Jump to content

Talk:British Empire/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

British rule

Its not correct to say imply that Gibraltar is 'under British rule' as the locally elected Government has competence for all things apart from defence and foreign relations. So either the article needs to state that -or- the claim needs to be removed. --Gibnews (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

At the level of abstraction appropriate for this article I think its fine. Explaining the nuances of different countries constitutional arrangements in this article would swamp it. The pipelink to the country article handles any further needs. Incidentally your above comment on bias has little context to it and appears incoherent as a result. Would you explain it. --Snowded (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I would disagree, BOT are in the main self-governing with the exception of foreign relations and defence. Its a level of abstraction that distorts the relationship between the UK and BOT to imply Government from London when that is not the case. Justin talk 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The same logic could be applied to Scotland or even Yorshire. Diplomatic and physical security define states - if an entity does not control these it is not self-governing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No that is specious logic, Yorkshire is governed from London. BOT are not, they are governed by democratically elected Governments. It is an inaccurate and misleading statement that does not describe their system of Government. Justin talk 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the least bit specious. Yorkshire is governed - at least in the sense you mean it - by democratically elected councils who decide matters such as local taxation, the running of schools, health etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the word "rule" in "which remain under British rule" is problematic, I'm sure a satisfactory alternative can be found. ("...which remain British...", perhaps?) But to single out one of the fourteen territories for special mention would lead the reader to wonder why the devolutionary status of the other thirteen is not discussed. The reason for not discussing the status of any in this section is simple: as Snowded, says, that is what the British Overseas Territories article (and the individual BOT articles) are for. This article is not the place for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with an accurate statement of how BOT are governed, the article as currently written is misleading as to the relationship between the UK and BOT. It is no longer a colonial relationship. Yes I agree that one should not be singled out but the fact they are self-governing is an important distinction. Justin talk 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a matter of opinion whether it is a colonial relationship. The UN disagrees with you. United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is hardly proof, those territories were only ever listed on the UN List as they were nominated by Britain. Several other territories that could be considered colonies in the classic sense, e.g. Tibet, are not listed as the state responsible has not listed them (and China is a member of the committee of 24). And the fact they are self-governing is of relevance, the article as written misrepresents their relationship with the UK. Justin talk 22:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But you are an experienced enough editor to know that this does not fly when it comes down to WP:NOR. Secondly, the article says Britain "retains sovereignty". That is also verifiable. So can you please be specific about the exact wording which misrepresents the situation? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No it happens to be a fact, the former colonies on the list of the decolonisation committee are only listed because they were originally listed by the member state. That is verifiable. The article says they are ruled by Britain, they are in the main not. That is also verifiable. The populated BOT are all self-governing; their relationship with Britain has been modernised. That is also verifiable. So what is to be, a sensible mature discussion as to how the article could be improved or are you simply going to WP:OWN the article as usual. Justin talk 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So we should discredit the list simply because you say so? That is not how WP:V works. Anyway, that list is a side issue, I merely raised it as verifiable evidence that the status of these places is not as clear cut as you make out ("the colonial status is over"). I did not raise it as a reference for anything in the text. Regarding ownership: there are two other editors here who agree with me, so it is not a case of me thinking I own anything. I already proposed above the possibility of rewording "British rule" which shows I'm willing to discuss the matter with everyone. How about engaging with that offer instead of stooping to the level of accusing people of ownership issues, if you wish to keep the discussion mature? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An afterthought: if there is any proposal of words to the effect that these places are not colonies, NPOV dictates that the opposing view must be mentioned, and this list is a clear example of the opposing view, along with Spain's position. Also, Britannica explicitly states Gibraltar is a British colony. "Gibraltar: British colony on the Mediterranean coast of southern Spain" I would again suggest, instead of getting into that little debate, changing "remain under British rule" to "remain British". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it would be plain from my previous comments that I wish to change it to clarify that the populated BOT are self-governing and rely on the UK only for for foreign relations and defence. That is all.
You raised the red herring of the C24, it is irrelevant as regards the proposed edit. Justin talk 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The Red Hat does not consider the C24 a Red Herring. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you read [1] by the way? "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." The C24 is a red herring as regards the proposed edit, it is utterly irrelevant in that regard. Justin talk 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it not be that Britain exercises sovereignty over those nations? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a big difference between rule and sovereignty the UN C24 and Encyclopedia Britanica (an American publication) are woefully out of step with modern reality, as is RTPF who believes that Gibraltar is a colony, unlike the current British Government as cited. However the bottom line is that the implication of present day colonialism has to go. It is not acceptable and nor is it accurate. --Gibnews (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sadly although the British Empire is indeed a historical curiosity some editors, still offensively refer to BOT's as Colonies although the term has been abolished and it no longer describes the relationship between the UK and the territories. In describing the current situation Wikipedia should reflect the reality and British Rule no longer applies, at least to some BoT's - not the opinion of editors living in ivory castles (or UK council estates). --Gibnews (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Although its not strictly done how about a compromise? It seems to me (in my naievety) that they are protectorates rather than colonies in all but name. Perphaps the sentences could be left the same but one mentioning this (or words to this effect) could be tagged on at the end.Willski72 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of Empire

