Talk:Gibraltar

Jabal Al Tariq

its Jabal Al Tariq. European always crafts history which is full of doudt and against facts. What if Jabal al Tariq remain same as named. Because there was was no name before. ~2026-36158-52 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Religious affiliation in the infobox

On 4 July, Lui Editor added the 25-year-old statistics of religious affiliation to the infobox, as recorded in the census of 2001. I reverted because the infobox is for the most relevant high-level data and its status as of 25 years ago certainly does not meed the criteria for infobox content (it could go in the body of the article but an reliably sourced reason to do so would be needed). But if the data for the 2021 census could be provided instead, then that could be posted.

Today, Lui Editor restored the obsolete data, justifying their action on the basis of their personal opinion about the 2021 census, that 50% of it is false. So I reverted again because obsolete data is still obsolete and the opinion of Wikipedia editors must never be a factor. If Lui Editor has well-founded reasons to question the 2021 statistics, then the obvious answer is to continue to omit them from the infobox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Lui did not restore the previously added obsolete data. Lui added different, less obsolete (2012) data.

Also, in the hypothetical case that there are reliable sources saying the 2021 figures are disputed, it makes more sense to me to report the less current but best available data than to include none at all. I note that the edits do include the date of the information, so any reader who doesn't think 15 year old religious affiliation has any relevance can ignore it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I can see the logic of that argument so it is a judgement call. The infobox exists to communicate the most significant "hard" data about the place in question. I think we agree that 25-year-old data doesn't meet that test. Whether 15-year-old data does is one for local editor consensus. But if five-year-old data is available, why not use it? To declare that 50% of it is false was a red flag that demanded reversion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I said only the 2022 data is slightly false, 2012 is TRUE, whats even the problem Now? Lui Editor (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me remind you of your edit summary: "wont add 2022 cuz 50% of it false". 50% is more than slightly. Can you say how false you think the 2022 data is and why?

"What's even the problem now" is that the 2012 data is old. We can fix that problem by using the 2022 data, unless you can make a case that it's significantly false. (And really, I don't mean that it is false but that WP:reliable sources say it is false. Wikipedia doesn't report the truth, it faithfully paraphrases reliable sources). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2026

Remove the new "responsible" text next to "sovereign state". It is British sovereign territory, and the sovereign state is therefore the UK. Doesn't matter if it is part of the UK itself or not - sovereign state is the UK. UK is already "responsible" as a result. ~2026-42599-76 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've removed it as it's not clear what "responsible" is intended to mean in this context. Day Creature (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI, depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#"Sovereign state" vs "Sovereign state responsible" for dependencies not part of the UK, it may become necessary to revisit this question. User:Day Creature, you may wish to participate there. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Revised because is see that it was user:~2026-42599-76's edits that triggered the discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me there: that helps me understand what was meant by "responsible". I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, so I'll await the outcome of the discussion. Day Creature (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you review my edit request? Wikieditor20101 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Poor Neutrality

hi I'm not British or Spanish but this page don't show the history for exanple don't show in fist page that the territory it's in dispute , only wrote the brithish perspective 0 objectivity Wikipedia should be neutral and tech history, past and present not justificate any part ELPapuchO79 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This has been brought up before on this talk page. I think everyone agrees with you that Wikipedia should be neutral, but there is a difference of opinion over whether this article is. The third paragraph of the lead says the territory is in dispute; I don't know what more you want. There has been some dispute over whether the paragraph about 1704 in the history section gives a neutral description of the events of that year; is there any other part of the history that you find to be presented from a British perspective? And is there any specific thing in the article that you think is there to justify British control? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

hi thanks for answering, I was talking that for exanple says soberanity : brithish.

instead of putting in a Line in text format that's "ah Spain reclaimed it by the way " you could put

Reclaimed by : 🇬🇧 united kingdom/ 🇪🇸 Spain

instead of it's from X and reclaimed by Y

( Y suggest putting side : X km² ( wiki marker that says from Spain it's less )

and on the end of the page you said " UN Categorize it like a no autonomous territory..."

The problem is not that you're missing information the problem is how you say it it's not the same putting a line saying as a meaner fact that someone reclaim that's showing in the first page and the Summary focus a lot in the mordern history of this decade I think you could do something like :

Gibraltar It is a peninsula located in southern Spain, on the Strait of Gibraltar in the Mediterranean sea , the sovereignty of which is disputed between the United Kingdom and Spain; it is considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom, and a Non-Self-Governing Territory awaiting decolonization by Spain and the United Nations ( Wich status shall be resolved on negotiations by the two countries Given that the right to self-determination is not valid because it is not a population native to the area) ( see Resolutions 2070 (XX) of 1965, 2353 (XXII) of 1967 and 2429 (XXIII) of 1968 ) ( you could put this in a wiki link for save space )

It all began in 711, when the Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the Strait from North Africa with his troops and fortified the imposing rock to secure his foothold on the Iberian Peninsula. The word Gibraltar derives directly from his name, a phonetic evolution of Jabal Tariq (Tariq's mountain). For approximately 750 years, the Rock was part of the various Islamic kingdoms and empires of Al-Andalus, from the Umayyads to the Nasrids of Granada. Far from being a mere geographical feature, it was the key to the passage between Europe and Africa, which is why Muslim rulers fortified it with increasingly complex walls and defenses.

