and does not need changing. --Gibnews (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Pages about Gibraltar need to describe Gibraltar, not the Spanish view of Gibraltar and not the view of the ex-colonial power". Definitely, Gibnews, you seem to urgently need a reading of WP:NPOV (and possibly also of WP:MPOV). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, the "'Gibraltar produces more CO2 per head' bullshit" referenced text that you and your mates removed, is also part of a Spanish conspiracy? Has it enlisted the Obama's administration to defame Gibraltar? Or the British media?

No it derives from a flawed method of compiling a report, although one might question why some editors insist on its inclusion in the Spanish wikipedia when they are aware its nonsense, in that it does not describe CO2 emissions and has been discredited. Your link currently returns a server error, but it is tonto.

I don't edit the page about Spain to slag the place off, why is it SO important for Spanish editors to edit the pages about Gibraltar to show the place in the worst possible way using flawed reports and accusations of illegality ? Imalbornoz started off thinking it was a den of 'gambling, smuggling, tax evasion and #1 polluter', simply because the wrong information he read online, although I don't think he believes that now. Indeed at the time the .es wikipedia said it had been occupied by 'English Pirates' in 1704. Although its flattering that outsiders take an interest in Gibraltar, and its something to be encouraged introducing nonsense is not what it should be about. --Gibnews (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion has helped to illustrate why the development of this and other related articles has gone off the rails. I'm seeing a number of fallacies and examples of unhelpful behaviour in the posts above. For instance:

• Justin - "utter nonsense" isn't a valid criterion for keeping content out - it may be nonsense in your view, but evidently not in the view of its proponents. Remember, the rule is "verifiability, not truth". When you say that "apparently because it has a source we apparently have to include both the bollocks and another source demonstrating its bollocks", you are absolutely right. That is how it is supposed to work. We're supposed to describe the controversy, not declare which side is right.

• Gibnews - when you say "Pages about Gibraltar need to describe Gibraltar, not the Spanish view of Gibraltar and not the view of the ex-colonial power", that is wrong. You're effectively saying that articles should be written from a Gibraltarian POV, ignoring the Spanish and British POVs. That's not what WP:NPOV is about: we have to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Please bear in mind that there is no such thing as an absence of viewpoint - we are dealing with a situation where there are multiple POVs. They all need to be reflected.

• Ecemaml - I agree that statistics such as the CO2 emissions one that you mention are interesting and notable, but they need to be put into a proper context. I presume the reason for the CO2 per capita figure is that Gibraltar has a small population and a number of carbon-intensive industries. You would probably get a similar figure if you carved off a Spanish industrial city and measured the CO2 per capita for its inhabitants, excluding the rest of the country. In other words, the figure's an artifact of Gibraltar's unusual combination of demographic and industrial factors. That doesn't make it "flawed" as Gibnews claims but it does mean that it needs to be explained properly.

• All - please stop the mutual accusations of bad faith. This needs to end if any progress is to be made. Remember, comment on content, not contributors and assume good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, to make it plain what I was talking about was conspiracy theory crap, in which Mitterand's psychoanalyst claimed that Mitterand told him in confidence that Margaret Thatcher had planned to nuke BA if the French didn't provide the missile destruct codes for Exocet missiles. That is fringe material and including it gives undue weight to fringe nonsense. Wikipedia has policies to stop it being a soap box for all kinds of nutcases to promote conspiracy theories just like that. I was referring to manifest and utter nonsensical crap that has no place in an encyclopedia. There is a world of difference between a disagreement about content and inserting fringe material. However, on the Spanish wikipedia, because it is sourced in a book, then so the argument goes its sourced it must go in. There was no objective evaluation of whether it belonged in an encyclopedia.

No offence mate but the lecture was out of place on this occasion, perhaps I could have explained myself better but a bit of faith about an editor with several years experience would go a long way. I know what NPOV is about, and without pointing fingers, several editors here could do with a pointed lecture on that front - particularly when they edit war to expunge material they perceive to be critical of one party.

As regards CO2 statistics, why use statistics that give a misleading picture when other statistics are available from the same source that reflect the territories real impact and don't need the extra explanation. Why indeed only pick the stats that portray Gibraltar in the worst possible light and insist they must be used? Consensus would suggest that editors should agree on the best way of portraying the information when there is more than one way.

Now I know you were trying to be helpful and to defuse tensions, kudos to you for trying. But I was honestly trying to explain that there is an attitude difference here. And as someone once said to me its different here, its up to you to fit in with the way we work. That person might like to consider their own advice. Justin talk 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No ChrisO.

