Talk:Gibraltar

Sources

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

Gibralter killings / Operation Flavius

Can't find a mention of it in the article. Mind you the 'recent history' is a couple of hundred years condensed into as many paragraphs! Discuss wording here>>>>

Gibraltar and Europe

"Gibraltar is part of the European Union, having joined via the Single European Act 1972". The European Union was actually established under that name by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The Single European Act was signed in 1986.Perhaps this account needs editing.07:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)81.249.117.171 (talk)

Well spotted, thank you. I've changed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Government

There are a number of errors in the section on government. The Governor does not "enacts day-to-day matters on the advice of the Gibraltar Parliament". The Governor acts on the advice of the Government. The government consists of as many members of Parliament as are appointed to the cabinet. It is not limited to 10.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of 1704

"The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many European and other economic migrants who came to the Rock over three hundred years, after almost all of the Spanish population left in 1704." This wasn't "Spanish population left", this was an ethnic cleansing. --195.77.16.215 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually a desperate attempt to keep the population there with promises of good treatment under the alternative claimant to the Spanish throne. After the not-good treatment they'd experienced in reality, most of them left anyway. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory

Why is there no reference to the status of Non-Self-Governing Territories (i.e. a colony) given by the United Nations? --Kokoo (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Since I consider some reference about this fact should be mentioned, I added a piece of information about this topic at the beginning of the article. I just copied and pasted it from Guam. --Kokoo (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear why you feel this is to be considered so significant. Gibraltar is not a "colony" and the listing is of little significance to the territory (noting that the UN committee is boycotted by both Gibraltar and the UK). The lede is supposed to reflect the article as a whole, and this point does not. And it's also worth mentioning that was inserted in the middle of a point, significantly changing the meaning of the paragraph. Kahastok talk 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Although from your point of view Gibraltar is not a colony, from UN point of view it is. That's why I think this fact is to be considered relevant, regardless of the significance it has to the territory. So, if the problem is that it doesn't fit in the introductory paragraph (I really don't see why not), I can move it to the paragraph about Governance. --Kokoo (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about the C24 POV, not the UN POV - quite a different kettle of fish. The views of the C24 do not generally reflect the POV of the UN as a whole - their recommendations routinely fail to even make it on to the agenda at the General Assembly - and in any case they do not call Gibraltar a "colony".

Listing by the C24 has always had more to do with politics than with any coherent criteria and there are plenty of entities with similar statuses to those listed that are not listed (Chinese SARs, British Crown Dependencies, French Overseas Collectivities other than French Polynesia). And let's not forget Western Sahara, whose listing is actually self-contradictory. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The significance is that the UK listed it as a non-self-governing territory, has never requested it be removed, that status is universally recognized and the U.N. monitors it. Its official status, British Overseas Territory, which is mentioned in the lead, is basically the UK term for non-self-governing territory. Whatever opinion one has on the issue, the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute between the UK and Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries is significant to the subject. TFD (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well no, that is not the British term for a non-self-governing territory, and in fact Gibraltar is self-governing to a very large degree. The UN categorisation is absolute nonsense, though probably should be mentioned in the article. cwmacdougall 7:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. But it is still being given far too much prominence given its total lack of significance to Gibraltar as a whole. I have moved it to the very bottom of the section.

FWIW "non-self-governing territory" means (in theory) any territory that is not independent, not an integral part of a sovereign state, and not an associated state, regardless of its degree of self-governance. Suffice it to say that these categories are sufficiently ambiguous that, in practice, it means whatever the C24 wants it to mean. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Britain boycotts the C24 and has indeed called for delisting.

You say: "the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute between the UK and Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries is significant to the subject". Well, the status is disputed by Spain, but there are no other Spanish-speaking countries directly involved. But regardless, the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute is already mentioned in some detail and this point does not change that. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the territories listed as non-self-governing were in fact partly self-governing. Whether or not Gibraltar is partly self-governing depends on who the indigenous population are, which has never been resolved. In fact Gibraltar argued its case in the UN this year.[1] Neutrality requires us to note disputes. Certainly the dispute is between Spain and the UK/Gibraltar. But the decision to keep Gibraltar on the list belongs to the UN, which has already removed most countries and it could remove Gibraltar if it considered it to be an "associated state" or "commonwealth." The UK also has the option of ceding sovereignty over the territory. TFD (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea from where you get this idea that "[w]hether or not Gibraltar is partly self-governing depends on who the indigenous population are". The standard you seek to apply does not exist in reality. There are lots of countries out there where the indigenous population is in the minority - including nearly every country in the Americas. In several cases, particularly in the Caribbean, it has been wiped out completely. This does not make these countries non-self-governing or partly-self-governing.

I don't know where you quote "Commonwealth" from - it's not in any UN rule. When it comes down to it, the C24 chooses whether to remove countries, and generally they have done so on political grounds rather than based any objective measure of status. They are not even supposed to be trying to measure degree of self-governance - the words "non-self-governing" are highly misleading.

You will note from your source that there was no UK presence at the C24 (only a Gibraltar presence) and that Gibraltar's Chief Minister did call from Gibraltar to be removed from the list, a call that the UK government backs.

The dispute between the UK and Spain is covered in detail here and elsewhere. The fact of the dispute does not imply that the C24 listing is automatically relevant, regardless of circumstances. Kahastok talk 21:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The UN allowed the U.S. to delist two non-self-governing territories when they became "commonwealths". "Indigenous" may mean native peoples, but I was using it in this sense to refer to the population who are legitimately entitled to live in a country. Who the "citizens" if you will are has not been determined. TFD (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have great respect for the UN, it is not a neutral arbiter in such things - having as it does a stated mission goal (though its view is of course important, if perhaps toothless). And in this case it being operated by a quango of 24 members, so should more accurately be looked at as C24 rather than the UN. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is not neutral, just whether its position is significant. TFD (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

The first sentence: The name Gibraltar is the Spanish derivation of the Arabic name Jabal-Al-Tariq ,there shouldn't be AL in the last word. It is supposed to be Jabal-Tariq, which literally means Tariq's Mount in Arabic. Atia-Egypt 2013/Aug/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.187.15.138 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a source? There seems to be a lot going the other way (I'm certainly no expert in arabic, but it might be due to grammatical shifts if the name doesn't correspond, no?). If you have a source, it can be easily changed :) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Al" in Jabal Al-Tariq is misplaced and totally incorrect in Arabic ,which is my native language. It should be Jabal Tariq without the "Al". It's Tariq's mountain not Altariq's mountain which is named after the Muslim leader Tariq Bin-Ziyad. Here's a link from a BBC article calling it Jabal Tarik (a variant spelling of Tariq). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8418630/A-history-of-Gibraltar-in-pictures.html. Rayansb (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rayansb is quite correct. The most definitive sources are George Hills' book Rock of Contention and Sir Willian Jackson's The Rock of the Gibraltarians; both give "Jebel Tarik" as the preferred spelling (no "al"). Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Relations on the rocks over reef

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/gibraltar/10237469/Britain-seriously-considering-legal-action-against-Spain-over-Gibraltar.html The government of the tiny peninsula has accused Madrid of acting in retaliation after Gibraltar built an artificial concrete reef which it says is aimed at stopping alleged incursions by Spanish fishing boats.

Notable yet? Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Too soon to tell, really. At the moment it is news, but not really much to know. It is all 'They might, we might, you might, he might' --Narson ~ Talk • 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you have another article on the Gibraltar issue. It seems that some people in Britain are beginning to ha weird ideas.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/gibraltar-falklands-deny-logic-history

Popo.