Talk:La Línea de la Concepción

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

Untitled[edit]

Linenses have never been known as piojosos in my experience. Am I wrong or is this a windup? I have heard them called 'Los Especiales'.

Yes, piojosos is the name given to linenses..though the name is mostly used by non-linenses... Los Especiales is the name given to the inhabitants of the nearby town of Algeciras..

..my knowlege on this is because I lived in the area for a long sixteen years...Kbservices 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it. Pejorative slang does not belong in WP, nor do facts (however true they may be) based on personal experience. Cite a reliable source and you can put it back in. --BlueMoonlet 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Invasion"[edit]

Should the accidental "invasion" of La Línea by British Royal Marines in 2002 [1] be mentioned in the article? Redxiv 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

short on facts[edit]

I see a lot of assumptions about La Linea without references, including an absurd allegation that the British were attempting to encroach on the Isthmus where in fact it was cleared as a neutral ground (DMZ) to prevent the Spanish attacking Gibraltar, contrary to the treaties they signed and reneged on, a common practice it seems. --Gibnews (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnews, possibly you know it, but I'll remember it to you. You must provide sources of your statements. Regarding the isthmus, the state-of-the-art is pretty clear: the isthmus was not ceded by Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht and therefore it was occupied afterwards. UK claims that they did it without Spanish complaint (and therefore prescription applies). The text, for instance, is here:
On the other hand, Spain claims that it complaimed everytime the British went North (and therefore prescription does not apply). Therefore, I can't see any valid reason to include a {{POV-section}} template, since the text does not analyze how fair the British claims are, but only the effect. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that "the isthmus was not ceded by Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht" has been disputed by, inter alia, The Europa Historical Society, see here. To treat such a proposition axiomatically is to prejudice the reliability of Wikipedia. In the same vein, the notion that "therefore prescription does not apply" is original research and is, moreover, premised on the assumption that the UK invokes the principle of prescription in the first place, an inference based presumably on an individual editor's interpretation of the words "continuous possession". RedCoat10 • talk 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RedCoat, I must say that your statements are, although possibly done in good faith, totally misinformed.

You're possibly aware of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is your "source" a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems it's none of them. Let's see. Is the "Europa Historical Society" referenced by anyone? Well, a quick check to Google Scholar shows no mention. I've carefully read through the bibliography of my extensive Gibraltar-related library and no mention to such a prestigious "historical society". No mentions to it in google besides directories and the like. The Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society does not mention them ever. Although it's pretty simple to collect a group of guys and pretend they're more than that, a group of friends. So, it's unknown whether it's "reliable" (nobody is able to provide any assessment), it's not a "third-party" source, it's unknown whether it has "published" anything ever, and it has no "reputation" since nobody in the "business" is aware of its existence.

However, it could be possible that what they say were useful or at least sensible. However, that's also again wishful thinking. The main "finding" of the analysis is some agreement in the Treaty of Seville. Unfortunately, without resorting to proper secondary sources, it is nowadays possible to access the text of the Treaty of Seville (see here) and, unfortunately Gibraltar is not even mentioned not only in the text of the Treaty but in the Preliminaries (the immediately previous text). So, we have inter alia, an unknown "historic society" that is unable to fulfill at least one of the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Given the invention of the contents of the Treaty of Seville, it cannot described as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". On the contrary.

Finally, you talk about original research. Well, the fact that you don't understand what I say is not necessarily my fault. It could be better explained if we consider that here we're talking about Public International Law (and not a pub chat). I'm not an expert, but I try to document and source whatever I say in wikipedia. You can have a look at this book: International law. It talks about the ways to acquire a territory. Besides "cession" (page 420), which is what the Treaty of Utrecht is, you can see that the classical ways of such an acquisition are mainly "the exercise of effective control" (what UK claims for the isthmus). If you read carefully the chapter (page 424), you'll see that it has two variations: occupation and prescription. The former relates to the occupation of res nullius, while the latter does not apply to res nullius. Considering that primary sources may be used a "only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge" and that I think I'm an educated person, noting that "continuous possession over a long period" and "the exercise of effective control" are the same thing (since no other categories in International Law exist when it comes to acquisition of territory) and that only one of the two variations (prescription) is valid since the other applies to res nullius, where is the original research? Not knowing anything about International Law does not involve that the ones that do know about it are doing original research when they talk about issues related to International Law. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, some secondary sources to reflect it better:

The fourth geographical aspect concerns the fact that there are really two separate areas that are under negotiation: the town and the Rock on the one hand, and the isthmus that connects the Rock to the Spanish mainland on the other. The isthmus is territory that has been occupied by Britain since 1814 but it is not covered by the Treaty of Utrecht, so that whereas Britain can use de jure arguments in relation to the promontory, it has to rely on the more contentious de facto arguments of possession by prescription in relation to the isthmus and the airport that has been built upon it. As a consequence Spain has often seen the isthmus as more fruitful territory for negotiation, and at times British Governments have felt more vulnerable in relation to it, although the Gibraltarians consider it to be as much part of their territory as any other.

