Talk:2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum: Difference between revisions

Incorrect name

It is absurd to have renamed this article.

The correct name can be seen on the poster shown on the page, and also on the official documents related to the event available here:

• http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref2.htm
• http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref3.htm

It is quite wrong to use the word 'Gibraltarian' like this.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move performed

Reason:

• "Gibraltar referendum" in Google News: 40 matches
• "Gibraltarian referendum" in Google News: 1 match
• "Gibraltar referendum" in Google Books: 47 matches
• "Gibraltarian referendum" in Google Books: 0 matches

Jayen466 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Press References

I've removed the reference to the NYT regarding 'The question' as it does not actually cite what the question was. I'm also concerned about its accuracy as it says:

On the day of the vote, the flags of Britain and Gibraltar were draped from dozens of apartments. Posters saying Give Spain No Hope, Vote No were plastered all over the town center, along with white balloons bearing the logo 'Gibraltar Forever, Spanish Fornever.'

Thats a fabrication, I certainly didn't see any of that, and its not the practice to 'plaster the town centre' with posters, indeed its illegal, and the balloon slogan does not sound Gibraltarian.

--Gibnews (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting common sense edits

Someone reverted a series of clearly explained edits that I'd made, with an edit summary which made little sense but suggests that they take Spain's attitude to Gibraltar very personally.[1] This is not a useful state of mind in which to edit articles here, where a neutral point of view is required. To make things absolutely clear, here again are the reasons for my edits, which I restored.

1. The article title is "Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002", but in the lead section, the text "referendum on 7 November 2002" was in bold. This contravenes the guidelines of the MOS, which state firstly that there should be no links in the bold face text, and secondly that if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, bold face should not be applied to related text that does appear. Thus, I removed the bold face.
2. The text previously claimed that the referendum was held "...to establish the popular support for a proposal". This is ambiguously worded and suggests that the intention of the referendum was to establish support for the proposal, which is clearly not true. Certainly, the intention of those holding the referendum was to demonstrate that the proposal had barely any support at all, but the referendum question was neutrally worded. Thus, I changed the text to "...on a proposal".
3. The article noted correctly that reaction in the Spanish media was hostile, but then quoted the least hostile reaction from only one newspaper. This was not an accurate summary of the Spanish media reaction. The editor who reverted said "its enough to quote reaction was hostile rather than providing a coatrack for a load of offensive quotes". It is not enough to say that reaction was hostile, without demonstrating that the claim is true. And if the editor finds those quotes offensive, then they will just have to come to terms with that themselves. We do not censor the encyclopaedia. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, when you hear someone accusing another editor of reverting them in bad faith, or demeaning their motives for doing so, thats usually an example of Projection bias - meaning they are projecting their motives onto others. Second, whenever I hear someone complaining loud and proud about censorship, they're usually up to no good. No we don't censor the encyclopedia but its also not a vehicle for people to abuse the use of quotations for political grandstanding. See WP:COATRACK, your edit didn't materially add to the article, it was simply a load of offensive quotations from the Spanish press. It can be taken one of two ways, by selectively showing just how offensive the Spanish press can be, it can stir up an anti-Spanish sentiment, or it can simply be an ugly reflection of your own views. I haven't decided yet. Another one for you is WP:BRD thats make a bold edit, when reverted, discuss before editing again. Don't edit war. WCM_email 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite telling that you're reverting even whilst I'm replying to you, the edit warring warning gives some good guidance, I suggest you follow it. WCM_email 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't given a reason why you want to bold text which is not the article title. You haven't explained why you want to use ambiguous and verbose phrasing in place of simple and direct phrasing. And while you may find the views of the Spanish offensive, that does not give you the right to remove them from the encyclopaedia. The reaction was hostile, it is worth noting that, and a couple of representative quotes from the newspapers of record is the way of doing that. Perhaps you should find some representative quotes from the press in the UK and Gibraltar and add those? That would certainly not be problematic. Your insinuations are problematic, verging as they do on personal attacks. See WP:NPA. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood what WP:COATRACK actually means, by the way. It says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." The article is about the Gibraltar referendum. Spanish reaction to that referendum is not "another subject entirely", is it? 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have given you a reason but you're simply seizing on a small part of what I said. Classic technique for simply avoiding a discussion - take it down a rabbit hole. We don't need a whole series of quotations as you insist. Its a classic example of WP:COATRACK turn an article on the sovereignty referendum into an article on the Spanish reaction. We'll see what others say. WCM_email 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not any such thing. If reaction was hostile, a couple of hostile quotes are obviously worth including. You simply don't like their hostility, and you're entitled to that opinion, but you're not entitled to edit this article to make it seem that they are less hostile. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

[2] ‎190.45.93.157 (talk · contribs · ‎190.45.93.157 WHOIS). Editor has imposed his own view on the article. I have previously reverted as I believe changes detract from the article by adding a load of random quotations, they've been selectively chosen for their offensive content and do not materially add to the article content. Classic case of WP:COATRACK. Bowing out as I don't edit war, IP has repeatedly reverted, diff of edit war warning [3]. May be this guy Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP? WCM_email 21:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There were no "random quotations". They were not "selectively chosen". They are the "hostile reactions" that the article alluded to but did not report. Clearly you don't like that the Spanish are hostile to Britain owning Gibraltar, but that does not have any bearing on how the article should report their hostility. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Think he may be back? Socking, block evading IP editor has returned to re-insert a series of quotes from Spanish newspapers. In addition, by reverting has removed improvements made to the article to fix wiki formatting. Objection to the quotes is on the basis they've been selected for their offensive content and are unnecessary when it is sufficient to note that the Spanish press reaction was hostile. The quotes don't materially add to article content. WCM_email 21:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude is ridiculous and driven only by your anti-Spanish racism. The quotes were not selected for their offensive content; they cannot have been, because their content is not offensive. The reaction to the referendum is plainly relevant to the article, and Spanish reaction was plainly hostile. It is not sufficient to state that reaction was hostile while censoring the hostile reaction and instead only reporting the least hostile quote you can find. Your claim that accurately reporting the reaction to the referendum "doesn't materially add to article content" is ludicrous. This is now the third section on this talk page regarding this issue, one of which I started and two of which you've started. There is no evidence in any section of anyone supporting your position. Wikipedia does not censor articles at the demand of racists. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)