The Gibraltar articles need to describe Gibraltar as it is and as it was that is NPOV - if we include strange POV's it needs to be labelled or demarcated accordingly.

CO2 - Yes the study is totally flawed; it assumes that imports are consumed and not re-exported. Apart from bunkering, there are no 'carbon intensive industries' in Gibraltar. As for actual consumption and consequent emissions:

Country	Million KWH	Population	per capita
Gibraltar	146	30000	4424 KWh
UK	345800	61.0 Mil	5668 KWh
Spain	276100	40.5 Mil	6817 KWh

Country	Gas used
Gib	neglible
UK	95.94 BM3
Spain	38.10 BM3

* Figures taken from the CIA world factbook (ahem) --Gibnews (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there was also an argument (by me) that it was to be included, but that we needed to do so in the correct context as if we copied over every factoid etc about Gibraltar it would be swamped (Imagine if we listed Gibraltar's position on every list? Referenced but unnecessary) --Narson ~ Talk • 00:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my proposal was something such as this:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Gibraltar were 4.551 million metric tons in 2007. Due to its relatively small population, Gibraltar had in 2007 the higher per capita carbon emission in the world: 159.063 metric tons. However, upon the publication of the statistics in March 2009, the Gibratar-based Environment Safety Group heavily criticised the report as it could suggest Gibraltar is "a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" and linked the figures to both the small population and the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars (fuel is less expensive than in Spain) and to the bunkering service for international shipping. Therefore, they explain that Gibraltar does not emit such high carbon dioxide levels locally.

Further rework can be done. However, as usual (and I say it again, as usual, everything was removed). --Ecemaml (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And what the Spanish Wikipedia says is what follows:

Las emisiones de dióxido de carbono de Gibraltar fueron de 4,5 millones de toneladas en 2007 (puesto 128 en el mundo), de acuerdo con las estadísticas de Administración de Información sobre Energía de Estados Unidos. Debido a su relativamente escasa población, Gibraltar tuvo en 2007 la tasa de emisiones per cápita más alta del mundo (159 toneladas por persona). Sin embargo, la organización ecologista gibraltareña Environment Safety Group criticó el informe estadounidense porque podría sugerir que Gibraltar era el "líder mundial en emisiones de dióxido de carbono" y atribuyó las cifras a la escasa población del territorio y a la gran cantidad de carburantes vendidos localmente pero consumidos fuera del territorio (como el vendido para automóviles españoles o el relacionado con el servicio de bunkering).

I can provide a translation, but says pretty much the same. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, why use that flawed statistic which requires extensive explanation, as opposed to other statistics from the same source or even the sources above that don't? Why choose that particular statistic out of literally thousands of sources that could be chosen? Why insist that we have to have your flawed statistic and writing, as opposed to working with other editors to find a more amenable way of presenting that particular information. Justin talk 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not you the one who decides what is "flawed", but reliable sources stating "X statistics are flawed", and why (I remember that you didn't provide any other statistics, but exactly the same ones that I provided, simply removing per capita figures, those that you didn't like). And two remarks: the information was removed (as usual), no "working with other editors to find a more amenable way of presenting that particular information" was ever performed. On the other hand, "amenability" is not a criteria for complying with NPOV.

Ahhh, and an additional remark. You always talk about fringe material and how bad is including what a source says ("apparently because it has a source we apparently have to include both the bollocks and another source demonstrating its bollocks"). It seems to me a quite hypocritical double standard the one you play. I must remember to you that your essay on the Argentine war crimes in the Falklands (see User:Justin A Kuntz/Argentine War Crimes in the Falklands War, where fringe authors are used as sources of your original research, consider the fascist golpist Seineldin work as reliable source, it makes me laugh) follows the pattern you criticize (see here). Your case in the Spanish Wikipedia is even further illustrative. You tried, as usual, your "reversion as edit tool" WoW, begun to edit warring (see here and the way reversions become you usual way of working... it's strange the way WP:BRD works with you... to sum up, it only works to your convenience) and finally got blocked (BTW, I raised your block). Justin, the way you pick arguments to your convenience and use exactly the opposite when they're not useful for your purposes makes me think that maybe an RfC on you might be needed (well, it would not be possible as an RfC on people would require to talk to Justin and he seems to think that an invitation is needed to leave a message). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Material which I chose not to put in the article, mainly because I didn't want to stoop to the same level as the editors who put unfounded allegations as fact in the es.wikipedia article. I must get round to deleting that, I've not intention of ever publishing it in main article space. Truly not my finest moment.

But tell me, if you're so concerned about it, why does that material, offensive and unfounded allegations still persist in the Spanish wikipedia?

