Jump to content

Talk:Bay of Gibraltar

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

Tides

[edit]

The tides in Gibraltar Bay seem very mild compared to UK perhaps some explanation of local tides could be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move by Deeyuso

[edit]

This page was recently moved to "Bay of Algeciras" by Deeyuso with the following diffs: [1] and [2]

Thank you for the WP:BOLD revision, but I have reverted this, as there are no references and a cursory search on Google shows >41x the pages referencing "Bay of Gibraltar". Please follow the WP:BRD process and discuss here. Rmosler | ● 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bay 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CEPSA

[edit]

I'm concerned about edits that remove content from environmental groups to replace them with content direct from the CEPSA website. That very much appears to have the appearance of advocacy editing, is there a conflict of interest here? WCMemail 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only item I think I removed was the first comment that looked like an opinion with no citation which said "The refinery continues to cause concern with close co-operation between various groups monitoring its activities." I have no problem with environmental comments, but that should be in the pollution paragraph. I did not move it there as there was no citation.
The heading for this section is "Industrialisation" of which the leader is pollution, then it moves onto the other industrial subjects. Should the pollution section be under Ecology rather than Industrialisation ? I think it would be good to promote it to have a top header of its own, located between ecology and industrialisation, to "bridge the gap" as it were ?
CEPSA is under Industrialisation but there was nothing actually written about the refinery itself, so I added some information, leaving the para about the 2007 incident.
My concern was the fact that the article seemed out of date in several areas. I have been working on Gibraltar after Brexit and was reading articles linked to the disputed areas to see what was already published.
One question in the pollution para... where it says "A joint statement was issued by concerned environmental groups on both sides of the frontier in relation to the trilateral forum meeting held in 2009.[7]" ....it seems to hang in mid air, not saying what the statement says and the link is dead. Could this be expanded ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you label it "Gibraltar - San Roque" ? The refinery is in San Roque but I really don't see the need to mention that.
You're also using the CEPSA website almost exclusively as a source, this is a WP:PRIMARY source and we really should be looking for other non-partisan sources. If you want to access the dead link, try the way back machine at www.archive.org. WCMemail 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Gibraltar - San Roque" is the name CEPSA call the refinery. The paragraph is about the refinery, so it should be called by its correct name. [3]
I don't think information about the refinery, its size and the number of employees is unreasonable to take it from CEPSA. Looking at the ISO 50001 I think it is relevant. Lastly the fact that they are planning on expanding the site is certainly relevant. I cannot find another source for this, but please feel free to put a different citation if you can find one. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the name is misleading, it has no facilities in Gibraltar; something that should be made plain. For facts like that, yes a primary source is ok, but not for removing cited facts about its environmental impact. WCMemail 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CEPSA does have an operation in Gibraltar. [4] They also have three bunkering ships dedicated just to Gibraltar. [5]
I have not removed any cited facts about its environmental impact. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did actually remove that environmental groups were monitoring the refinery. And in reply, CEPSA has no refinery facilities in Gibraltar, we are taking about the refinery. WCMemail 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be going round in circles here.
1) I removed "The refinery continues to cause concern with close co-operation between various groups monitoring its activities." which is a comment, with no citation. You can leave it in if you want to, but I don't think this comment should be in the article.
2) I changed the name of the refinery from CEPSA to the official name which is "CEPSA Gibraltar - San Roque" per CEPSA website. I do not think it is misleading to call it by its proper name.
3) Do you have a problem with any of the items I added:-
a) The Spanish refinery occupies 1.5m m² and employs 1,000.[1]
b) The refinery now has ISO 50001 Energy Efficiency Management System certification.[2]
c) CEPSA is building a meta-xylene unit with a capacity up to 70,000 metric tons per year on the site, opening in 2018.[3]
d) An incident in the area in 2007 concerning the Odyssey Marine Exploration was resolved in court cases by 2012 with Spain being awarded the ownership of the treasure-trove.[4]
If there is a problem, please indicate which one/s and lets put the others in the article.
How about the idea of moving the Pollution section up to the top level ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Actually it was cited to Note [7], have you checked the wayback machine as I suggested? So yes I'd like to see that remain.
2. I did not dispute that, I pointed out the name was misleading and a note was required that CEPSA didn't operate any refinery facilities in Gibraltar.
3. a. Facts like that fine.
3. b. Suggest this needs a neutral source eg the accreditation agency, so not from their website. Its self-promotion.
3. c. No per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL if and when its commissioned then yes.
3. d. No problem, that was an error on my part to remove that.
I'd probably suggest moving the history section to the top and pollution down to the bottom. That way its in a chronological order. WCMemail 08:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed the page as I believe you have suggested, please correct anything if I have got it wrong. Cheers. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Refinery "Gibraltar - San Roque"". CEPSA. Retrieved 14 April 2017.
  2. ^ "Cepsa renews its Energy Efficiency Management System certification at its refineries". Cepsa. 7 November 2016.
  3. ^ "CEPSA TO BUILD NEW META-XYLENE PRODUCTION UNIT UNDER SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH INDORAMA". Chemical Engineering. 9 August 2016.
  4. ^ LA Times article on Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay 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) 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting the Treaty of Utrecht

[edit]
Spain does not recognise British claims of sovereignty in the area save for a small portion around the Port of Gibraltar, but the UK has asserted a normal 3 nmi (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) limit around Gibraltar, with a demarcation in the middle of the bay. This claim contradicts the treaty of Utrecht of 1713, by which Spain ceded to Great Britain the city and port of Gibraltar and the internal waters of that port, without granting any territoriality over the surrounding waters in the Bay of Algeciras.

The Treaty of Utrecht (English text) says nothing about ownership of the waters. Since the article in the Hydrographic Journal which is given as the source says only that this is the position of the Spanish government, we can't assert that the British claim contradicts the Treaty. Maybe it does, but we're going to need a better source than this. Marnanel (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, the Treaty of Utrecht existed before the concept of territorial waters was normalised by International Law under the auspices of the United Nations. A more accurate statement is indeed this is the position of the Spanish Government. It would also be worth noting that both HMG and GOG have suggested resolution via the ICJ but Spain rejected this. WCMemail 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1213168659"