The author is this analysis is Peter Gold, a British scholar, who has written several books on the issue (and it's quoted, for instance to support that Gibraltarians are a "nation"). The source is Peter Gold (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 4. ISBN 0-415-34795-5.
So, where's the "original research"? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same old story[edit]

I question whether every article needs to be turned into a battleground over the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. Although its interesting in the history of La Linea to note its origin, the town has no particular relevance to the sovereignty claim or the Treaty of Utrecht. Similarly the section on 'modern confrontations with Gibraltar' these are not La Linea specific, as the only recent dispute has been with the late mayor's traffic plans, the fishing dispute was with Algeciras and the other items with The Campo and not La Linea, which tends not to bite the hand that feeds it. --Gibnews (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placename[edit]

@Scu ba: Is there an established English-language placename other than 'La Línea' or 'La Línea de la Concepción' for this place? Being next to an English-language speaking place, I would be persuaded to think that perhaps there is. But that should be attested with quality sources (source provided here is neither a "quality source" nor a proper way to establish an alternative English-language placename, but a translation). WP:NCPLACE does not exactly endorse that "Use English" means "translate placenames" but When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.. The translation of the placename without attesting actual usage/track of the translation as a way to refer to the place is a different issue, much less important and perhaps not even worth of mentioning in the lead (but in a placename toponymical section). There are reasons about why translations of placenames are not particularly common across introductory sections of Wikipedia articles (as in the likes of mentioning that "New Town of the Blunderbuss" is a possible translation for Villanueva del Trabuco).--Asqueladd (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the source makes it unworthy of citation? it might be a travel website but it has an editorial board. Here are a bunch of other sources that also call it "the Line" as it's English name:
encyclopedia Britannica, El Pais
and also in some sources from Gibraltar:
[2] [3]
Not sure why you don't believe that "the Line" is used by English speakers when referring to "La Línea"
Scu ba (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you don't believe that "the Line" is used by English speakers It's not I don't "believe" it. I am agnostic on that matter, and as I have written before, I was slightly persuaded to think that perhaps there is an alternative placename given the proximity of an English-speaking territory. It's more like you did not demonstrate the use of The Line as a common placename in English literature, and you have not demostrate it now, as both new sources ("britannica" and an "El País" news report about drug trafficking) actually use "La Línea" as the default placename. Similarly, pardon my English, the gibraltarinfo website mentions "THE TOWN SITUATED JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER IN SPAIN IS CALLED LA LÍNEA DE LA CONCEPCIÓN – YOU MAY HAVE COME THROUGH LA LÍNEA ON YOUR WAY TO GIBRALTAR".. Bluntly speaking the crux of the matter is that so far, the sample of English-language sources actually use La Línea or La Línea de la Concepción as the placename, only subsidiarily and one-off mentioning what does it translate to. Shall that situation (absence of English-language literature consistently referring to the place as The Line) continue, that factoid would not require bold text and, ideally, it might be better served in a proper placename section than in the opening statement. The WP:ONUS is still on you to demonstrate it otherwise.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard it referred to as anything but La Linea, the sourced examples aren't saying that the English name is "The Line" but simply explain what the name means in English. I am tempted to revert back to before the edit war started today. Is Kahastok available to provide a second opinion? WCMemail 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also my interpretation - these sources are giving the derivation of the name, not a separate English name. In the case of the El Páis source, it isn't clearly even doing that. We should not be giving alternative English names in the lead unless we have evidence that they are actually significantly used in English, and I see nothing that suggests that here. Kahastok talk 17:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every English speaker, whether from Gibraltar or an expat living in La Linea (as I was) refers to it simply as "La Linea". It's never, ever referred to as "The Line" and is rarely referred to by English speakers in speech by its full name of "La Línea de la Concepción".
The border itself is referred to in English as "the Frontier". Evanonthegc (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Línea_de_la_Concepción&oldid=1206057429"