Tell me why did you also not put in a link to where I acknowledged things I had done were wrong and fully apologised unreservedly for it?

And I'll also point out again that I do follow the BRD, scroll up a bit to the section entitled, Gibraltar Border, 23 November, when I asked you to explain your objections. Note your rant immediately below it. Which I politely replied to, then restored the edit assuming it was resolved, you didn't reply till the 6 December - nearly 2 weeks later. I still don't see why you find an edit on traffic restrictions so upsetting. Oh and just to make a point, I've never reported you for 3RR violations, nor have I started an AN/I thread about you. I note that you've never tried BRD, its always butting heads. I note also that you've avoided answering the question and rebuffed my suggestion not so long ago to draw a line under the past and try to work together constructively.

Anyway Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the pair of you quit it? If you don't have anything nice to say about each other, then the rest of us really don't want to hear it. I am tempted to start reverting any comments made about editors and not about content and I'll gladly be blocked if it makes the rest of you quit this pointless bullshit. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also add that bringing up spanish wiki stuff here, by anyone, is a little out of place. I wouldn't want to judge Ecemaml for his actions there anymore than I care about what Justin did there, though I will admit bias on that as I do not have a high opinion of that wiki's historical articles. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we really need to agree on a measurable standard to decide what is notable and what is not (number of hits in secondary sources, for example). Otherwise, we will keep discussing to no end, and probably things will get bitterer and bitterer until someone gets blocked. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but no, we don't need a measurable standard to decide what is notable. Things need not get bitter if you simply accept that people are allowed to disagree about content and it is necessary to find a compromise. The usual mantra of it is sourced it must go in has to stop. Justin talk 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Please see this section for a suggestion. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Restart

The issues on History of Gibraltar are slightly confusing at the moment, as we have a whole re-worked article being proposed. It is certainly a better starting point than what we have, might I propose we agree, as a group, that we have no objection to ChrisO's reworking in principle? After all, I am sure we all agree the history article has become a little stale. If that is not the case, then I will list some discussion points for this article as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tireless Paragraph

Some time ago we initiated this discussion (section 16: Tireless Paragraph):

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland in Spain and of the inhabitants of Gibraltar - around 300,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar, although the Government of Gibraltar denied it, considering "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent". The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. Following the protests raised by citizens and Spanish Environmental Groups to the European Ombudsman, the Commission of the European Communities filed various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies: the Court declared that the United Kingdom had not properly transposed the Directive concerning the "protection of the health of workers and the general public" , and formally dismissed the complaint regarding the Directive "on informing the general public about the health protection measures", concluding that it does not apply in military matters. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public and that sufficient contingency in terms of emergency planning was provided by the means of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE booklet). Cremallera (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally I don't see anything wrong the content other than as I have previously intimated its giving too much emphasis on the ECJ, if the reader wants to know more, the detail can be in the footnotes. At present its unbalanced, move more to footnotes and simply mention the commission took it to the ECJ. Justin talk 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting better, note the correct spelling of organisations in English and not the abortion favoured by Noah Webster. I do not think that the GoG report commented on GIBPUBSAFE. Although I have a copy of the report its not in the public domain. --Gibnews (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We just need to trim it down a little, but its still preferable to the current version, which is inaccurate or simply incorrect. Therefore, I'm editing it although further additions and corrections are welcome. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of particular interest are references regarding the Government of Gibraltar's declarations back then (thanks in advance).Cremallera (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the POV vandalism elsewhere this looked on first sight like a removal of references, however on scrolling down they are there and it actually reads OK so I was wrong reverting it. Its some time since we discussed the long gone SSN Tiresome. --Gibnews (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do understand. And yes, it was some time ago, indeed. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing here is that if you read a proper secondary source, such as Gibraltar: British or Spanish? you'd find a totally different story. For example, telling the story of Gibraltarians opposing to the repairs (including the Bossano's opposition), as the Campo people did, with Gibraltar and Spain governments, at least initially, supporting (or allowing) the repairs... how the GoG got infuriated when the British MoD allowed some Spanish expert to inspect the vessel... There are so many issues to fix in this wikipedia... --Ecemaml (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of primary sources for this period of history. However, the GoG commissioned a detailed report on the repair and did not allow it to go forward until it was compiled, that convinced most people it was safe. By that time it had become a political item in Spain. I do not understand why you have put a POV tag before the item on the frontier opening being delayed because of events in the South Atlantic, so am removing it. There is nothing here to justify it. --Gibnews (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you keep on misunderstanding wikipedia policies on sources. We don't need primary but secondary sources (the former allow selective cherry-picking). On the other hand, your excuses to remove the {{POV}} tags are more and more blatant. --Ecemaml (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC) PS: you mention GoG but fails to mention Gibraltarian opponents. Let's quote:

A demonstration organized by the Voice of Gibraltar Group on 12 July [2000] delivered a statement of protest to the Governor, calling for the vessel to be taken elsewhere for its repairs. It was also clear that a split was emerging between the Government of Gibraltar and the opposition on the issue. Whereas the opposition was arguing that the vessel must not be repaired in Gibraltar at all, the Government's stance was that the repair would pose no threat to public safety or the environment.