If the map consists of all the countries that have been under British (or English or Scottish prior to unification) rule or are under British rule then the following should be added:

France (When the crown of the Kingdom of England inherited the Valois claim to the French throne sparking the hundred years war.) Afghanistan (on and off 1839-1919) Hawaii (February ~ July 1843) Germany (Lower Saxony Hamburg North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein during the Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1949 and the West Berlin boroughs of Charlottenburg Tiergarten Wilmersdorf Spandau) Austria (the British Allied occupation zones of Austria and Vienna 1945-1955)

(Germany, Austria and France are not necessarily considered part of "The Empire" yet still were occupied by Great Britain/United Kingdom, yet Ireland was never considered part of the Empire either and she is included.

Thankyou --Lemonade100 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (GMT)

This has been answered here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

British rule: proposal

  • Change "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles, collectively named the British overseas territories, which remain under British rule because of their small size, lack of support for independence among the local population or because the territory is uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel."
  • to "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories, which remain British because of their small size, lack of support for independence among the local population or because the territory is uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel."

This avoids the issue of discussing the level of devolution and type of government in each BOT (it differs, and British overseas territories is the right place to go into detail on that), and does not carry the baggage that being "ruled" might imply (to some). Thoughts, everyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is ignoring the central issue that those populated BOT are SELF-GOVERNING, those that are not are covered by the second part of the sentence. Justin talk 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing reliant on the UK only for foreign relations and defence. Althought support for independence among the local population is lacking, the British Government is committed to providing it where it is desired."

