Jump to content

Talk:Politics of Gibraltar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics of Gibraltar

[edit]

I've included some details of the pressure groups which although defined as 'non-political' by their nature influence the actual politics of Gibraltar importantly.

The page probably needs tidying up, and its structure and layout more 'wikified'

I've also moved the previous discussion to

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Gibraltar/1

As its not appropriate to the page as it is currently and should be developed.--Gibnews 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

[edit]

"While there is still considerable emotional attachment to the idea of Gibraltar being British, some see the Rock's future as being within a larger 'Europe of the Regions', rather than as part of one nation state or another."

If this is not to be deleted it must be rewritten. Who are "some" we need a citation for a credible source or group otherwise it's weasel words and unsubstanciated rumour or personal opinion of the writer. All of which are against Wiki policies.Alci12 12:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see what your objection to that statement is - its a commonly held view in Gibraltar which has been expressed on television and radio regularly, and there was a lecture on the subject at a meeting of the European Movement I attended.
Nor can I see how anything in that paragraph can be 'intended to deceive' perhaps you should read the article describing the phrase you are missusing.--Gibnews 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will be more specific as you don't appear to have read it all.
"weasel terms...lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made."
Generalization using weasel words
Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps the speaker or writer disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what he has said.
   * "People say…"
"For example,...Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."
...Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?"
Some see specifically, but the paragraph as a whole, as per the article is an example of the above; it isn't a source it's a writers opinion (right or wrong) hiding behind the phrase. If "some" think that then give a linked quote or a poll from a verifiable source saying that, so we can see who they are, how many they are etc. Saying you attended a meeting and heard it isn't a source as 'we' the reader can't check that you did go or heard that said. Nor can 'we' watch local TV. If it's so widespread there shouldn't be a problem backing it up with a sources.Alci12 10:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then how would you express that? Its not particularly contraversial - it is a general perception and the argument against is use sounds to me like denying that Stalin killed millions of people because I can't tell you all their names. --Gibnews 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wiki Stalin#Death_toll They give figures and estimates supported or validated by; pictures of execution orders signed by Stalin in one instance and a series of links to sites about the various numbers given in the article, see Stalin#Notes for the citations from books & accademic research supporting the articles contentions.
So, if as you say your edit is a widespread view, then you ought to be able to find, in an electronic form, a newspaper or media source saying exactly what you have said. Then just create a citation added to the article, as they have in the examples above, and everything is fine :)Alci12 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nonsense

[edit]

This article describes the politics of Gibraltar. Ill informed nonsense like Spanish population of Gibraltar was oblidged to emigrate from the teritory out, when UK took possesion of it, after having cometed some piratery acts have no place in it and are both inappropriate and factually incorrect.

--Gibnews 19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Assembly Vs Parliament

[edit]

