Talk:Politics of Gibraltar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gibraltar Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, which aims to expand and better organise information in articles related to all aspects of Gibraltar on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents 1 Politics of Gibraltar 2 Weasel Words 3 Spanish nonsense 4 House of Assembly Vs Parliament

[edit] Politics of Gibraltar

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)

[edit] Weasel Words

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Spanish nonsense

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)

[edit] House of Assembly Vs Parliament

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

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)

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)

"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)

I don't know if you are aware, but he does live in Gibraltar. Chris Buttigieg 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)