That is accurate, succinct and correctly delineates the relationship wuth the UK. Justin talk 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually accurate because by using the term "British Isles" it implies that it retains sovereignty over all of Ireland (which is not true), whereas if it said '14 territories outside of the UK' it would be more accurate and more succinct. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
First, no I had not seen it, and nor had anyone else (the rottweiler thing was a little joke - don't take life so seriously). I proposed on the talk page and waited for replies, why don't you do the same? You are quick to revert to what you claim is "long standing text" in the Gib article, yet here you are quick to change long-standing text. Second, you make a lot of claims yet provide no references. Third, "reliant on the UK only for foreign relations and defence" is not true: what about financial (Montserrat) or legal (Pitcairn) dependence, for example? Our favourite currency, the Gibraltar Pound, is pegged to Sterling. What control does Gibraltar have over interest rates or the value of its currency? None. So in short, no I am not OK with your edit. And we should wait til at least Wiki-Ed and Snowded give their views, not to mention the two editors whose opinion you sought out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No you were just being your usual self, being deliberately obnoxious and then trying to pass it off a joke. You're not fooling anyone, it was a blatant and obnoxious personal attack and now it would appear you're seeking to move the goal posts. Unsurprisingly you've managed to continue the personal attack with a series of further bad faith accusations. BOT do not have financial or legal dependence on the British Government. They have their own legal systems, just as in fact all former British colonies had an independent judiciary, usually established by letters patent. Some resort to the House of Lords for the final judgement in some legal matters but then so do sovereign states such as Jamaica. They also have independence in forming their own laws; there are significant difference in many areas (for example gun control). Neither are they financially dependent upon the UK but in fact manage their own economies, set taxes, raise revenue; that is what self-government is all about. Your argument about the Gibraltar Pound being pegged to Stirling is entirely specious, many states do not have their own currency or have their currency pegged to a stronger currency. Panama's currency for example is pegged to the US Dollar and has been since independence in 1903. Ecuador, El Salvador and East Timor have also adopted the dollar and former US territories have chosen to retain it after independence. And rather than being quick to revert on Gibraltar, I have a series of pages on my watch list that I vandal patrol and endeavour to keep in line with wiki policies. In fact the principle I usually apply is WP:BRD so I will not be indulging you in the near edit war you were attempting to goad me into (and please don't insult our intelligence by pleading innocence, your tactic of approaching but never crossing 3RR is well known). I will in fact be waiting for the discussion; that was the purpose of inviting it. And before we have your other tactic of accusing editors of WP:CANVAS, we both know that Narson and Pfainuk are of independent mind and come to the party with an open mind prepared to listen to the arguments. Justin talk 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This is verging on being a very nasty response. Please be civil. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh and referring to someone as a Rottweiler is being friendly? But no this is another example of the tactics you employ, you're grossly and gratuitously offensive to raise the temperature then play the innocent. You're fooling no-one. Justin talk 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You know very well there is NO SUCH CURRENCY as the Gibraltar pound, and this is not the place to discuss delusions. However a large number of countries use common currencies, eg the Euro and it is quite irrelevent to improving the accuracy of this article which is what we are discussing. --Gibnews (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, Gibnews. Everyone was in disagreement with your peculiar wording on the currency and the article was changed to reflect what the sources say. In my several years of dealing with you (boy, time flies when you are having fun...), I recall you have rubbished, or simply ignored - when they disagreed with you - the CIA, the BBC, the FCO, the ECB, the IMF, a website maintained by your own government, an Act of Parliament, and now it's the UN. Britannica has been "wrong" on many occasions. One is always off to a bad start given the policy of WP:V when one finds oneself rubbishing, instead of putting forth, new sources to further one's argument. Yet you have a proven track record of this. Returning to the B.E., two proposals have been put forward yet you have posted twice and commented on neither. Aside from turning this article and talk page into another political platform ("Gibraltar is not a colony!"), why are you posting here if you are not going to engage? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well you did invite me to look at this article and it needed correction. You think Gibraltar is a colony and you are wrong according to members of the current British Government. The BBC and CIA World Factbook have been glaringly wrong and have readily accepted my corrections on a number of things, as whatever you say, people who live in a particular place are often better informed than foreigners. In the case of the FCO you disagreed with the wording on their website about UK Overseas Territories, and the UN C24 is officially considered worthless. As you have referred to Gibraltar as 'a colony' that displays either ignorance or provocation. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The existence or lack thereof of the Gibraltar pound is not really relevant to this discussion.
I think the word "rule" is currently misplaced and should probably be removed if a better formulation can be found. Of the two proposals here, I would be quite willing to accept either. I prefer the flow of Justin's version because I think it works better separated into more than one sentence.
I would suggest some improvements to both. On Justin's proposal, there is perhaps an issue of de jure vs. de facto going on with the word "only". In theory, the BOTs only have to rely on the UK for foreign affairs and defence. In practice, several rely on the UK for other things as well - the currency issue, is a fair case in point. All BOT's rely on an outside country (or the EU in the case of the SBAs) for their currency system - either through a peg or by adopting a currency from outside. In some cases this outside country is the UK, in others it's the US or New Zealand. They don't have to do this, but they all do. Perhaps removing the word "only" would allow for this.
I would also remove "Although support for independence among the local population is lacking" and obviously replace "it" in the remainder of the sentence with "independence". I think the implication that there is not enough support for independence is well implied by the fact that these territories are not independent - given that we say that HMG will not stand in the way if they want to become independent.
On Red Hat's proposal, I think it might be better to split this into two sentences (with the full stop after "territories"), and would suggest that it is unlikely that the UK would deny independence on the basis of size to any BOT whose population clearly desired it. I don't like the formulation "remain British" - perhaps something along the lines of "British territory" would be better. Going further, we could also get rid of "collectively named the British overseas territories", and instead start the second sentence with "These have the status of British Overseas Territory..." - after all, we have just said that they are British, we don't really need to say it again. For the record, the issue of independence has gone to referendum in at least one BOT - Bermuda: it was beaten 73%-25% in 1995 and the issue is now dormant.
On the other point, I oppose the idea of singling out Gibraltar for special mention. It's too much detail and is unnecessary. Pfainuk talk 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the above comment sounds like a sensible way forward - take out "only" and it reads neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean Justin's proposal, Wiki-Ed? I agree on the remoal of "only", but I am still not comfortable with the neutrality of this wording.
  • How can we write, from the standpoint of a neutral point of view, that they are "self-governing" when the United Nations has them on a list of "Non-Self Governing Territories", for whatever reason that may be? Given that list is all about decolonization, and this article is about the major colonizing power of the last 400 years, how can it be brushed under the carpet?
  • Is Pitcairn self-governing when, according to the BOT article (I'm assuming for the moment it's properly referenced), "(the elected Mayor and Island Council's) decisions are subject to approval by the Governor, who retains near-unlimited powers of plenary legislation on behalf of the United Kingdom Government."
  • What about the Cypriots who live in the military bases on that island? These are not "transient personnel", but again, quoting from the BOT article, "There is no elected government".
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I also note that the UK is only pressing the UN to remove Gibraltar from the list. [2] (which Spain disagrees with, BTW - another neutrality issue there). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you read more of your reference you would find: 41. We conclude that Gibraltar's presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. --Gibnews (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You are seriously missing the point. I don't deny this. I even said the UK is pressing the UN to remove Gibraltar from the list and provided a reference which supports that, the same reference you are using. My point is that for there to be any "pressing" involved, it means that it is a TWO SIDED ISSUE, and that NPOV dictates BOTH SIDES MUST BE REPRESENTED HERE. The Spanish do not agree with the view of the House of Commons. I realise you hold strong views on the matter, but this is a neutral encyclopaedia and when editing here, you need to remove your "Gibraltar" hat and put on your "unbiased" hat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think its you that is missing the point. We are discussing an article about the British Empire, and in that context, its appropriate to mention what has become of it, and how the remaining parts are governed. It varies between territories with Gibraltar having the most modern (2006) constitution and the people of the BIOT being sold out to American interests. Irrelevent foreign irredentist claims are noted in the appropriate places and do not need to be repeated here. Whatever the Spanish think is quite immaterial. In the case of Gibraltar its what HMG and the GoG have agreed on that matters. --Gibnews (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I am happy to accept Pfainuk's proposal, I haven't seen any convincing argument that negates it.