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Spain never ceased claiming the territory nor abandoned the goal of regaining sovereignty over the Rock, repeatedly attempting to do so through military means—including successive sieges and formal attacks such as the **first siege of 1704–1705** and the **Second Siege of Gibraltar in 1727**. The most forceful and massive effort took place during the **Great Siege (1779–1783)**—part of the American War of Independence—when combined Spanish and French forces launched a colossal land and sea assault to compel the British garrison to surrender. Although the military operation was monumental, British resistance, bolstered by naval reinforcements, prevented the reconquest, definitively cementing the enclave's status as a military stronghold.

Until today the dispute persist Spain still reclame to follow negotiations, but the uk It maintains the position that the territory's status should only be changed when its inhabitants so desire, ignoring the annual resolutions of the United Nations and the Decolonization Committee.

wasnt so hard see?

Neutral and Brief history ~2026-50837-08 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

hi the coment it's inconplet for some reason wait haha ELPapuchO79 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

this its rthe real comment idk why they court me wiki algorit i guess ahha :

hi thanks for answering, I was talking that for exanple says soberanity : brithish.

instead of putting in a Line in text format that's "ah Spain reclaimed it by the way " you could put

Reclaimed by : 🇬🇧 united kingdom/ 🇪🇸 Spain

instead of it's from X and reclaimed by Y

( Y suggest putting side : X km² ( wiki marker that says from Spain it's less )

and on the end of the page you said " UN Categorize it like a no autonomous territory..."

The problem is not that you're missing information the problem is how you say it it's not the same putting a line saying as a meaner fact that someone reclaim that's showing in the first page and the Summary focus a lot in the mordern history of this decade I think you could do something like :

Gibraltar It is a peninsula located in southern Spain, on the Strait of Gibraltar in the Mediterranean sea , the sovereignty of which is disputed between the United Kingdom and Spain; it is considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom, and a Non-Self-Governing Territory awaiting decolonization by Spain and the United Nations ( Wich status shall be resolved on negotiations by the two countries Given that the right to self-determination is not valid because it is not a population native to the area) ( see Resolutions 2070 (XX) of 1965, 2353 (XXII) of 1967 and 2429 (XXIII) of 1968 ) ( you could put this in a wiki link for save space )

It all began in 711, when the Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the Strait from North Africa with his troops and fortified the imposing rock to secure his foothold on the Iberian Peninsula. The word Gibraltar derives directly from his name, a phonetic evolution of Jabal Tariq (Tariq's mountain). For approximately 750 years, the Rock was part of the various Islamic kingdoms and empires of Al-Andalus, from the Umayyads to the Nasrids of Granada. Far from being a mere geographical feature, it was the key to the passage between Europe and Africa, which is why Muslim rulers fortified it with increasingly complex walls and defenses.

As the historical process known as the Reconquista progressed, the Crown of Castile realized it could not leave that military stronghold in enemy hands. After several failed attempts throughout the 15th century, Castilian forces—spearheaded by local nobles and royal troops—succeeded in capturing the town on August 20, 1462, coinciding with the feast day of Saint Barnabas, who became the city's patron saint. Once under the control of Henry IV of Castile, Gibraltar ceased to be an Islamic bastion and became a key element of the Spanish Crown's defensive system against Barbary piracy from North Africa—a status it maintained peacefully and without incident for nearly two and a half centuries.

Everything changed in the early 18th century when European fears of a potential, powerful dynastic alliance between France and Spain—which would have united both powers under a single sphere of influence—triggered the War of the Spanish Succession. A coalition led primarily by the Kingdom of England and the United Provinces of the Netherlands mounted a military opposition to this bloc. In 1704, seizing the opportunity presented by the conflict, an Anglo-Dutch fleet commanded by Admiral George Rooke attacked and invaded the stronghold. Faced with the offensive, the imminent military occupation, and a refusal to submit to the new foreign authority, a drastic displacement process ensued; virtually the entire original Spanish population lost their homes and chose exile, embarking on a mass exodus that gave rise to the neighboring town of San Roque and left the Rock virtually depopulated. Immediately afterward, the British monarchy hastened to declare the territory a Crown possession and encouraged the arrival of new settlers from diverse backgrounds—including Britons, Genoese, Sephardic Jews, and Maltese—to repopulate the peninsula and transform it into a secure base.