— (Gold, 230)

I've edited the paragraph further, and this is the result:

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. Although the Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent", this caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland. Before allowing any repairs to the nuclear vessel, the Gibraltar Government commissioned an assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public and that sufficient contingency in terms of emergency planning was provided by the means of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme or GIBPUBSAFE. Following the protests raised by citizens and Spanish Environmental Groups to the European Ombudsman, the Commission of the European Communities filed various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies: the Court declared that the United Kingdom had not properly transposed the Directive concerning the "protection of the health of workers and the general public" , and formally dismissed the complaint regarding the Directive "on informing the general public about the health protection measures", concluding that it does not apply in military matters.

The rationales being: on the one hand, avoiding weasel words like "Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar"; and uncited statements such as "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar", "Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar" or "However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida(...)", whose reference is no longer available -thus it cannot be verified-.
On the other, avoiding original research and "synthesis of published material that advances a position" such as the sentence "since there are other environmental problems in the Bay", where neither the provided reference hosted in the site "gibnews.net" nor any of the articles to be found in the original source mention HMS Tireless or any other nuclear vessel at all when adressing the "environmental problems in the Bay"; or the inclusion of the phrase "and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) without any official complaint"; setting an implicit comparison between the reported event -the yearlong repair of the cooling system of HMS Tireless- and "providing support to units of the US 6th Fleet", which the source does not state at all.
As an aside, I've rearranged chronologically the text. Thus, the assessment requested by the Gibraltar Government is mentioned at the beginning while the European Court decisions remain at the end (just as it happened). On top of that, this reference has been added to replace a dead link: Gibpubsafe booklet, in appendix #6.

Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. The issue now appears to be the text:

"The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar[citation needed], since there are other environmental problems in the Bay[69] and the base located in Rota[70], Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)[71] without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar.[citation needed] However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida[72] and Ecologistas en Acción[73], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way."

presently in per Justin's latest revision.

We have a number of possible approaches to this. We could stick to our guns and have a four-year wrangle about it. I shan't be cross about that, but I will be very sad and disappointed at anyone who joins in. If you can endure the shame induced as my puppy-like eyes brim with tears, I'd suggest firm admin action as soon as decently possible, before this again wastes huge amounts of the time of editors who have much better things to do.

Or we could look at each individual point, decide whether it's really relevant (and in the above list only the GoG and GoS positions strike me as really relevant to the History of Gibraltar, the rest deserve at the very most a small quotation in the reference) find good secondary references for each one, and write some good referenced encyclopedic prose which summarizes the controversy very briefly. This would be my preferred solution.

Until then I'd suggest removing the text at issue, and I propose to do that soon. Perhaps any replacement text could be drafted on this talk page first?

Over to y'all, I'm not a subject expert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you are not a subject expert and given the past history I would prefer you do not set yourself up as mediator again. I do hope I'm not misinterpreting your threat of admin action as being directed toward myself - I have done nothing wrong on this occasion. I draw your attention to the discussion I'd already started at the bottom of the page, the fact I waited a week to revert and again noted the reason in talk. I would also draw your attention to the fact that Cremallera has previously agreed to this text but chose to remove it the second my topic ban came into force. The material is relevant, it is cited and uses a reliable source. I trust any discussion can now move to the relevant thread I'd already started and commented on twice. Justin talk 13:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vacations are over, it seems. Please, Justin, enumerate briefly the points you'd like to add to the current edition. And, please, provide reliable sources for your preferred version whilst keeping WP:SYN in mind. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is at the bottom of the page, I have in fact initiated a dicussion on each occasion where I edited - I note you simply reverted twice. I also draw attention to the point that the text I reverted to was in fact originally drafted by yourself. We had consensus on this text, so could you please explain your objection to your own draft. Justin talk 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, read this section. I've pretty much reasoned the objections I have with your preferred version. The 12 May 2010, 15:21h, to be precise. And no, what you seek to introduce in the article was never drafted by me, but Gibnews or yourself. Cremallera (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)