The proposal on the table is:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin_A_Kuntz (talk • contribs)

You know very well that I have raised issues relating to the neutrality of the words "self-governance", and raised two counterexmples (Pitcairn, Cyprus) which blatantly do not have "self-government" which you have not addressed. To emphasise: the military bases in Cyprus are certainly not "uninhabited except for transient scientific or military personnel" yet there is no form of elected government whatsoever for the Cypriots that live there. Also, any reference to "self-government" must mention the UN list, for neutrality's sake. Furthermore, you have provided no reference for the claim "The British Government is....". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way: "Uninhabited except for transient scientific and military personnel" refers to BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory. It would be very odd to label the Cyprus bases "uninhabited", given that there are 7,000 Cypriots living (some farming) there and as many British service personnel. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
...and... "The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired" - I wonder what the forcibly migrated residents of BIOT would make of that statement? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Another source indicating that "self-governance" is not a black and white matter - House of Commons 2008 publication "The degree of self-government enjoyed by a Territory depends on its stage of constitutional development. Bermuda has almost full internal self-government...the situation is similar in Gibraltar...By contrast Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn have only advisory Councils, and the Governor is the law-making authority." Also note "Most Overseas Territories' Constitutions also provide for certain reserve powers to protect the UK Government's overall responsibility for the good governance of the OTs. These include...the power to disallow Overseas Territories legislation." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a table showing the level of self=government as it does vary a lot. --Gibnews (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Such a table already exists at British Overseas Territories, which is the right place for it. But I would not be opposed to a similar mention of Bermuda and Gib at one end of the spectrum and Pitcairn at the other, if the varying nature of self-governance is clear. The document I cited would act as the reference for this text. I think the proposed "The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired" should be dropped though (unless a reference can be provided for that claim). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And the British Government does not seem to be very committed to providing independence in the case of Gibraltar either: In the Despatch, I will note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, Gibraltar's right of self determination is not constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht except in so far as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce Sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent.[3]. RedCoat10 • talk 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

This is verging on the ridiculous. The current highly inaccurate version is justified on the basis it is only an overview but it is misleading and inaccurate. Change to a more accurate wording and all of the counter arguments are nit picking as to the level of detail about the degree of self-government enjoyed but do not dispute the fact that they are self-governing. The current proposal is accurate enough for an overview.