Hi, shouldn't the term 'House of Assembly' be reverted to 'Parliament', due to the new Constitution? Gibmetal77 11:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've changed it in some places, but there are a lot. Similarly any references to Ordinances should now be Acts. However, at present the Chief Minister is not styled 'Prime Minister' --Gibnews 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Gibnews. Yes I thought so, I just wanted to ask before changing them just to make sure this was ok. Gibmetal77 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar references to Ordinances should now be Acts" - what is your evidence for this assertion? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are aware, but he does live in Gibraltar. Chris Buttigieg 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, merely living somewhere does not make you an expert in it. There is also a more fundamental principle at stake here, a cornerstone of Wikipedia's policies. At the bottom of the text box you write in you may notice something: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Please click on the verifiable link and read the page. The policies there go for every contributor and every contribution they make, regardless of where they live. It is how Wikipedia polices itself. Any editor should be able to challenge any other editor to verify their claims. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor should be able to challenge any other editor to verify their claims when they contribute that material to Wikipedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall anyone including this to the encylopaedia. As far as I know, Gibnews only mentioned this by the by. I am sure that if it does come to being included, it will be cited. Unless of course we are all living in an Orwell-like world, we do not need to backup our ordinary comments with references (Well at least I hope so!). Chris Buttigieg 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed that Gibnews wrote "any references to Ordinances should now be Acts" with intent to change or as an instruction that articles be changed. I think that's a fair assumption since the point of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article, rather than as a general forum for banter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not something for you to have an opinion about or discuss its a matter of fact. If you lived in Gibraltar you would know these things. --Gibnews 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be the judge of what is or what is not for me to have an opinion about. You live in Gibraltar but you seem to be unaware that (a) Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory and (b) that your currency is the Gibraltar Pound. However, I'm not concerned by you. Peer review ensured verifiable facts stayed in the article in those cases (rather than theories invented in your own head), and it shall do so in this case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that Gibraltarians will know this due to the fact that they have voted for (or against) the Constitution and know what it entails, the information will be cited when added. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: I would also like to remind you that this page is to discuss changes to the mentioned article and NOT to bring up past disputes with a particular user. Gibmetal77 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to remind Gibnews of the same, and that words such as "Its not something for you to have an opinion about" are extremely rude, not civil and totally unproductive. A response along the lines of yours, Gibmetal77, is all I was after - that a verifiable source would be provided. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: having voted for the constitution doesn't mean you've read it. And not having voted for it doesn't mean you are incapable of reading it. So please, in these discussions, let's drop this rather puerile line of argument that those who live in Gibraltar are somehow endowed with innate expertise on Gibraltar, to a level that non-residents are incapable of achieving. Arguments like that belong in school playgrounds, not serious intellectual fora, and do all of our intelligence a disservice. Back to the constitution: there is a very clear statement on the term Parliament. Where does it say that Ordinances shall henceforth be referred to as Acts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that non-residents cannot know as much as a Gibraltarian on matters relating to Gibraltar. In fact, I am very sure that many of the non-resident users editing Gib related articles know a lot more than I do in certain aspects concerning Gib; I have never challenged that. Anyway, as I said earlier if this information is at some point added it should be cited. Gibmetal77 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've got a lot more information about Gibraltar than those who rely on looking at the internet for news, and certainly read the constitution cover to cover the 1969 one, the draft 2006 version and collected the first copy officially issued by Government. And Parliament issues Acts. --Gibnews 07:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

[edit]

The government section of the "Outline of Gibraltar" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

Coalition

[edit]

Two opposition parties cannot be in coalition (ie share government power). They may have an electoral alliance. I don't know exactly what the situation is in Gibraltar so I'm not changing it but can someone who knows do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.134 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two parties CAN share government in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If parties are "in opposition" then they are not in government, so they cannot be sharing government. The Leader of the Opposition's party may have an electoral pact with the Liberal party but if neither of those parties are in government then they can't be in coalition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.106.85 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing a coalition with a coalition government. --Gibnews (talk)

Ministerial detail

[edit]

I question whether it is a good idea to include this sort of detail in wikipedia as ministerial roles change frequently and it creates either an administrative nightmare updating pages, or out of date material, particularly as wikipedia pages are copied to other sites. Its better to link to the Government site where its updated. --Gibnews (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's any sort of excessive detail. I don't remember any convention on not including information about the cabinet of dependent territories. When it comes to regular countries, it does not seem to have any trouble (see United States Cabinet, for instance). --Ecemaml (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar is not a 'dependent territory'. The ministerial roles change regularly, are you going to update them? --Gibnews (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I believe the info is incomplete... What about the Ministry of Finance as well as that of Tourism? --Gibmetal 77talk 12:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Minister of Finance happens to be the Chief Minister. Tourism seems to be under the responsibility of the Ministry of Enterprise, Development & Technology (see the reference). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it should be part of the article, as although one person may have a particular role today, that can change as its not required under the constitution. However, as it will quickly become out of date, a link to the official Gibraltar Government site is a better idea than reproducing the detail in Wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember any country or territory where the composition of its cabinet is required by their fundamental laws. With regard to "quickly" it's interesting that the source dates from 2007 and nothing has changed yet. "Quickly"? --Ecemaml (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some Gibraltar ministerial duties are defined in the constitution, if the source dates back to 2007, then its already out of date - see: Reshuffle of Ministerial Responsibilities. So you are wrong on both counts. --Gibnews (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the ministry of silly walks? --Gibnews (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOSENSEOFHUMOUR --Gibnews (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM --Ecemaml (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with Spain