The European conflict formally concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, under which Spain was compelled to cede ownership of the city, castle, port, and fortifications to the British Crown. However, from the Spanish perspective, the treaty specified precise boundaries that the United Kingdom eventually overstepped by unilaterally occupying areas such as the isthmus and extending its sovereignty over territorial waters not originally included; this has fueled a long-standing dispute regarding the true scope of that cession that persists to this day.

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Spain never ceased claiming the territory nor abandoned the goal of regaining sovereignty over the Rock, repeatedly attempting to do so through military means—including successive sieges and formal attacks such as the **first siege of 1704–1705** and the **Second Siege of Gibraltar in 1727**. The most forceful and massive effort took place during the **Great Siege (1779–1783)**—part of the American War of Independence—when combined Spanish and French forces launched a colossal land and sea assault to compel the British garrison to surrender. Although the military operation was monumental, British resistance, bolstered by naval reinforcements, prevented the reconquest, definitively cementing the enclave's status as a military stronghold.

During the 20th century, as the global map was transformed by UN-driven decolonization processes, Gibraltar became the focal point of a new type of political and diplomatic dispute. In *1963*, the United Nations officially added the Rock to its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories awaiting decolonization, backing Spain's sovereignty claims through key resolutions—such as those of 1965, 1967, and 1968—that urged both nations to negotiate a solution.

Faced with international pressure and persistent Spanish demands, the United Kingdom chose to safeguard the colony's political status by holding unilateral referendums—such as the one in *1967. In these votes, the local population—comprising mostly descendants of British and foreign settlers who had arrived after 1704—voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty. For Spain and critical members of the international legal community, these unilateral referendums, organized by the occupying power itself, lacked legal validity under UN decolonization standards; because the population was considered "imported," the principle of self-determination did not apply in the same way it did for traditional colonies. Far from calming the situation, the UN hardened its stance following that referendum and passed **Resolution 2429 (1968)*, issuing a stern ultimatum that demanded the United Kingdom decolonize the territory by October 1, 1969.

Faced with British non-compliance and a diplomatic impasse, the Franco regime responded with a total land blockade—including the *closure of the border gate in 1969—which completely isolated the Rock for over a decade. Spain was eventually compelled to soften its stance and reopen access points in the early 1980s as a necessary condition for joining the European Economic Community (now the European Union).  However, the situation took a drastic turn with **Brexit*: when the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union, Gibraltar—whose electorate voted overwhelmingly to remain—found itself at the center of a new legal maze, necessitating intense negotiations between London and Brussels to avoid a hard border ("hard Brexit") and maintain the smooth flow of traffic and economic activity with the surrounding Spanish region.

Until today the dispute persist Spain still reclame to follow negotiations, but the uk It maintains the position that the territory's status should only be changed when its inhabitants so desire, ignoring the annual resolutions of the United Nations and the Decolonization Committee.

wasnt so hard see? ( i hate wikipedia text format jajaj 1 hour wrting hahah )

Neutral and Brief history ELPapuchO79 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't understand much of what you wrote because of the language, but I can see that you have two complaints:

• The Spanish claim on Gibraltar is not given enough prominence.
• Details of the Spanish claim, particularly history that tends to justify it, are omitted.

On the prominence complaint, I believe the article does the neutral thing today. The purpose of the article isn't to legitimize any beliefs; it is to deliver information to a reader who wants to learn about Gibraltar. The Spanish claim is important to that reader, but not enough to be mentioned in the first sentence or the infobox. The British claim is much more important because it is the one that is enforced -- the one that actually affects the lives of Gibraltarians. One can argue that Spain ought to control Gibraltar, but one cannot possibly argue that Spain does control Gibraltar. The history that led to British control is more important than history that might have led to Spanish control but didn't. Elevating the Spanish philosophical claim to the level of the British effective one could only reflect a Spanish nationalist bias.

On the details of the Spanish claim, I too would like to see those, properly encapsulated, but when people have added them in the past, British nationalist article watchers have deleted them. They generally give two reasons: 1) The material is not relevant enough to a reader to be worth article space; and 2) The material was added as part of a Spanish nationalist agenda, the deleting editor opposes that agenda, and so the deleting editor opposes the addition.

By the way, your use of the pronoun "you" is problematic. If you meant me, since you responded to my post, then I need to point out that I am not in charge of this article and haven't written any part of it. If you mean the Wikipedia writers in general, you should note that you are one of them (you can edit this article as well as anyone else), so the right pronoun would be "we". Or you could just not refer to the people involved at all and just talk about the article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2026

Please change "Self-governing and dependent" to "Self-governing dependent territory under a" in the info box, as the monarchy is in the right of the uk as an overseas territory. Wikieditor20101 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the "under a parliamentary constitutional monarchy" part even necessary? These descriptions of government types in infoboxes have a tendency to become extremely long and convoluted. Why not simply call it a "self-governing dependent territory"? Day Creature (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds okay by me. Wikieditor20101 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)