The revised proposal:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing to varying degrees reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request." Justin talk 09:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the first two sentences, if you add "and" or "and are" - "to varying degrees ...and (are) reliant...". For the third time, I am not OK with the last because you have not provided a reference for that claim. Where did you get that information from? That is a statement of Government policy, and as such it needs a reference. I have never seen such a statment of policy, by the way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I can provide a cite though it'll take some digging to find it again, its in Hansard during the debate about the possibility of Bermudan independence following the C24 visit. Justin talk 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Such a bold, potentially inflammatory policy if it applies to all BOTs (inflammatory to Spain, Argentina), requires more than that, I feel. If such a statement of policy can't be found on any government website or publication then it shouldn't be here. (NB, a mere MP saying that in a debate does not mean that the Government is saying that).... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the British Empire, not pandering to the colonial aspirations of Argentina or Spain to occupy territories where they are demonstrably not welcome. --Gibnews (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See [4], the statement on British policy actually dates back to 1966. In that case it was the Prime Minister stating Government policy. In the reference I was actually thinking off it was a statement of policy by the Foreign Secretary. Justin talk 09:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The cite is 1966, over 30 years ago and is anyway qualified by "and can sustain it". That's not enough to allow that sentence. --Snowded (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I said there was a more modern reference and I needed to find it again. And the sentence I've proposed about is qualified by the statement "where possible" which covers the issue of Gibraltar or the smaller BOT that have limited financial viability. And anyway whatever the age that is a statement on Government policy, one that hasn't changed i.e. its verifiable. Justin talk 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, (i) you need a better reference (ii) I don;t see what the sentence adds the article anyway (iii) if added it will require qualification and will be out of proportion in consequence. I suggest taking Red Hats suggested variation. --Snowded (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, the reference of its own is sufficient but I do intend to provide something more modern. What it adds to the article is that the populated BOT have the option for independence and it counters the usual POV charge that they are still colonies retained against the will of the population; i.e. the relation that currently exists is the choice of the population. As a summary it is adequate and it is certainly more accurate than saying they are ruled from London. Justin talk 11:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Current policy has not diverged too much from this: [5] and the White Paper it refers to. Although the third claim in Justin’s proposal is verified in the paragraph entitled “Partnership for progress and prosperity”, it is qualified with the words “where this is an option.” However, I don’t think the sentence adds anything to the article and it is speculative. We are talking about the current state of affairs and at the moment the OTs are not independent (administratively, financially, militarily or diplomatically) and have no separate international legal personality from that of the UK. The degree of self-governance is not significant when compared to devolved parts of the UK itself (and even the English regions). If that changes then we can change the article, but to suggest otherwise at the current time is pushing a POV that is not supported by the evidence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So 2 independent sources verify the proposed edit -> but you oppose the edit because of your opinion and it is your opionion that is not backed up back an appropriate cite. Again my proposed edit is qualified because of the very point you make. So how exactly is what is proposed POV? And again the BOT are independent financially in that they manage their own financial affairs and to varying degrees they have structures in place to administer themselves. The current article states they are ruled; that is inaccurate, misleading and that is POV nor is it supported by a citation. Justin talk 12:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The degree of self-government does vary across BOT's - in the one I live in under the 2006 constitution the Governors reserve powers are abolished. We have a distinct international presence which is only constrained by Spain spending a lot of money and effort, often acting illegally eg threatening UEFA about Gibraltar's application to join. The UK plays no part in our administration, regulation or finance.
I'm happy with Justin's version in principle as it seems to describe things much better than the original wording. --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The point about the third sentence is: it's irrelevant. Or it should be unless you're trying to suggest that independence is on the political agenda of each OT... which the sources categorically refute. And while I agree that "ruled" is not the best word to describe the relationships, the opposite is not true either. The attempts to spin the limited autonomy of certain territories (not all) as being in any way equivalent to internationally recognised political and legal independence are specious and in some cases blatantly false. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
How is it irrelevant? You assert it but do not explain why,then go off at a tangent completely unrelated to the edit. It is part of establishing the relationship between a BOT and the UK. The comment about self-government is not an attempt at spin, its properly cited, verified and carefully caveated to appraise the reader that the level of autonomy varies. It is not a unique situation many small island communities have autonomy but remain linked to a larger state e.g. the Faroe Islands i.e. its not unique to the UK. I also resent the bad faith assumption in the comment thats its an attempt at spin or is blatantly false. Justin talk 16:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the phrase 'limited autonomy' applies here.
The new Constitution provides for a modem relationship between Gibraltar and the UK. This Constitution does not in any way diminish British sovereignty of Gibraltar, and the UK will retain its full international responsibility for Gibraltar, including for Gibraltar's external relations and defence, and as the Member State responsible for Gibraltar in the European Union. Gibraltar will remain listed as a British Overseas Territory in the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended by the British Overseas Territory Act 2002. As a separate territory, recognised by the United Nations and included since 1946 in its list of non-self governing territories, Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the UN Charter. -- Jack Straw, Foreign Minister.
Although its arguable how much autonomy any member state of the EU has in practice. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Justin: as far as I can see, noone here is disputing that "under British rule" can be reworded. Therefore, I have done that, per my original proposal, as a stop-gap solution until such time that we all agree on the self-governing wording. The "POV/neutrality" tags are overkill. I'm sure we can all agree that the 14 territories are "British" even if they are not "under British rule", as they are of course named "British Overseas Territories". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is appropriate when there are no policy or source based objections to my proposed edit, rather the edit is dismissed on the basis of speculation and bad faith accusations of spin and falsehood. I've no objections to your edit provided it is a stop gap. Justin talk 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, Justin, please relax a little. It's part of the regular argy-bargy ("argument-bargument") of Wikipedia to discuss the merits or otherwise of proposed wording. Wiki-Ed is addressing your argument rather than you personally. Anyway, with regard to this third sentence, I strongly feel that mention of forward-looking government policy is a matter for British Overseas Territory, not this historical article about the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of the proposed edit is one thing, bad faith accusations is another, don't patronise me. I disagree that the forward looking policy belongs on the BOT article alone, it warrants at least a single summary sentence here. Justin talk 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is not the place for a detailed elaboration on the constitution of Gibraltar. We need a short sentence covering a range of "places". I have had my own disagreements with Red Hat in the past, but on this he has my complete support. The addition of tags is petty --Snowded (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
For as long as he refers to Gibraltar as a colony and asserts its under British Rule he has no support from me on that. --Gibnews (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the proposed text? There is no proposal for a detailed elaboration on the Gibraltar constitution and Gibnews has accepted that. Petty? I've yet to see a concrete argument against what I proposed, a lot of innuendo and bad faith accusations, not to mention a spot of petty name calling. And I have come up with an overview, one that is compact and suitably caveated to cover the various nuances. Yet it seems people just want to go down rabbit holes and concentrate on the editor not the edit. Justin talk 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop making silly accusations just because you are not getting your own way. There is a torrent of stuff about Gibraltar above by the way. In respect of your proposed text everything from "reliant on ..." is either superfluous in the context of this article or unsupported (the last sentence) --Snowded (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The stuff about Gibraltar has nothing to do with the proposed edit. The last sentence is supported by two cites. I will stop making "silly accusations" when the bad faith attacks stop. I still don't see an argument against it that is anything other than personal opinion. Justin talk 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