[edit]

Spain argues that Gibraltar's status is an anachronism, and that it should become an autonomous community of Spain, similar to Catalonia or the Basque Country. It also argues that the principle of territorial integrity, not self-determination applies, drawing parallels with the British handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997. However, at the same time, successive Spanish governments have refused to countenance the handover of their north African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco.

Looks like original research to me. The second sentence has the effect of dissing Spain's argument in the first. If this juxtaposition hasn't been made in some cited source, it's WP:SYNTH ("If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no objections have been raised, I've removed struck-out section as original research - with no prejudice to restoration if someone cites a reliable source explicitly making this comparison. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it demonstrates hypocrisy Spain's colonies in Africa are immaterial to Gibraltar. Spain's argument of wanting to wind the map of Europe back 305 years and impose an irredentist claim opposed by 99% of the people involved should stand or fall on its merit.--Gibnews (talk)
Irrelevant. All that matters in this context is that this appeared to be original synthesis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Gibraltar Group

[edit]

Re POV tag: I've removed the non-political bit. Regionalism is generally viewed as a political stance, even if it's cross-party within that region. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the VOGG is that it is not aligned to any political party, to the extent that some of its members resigned when they took up active roles in local parties. Two are currently in the Parliament. There is no discussion of why a NPOV tag is included so its probably because the editor does not understand Gibraltar politics. The group is notable in having led the NO campaign in the 2002 sovereignty referendum, although there was no YES campaign. --Gibnews (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion of why a NPOV tag is included
You could always ask; but I took the chief grounds as the description of a strongly regionalist political group as non-political. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording to 'non party political' which I think makes the situation clear. --Gibnews (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section on the VoGG that you first added [1] on the basis that you are engaging in self-promotion. If you can put forward a reliable source on the VoGG's activities, then it can return. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no you removed everything about Gibraltar pressure groups. That is either an error or vandalism. --Gibnews (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All parties here might want to look at Peter Gold's Gibraltar: British or Spanish?, a non-partisan scholarly analysis with copious Google preview (e.g. here). As a reliable uninvolved secondary source, it'd be far preferable to cite than the extensive synthesis of primary documents that the references currently comprise.
It could be useful for verifying the Politics of Gibraltar#Relations with Spain section. Apart from sourcing, it's worth running the whole thing past Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words: for instance, the emotive differences between "argue" vs "state" vs "point out" vs "assert", and the unreferenced viewpoints behind phrases like "It has been suggested that" (who by?). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. That reference is enough for me. I will reinstate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the physical book, so you're welcome if you need information of the non-visible parts. On the other hand, I've restored the NPOV tag. "defending the rights of Gibraltarians against external threats" is a purely propagandistic sentence. Please, rephrase. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the words used by the group, I expect there is a reference to it somewhere. You don't have to like it but that is what it does. --Gibnews (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an official mission statement, it'd be fine in direct quotes. Where can we find it? www.vogg.gi is currently down. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the section completely, adding sources, including the Gold book which I now have a copy of too. If the organisation does not have a website, and there is no record of its mission statement, past or present, then I don't see how we can reliably have one here in the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I go with that - and I've snipped the nonexistent link. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused lead para?

[edit]

The lead para seems confusing. I've little knowledge of the subject and no time to seek out another source right now so I won't edit, but where it says:

That government, however, is responsible for defence and external affairs but has full internal self-government under its 2006 Constitution

doesn't it mean

The United Kingdom government, however, is responsible for defence and external affairs but Gibraltar has full internal self-government under its 2006 Constitution

??? Barnabypage (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I've made the change. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Politics of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1209801952"