AGAIN, the proposed edit is:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles, collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing to varying degrees reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request."

It does not focus on Gibraltar. Justin talk 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The justification for the third sentence appears to focus on Gibraltar. It is the only OT which asserts, rightly or wrongly, any kind of independence. The sentence has no applicability to any of the others and no relevance to an article focusing on a historical entity. And Justin you should possibly consider your own words before getting riled when they're thrown back at you. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No it does not, where have I said that. The only comment about Gibraltar is that independence would require some accommodation with Spain due to the Trarty of Utrecht - that the right to independence is caveated. Its an overview of British Government policy toward the independence of BOT; it applies to all BOT. And no it is not the only OT that asserts any kind of independence, Bermuda does, the Falkland Islands do, most do to some degree - that is the point they are not ruled from London. Justin talk 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Who said you said it? Presumably there are some articles covering the independence movement in Bermuda and the Falkland Islands? Please explain how a statement that briefly mentions how a bid for independence could (not would) be treated favourably is relevant to an article covering the current status of the subject entity. Also please explain why you think an entity which does not manage its own diplomatic or defence arrangements is "self-governing". Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
They are self-governing to varying degrees. Bermuda and Gibraltar exercise almost total self-government, varying throughout the BOT with the Pitcairn Islands having the least amount of self-government. They are self-governing in that they manage internal affairs, raise taxes and revenues and have their own judicial systems.
As regards the final sentence it is a statement of the current British Government policy, the policy being "would" not "could" providing it is possible. Again this is supposedly a summary covering all the BOT so the language is deliberately caveated but it is certainly more accurate than previously when it simply said they were ruled.
As far as diplomatic relations goes, the British Government consults all BOT on any diplomatic matters and they are usually included in any negotiations. As regards defence many are too small to effectively defend themselves.
However, given that my edit is in fact suitably supported by citations, the onus is actually upon you to build a counter argument as to why this information should not be included or to suggest a better alternative. That is the way consensus building is supposed to work; so far all I've seen is me putting forward suggestions with no alternatives put forward other than I don't like that. Justin talk 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Reread what you just wrote here: "...the policy being "would" not "could" providing it is possible". You contradict yourself. If independence is not an option then it would not happen, therefore it is dependent on it being possible, therefore the correct word is "could". Since the word "could" is speculative the assertion is speculative and therefore does not belong here, as per WP:BALL. In fact the only reason I can see for using it is because it might support the contention that the OT are self-governing, whereas they do not exert control over the most significant determinants of self-government at all. Your interpretation of diplomatic and military control is OR. Also, your edit is not supported by the citations - you selectively quoted the FCO source and missed out the bit that qualified the statement you were relying on; the same qualification undermines your argument.
As to suggestions: As already discussed, the paragraph would be accurate with the first two lines in place. The third line suggests some trend towards independence which is misleading and inaccurate. I believe this is tendentious editing and the sentence should be removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Have the read the sentence you're disputing "The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request. It is a statement that encompasses the commitment the British Government has made, it is caveated that it is limited by practicality and that the BOT has to request it. The most recent example, the referenda in Bermuda decided against it. So I have in fact not missed out the bit you accuse me of. So what exactly is the issue???? I'm non-plussed why you claim one thing, when what is right in front of you obviously says something different???
No are my comments OR - I haven't put them in the article or attempted to - I was answering your question. Were I to do so I can supply citations to support my comments about the level of self-government and the consultations that the British Government undertakes in consulting BOT on diplomatic and defence matters. I could also have added that the BOT currently represent themselves in the UN in matters relating the UN decolonisation committee as the UK no longer bothers to attend - i.e. their own diplomatic representation.
What is OR is your assessment of what self-government means, particularly when you have already agreed to the suggestion in the first two parapgraphs.
Play semantic games if you want, the policy is to grant independence on request, a request in the case of most BOT would be a fait accompli. Its limited in the case of Gibraltar by the Treaty of Utrecht, in the case of the Falkland Islands by the fact that the second the British withdrew the Argentine Army, Navy and Air Force would come trampling all over them. There is some trend toward independence in some BOT, I would guess Bermuda can't be far away. However, the sentence is there to provide a summary of the official position of the British Government not to go into the nuances of every possible variation. Justin talk 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference you inserted relating to current UK government policy contains the following paragraph (4th from top):
In conducting the Review, we asked the territories about their links with the UK. And in particular, we asked whether people in the territories wanted to retain the link. All of them said they wished to keep their constitutional ties with Britain. It is a bond that Britain values highly. None of the territories said they wanted independence. If they had, or ever do, we would willingly grant it, where this is an option. In the meantime, as the White Paper makes clear, Britain remains committed to the territories, to their defence and security, to upholding their international interests and promoting their sustainable development.[6]
You missed out the "where this is an option" element which is, admittedly, semantics on the part of the author, but which clearly indicates that the issue is speculative and not pre-determined. It also indicates who pulls the strings. (NB, as an aside, when OTs represent themselves in international forums it is because the Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs has given them permission to do so.) The official position of the British government is not quite what you think it is, hence the sentence you want to include is overly simplistic and therefore misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Again I refer you to my caveat, what exactly is wrong with it? I've caveated because of the point you raise. The point is made because in some respects, eg Gibraltar, independence would be complicated by other matters, eg Treaty of Utrecht. Its not a case of the UK Government pulling the strings, its more a matter of things not being that simple. And the sentence is neither overly simplistic or misleading. Justin talk 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


UNINDENT

As no policy based objections or citation based objections have been raised for some time, I have simply put the edit in the article. I will self-revert if I get a valid reason other than personal opinions. Justin talk 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the wording Red Hat suggested so it reads correctly and accurately. I've also removed the material that is not relevant to this article as per WP:BALL. I like how you only quoted part of the source; Funny that. Please try to get consensus. Verifiability does not mean the information is relevant and, indeed, by including it the article is no longer neutral. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I never had a problem with that suggestion so there is no problem. I've partially reverted you, WP:BALL is not relevant, it is the current stated policy of the British Government; i.e. there is no speculation. If you feel the citation could be improved, I would welcome a suggestion - again there is an implicit bad faith assumption in your response. Neither is the article veering toward a particular POV, it is neutral, it is stating cited facts. The information is relevant to the status of BOT and is properly cited. Unless you can come up with a valid policy based argument as to why the information should be excluded then it should stay IMHO. Not one single reason has been put forward to exclude it, other than WP:IDONTLIKE. Justin talk 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Steady on here, Justin - why are you in such a hurry about this when this wording has been here for donkeys years? First off, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a silly accusation, because WP:ILIKEIT can be levelled right back at you. And if you read the page, it doesn't even refer to situations like this. Secondly, just because something does not violate a policy and just because it is cited does not mean it is worthy of inclusion (I can go around sticking "The surface of the sun is hot" into every article - if referenced, what policy does that violate?). Now, with regard to the sentence in question, it has the following problems:

  • One reference is from the 1960s. The 1960s. I mean, come on: how many changes of Government has the UK had since then, and changes of policy? It's ridiculous to use something from 1966 as a statement of current government policy. It wasn't even certain that Hong Kong would be returned to China back then. Whatever happens, that reference is unusable.
  • The other reference is from 1999, I think? That was ten years ago, and the UK has had two general elections since then. If you cannot find a modern reference, the best we can verifiably say is that "in 1999, Baroness Symons, Under-Secretary of State, stated that..."
  • The wording is misrepresentative of what the 1999 source says. The source says - "If they had, or ever do, we would willingly grant it, where this is an option." You have written "The British government is committed to". The two are not the same. Being "committed" to something is a stronger statement than what the Baroness said.

Please, Justin, do not place this sentence back into the article until we have reached a consensus here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that someone once edited wikipedia as a joke to implicate a well known figure in the assassination of President Kennedy and that error persisted for some time. What does the age of the text on wikipedia matter, when the edit proposed is supporting by two cites; it passes WP:V.
Arguing over the age of the cites is also specious, Government policy has been consistent since the '60s; to get rid of the remnants of Empire. And the Government has not changed since 1999, we're still with a Labour Government.
Your example it utterly specious, it is in no way shape or form germane to the example to hand. The sentence reflects the stated policy of HMG not some childish bit of vandalism.
The only relevant critism you have actually levelled is that perhaps committed to is too strong a word for the cite supplied. When I wrote that I had the Bermuda debate in mind and that was a paraphrase of the statement there. So if I search Hansard and find that phrase can I have the word committed? I would happily change committed to willingly if that is acceptable. What I actually resent is that rather than putting forward suggestions for a compromise edit to summarise the policy of HMG all I have seen is negative criticism with no attempt to move things forward. WP:IDONTLIKE is a perfectly valid criticism when there has been no counter suggestions. Justin talk 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I changed the 1999 reference to the 2008 HoC report [7] as this is more recent, it is a better reference (a written publication rather than a speech) and also supports the "varying degree of self-government" phrase. This still leaves the question of what to do about the (currently removed) sentence sourced using the 1999 Symons speech. However, this reference may also help. On page 153, it quotes from the 1999 white paper: "Britain's policy towards the Overseas Territories rests on the basis that it is the citizens of each territory who determine whether they wish to stay linked to Britain or not. We have no intention of imposing independence against the will of the peoples concerned. But the established policy of successive British governments has been to give every help and encouragement to those territories which wished to proceed to independence, where it is an option." Therefore I propose for this third sentence: "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where that is an option." How does that strike everyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Its longer than I feel is necessary but I am happy enough about it. Justin talk 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the article. Hopefully the wording is OK for Snowded and Wiki-Ed. And the Man from Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As I've probably made fairly clear, I don't think the sentence is entirely necessary, but it seems like a fair compromise to me - the emphasis sits in the right place (i.e. it allows the reader to decide what it means, as per WP:NPOV). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest it reads: "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where it is viable". That is shorter and avoids any suggestion that independence is otherwise constrained. --Gibnews (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Viable sounds better than option yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have two problems with that wording. First, "option" is the word which the Govt uses: in the 1999 white paper, in the 1999 speech, and in this 2008 document I used as a ref which quotes the white paper verbatim. Second, semantics: "viable" carries the connotation of "physically able to go it alone" (e.g. you might say it is not "viable" for Pitcairn to survive as an independent nation, with a population of 46 miles away from anywhere.) "Option" means something different. It carries the connotation of it being a matter of someone's choice, and I cannot help but think of Gibraltar's situation, where it cannot become independent without Spain's approval. My own take on these two words, therefore, is that Gibraltar's independence is viable but not presently an option. Bermuda's is both viable and an option. Pitcairn's is an option but not viable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Redhat. Better to quote it verbatim. I am pretty certain the word was chosen very carefully, probably for the very reasons he suggests. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
RH is talking absolute nonsense about Gibraltar needing Spain's approval this is not the place to argue on behalf of Spain's unfounded irrendentist claims, although RH illogically supports Spain for his own reasons, legally Spain has no say on Gibraltar's future. --Gibnews (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong feeling either way but on balance feel it is better to go with the wording from the source. Justin talk 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW is there any reason we don't have a wikilink to the main BOT article? Justin talk 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"where that is an option". This strikes me as ambiguous. An option of the British government? Or an option in real life? If it's the latter, it's incorrect. Because the British government does not endorse independence insofar as Gibraltar is concerned, despite it being legally possible pursuant to the UN Charter (by virtue of Article 73, Article 103 annuls the Treaty of Utrecht's reversionary clause). In other words, the sentence promotes the British/Spanish government's position that an independent Gibraltar would require Spain's consent, whereas in reality, none is needed. --RedCoat10 • talk 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute your interpretation of the matter and in many ways I agree. The problem with WP:V is you would need an external source to state that. Justin talk 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. The following references make Gibraltar's position quite clear [8] [9] (search for the word 'independence'). I don't think the legal technicalities are necessary at this stage, at least not in this article, but correct me if I'm wrong and I'll happily ferret out a citation. RedCoat10 • talk 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"where there is an option" is indeed ambiguous, but you didn't quote the full sentence. "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where that is an option." "...where that is an option" is the exact wording used, on at least three separate occasions over the last decade, by the British government. It is the British government that is being ambiguous, not us. Does it refer to Gibraltar? We don't know. This wording should probably be enclosed in quotation marks, but we should certainly not be trying to rephrase the Government's position based on personal interpretations of what we think is meant by "where it is an option". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the quote should be italicised and in parantheses to emphasise that point. Justin talk 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]The British Government position is subsidiary to the wishes of the peoples of the territories, and international law. I recall HMG at one time said it was impossible for Gibraltar to vote in EU elections, after the case went to the ECHR the impossible happened. --Gibnews (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your point in relation to the article? Justin: if we all agree it should be quoted, then quotation marks should suffice. To italicize would add unwarranted emphasis (unwarranted because it's not in the quoted source). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, if no one is objecting thats what I'll do. I think Gibnews' point is that there are serious legal objections to the UK Government's position that permission from Spain should be sought. Personally I doubt they belong on the overview article of the British Empire and are perhaps better suited to the BOT article. Though they may fall foul of WP:BALL as it involves a certain amount of speculation as to what would happen IF Gibraltar decided to opt for independence. Justin talk 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire/Archive_9&oldid=1136301263"