Talk:Gibraltar

The Spanish version of this page contains many false and inflamatory statements. It has been locked by the powers that be, but the insults to the people of Gibraltar remain for all to see. What can be done about this?

A Gibraltarian

---

EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP:

I've posted this comment in Talk:European Union:

"Gibraltar Bearing in mind thes sections of the EC Treaty:

'Article 299' 3. ... This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list [annex II of the Treaty]. 4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. [...] 6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs: (a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands; (b) this Treaty shall not apply to the sovereign base areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus; (c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

Wouldn't Gibraltar be considered a part of EU? Because: (a) In spite of being excluded since it is not mentioned in the list of Annex II quoted in the above section 3, it is included in EU by section 4 (in fact, Gibraltar is one of the few territories that this section seems to apply). (b) Gibraltar is NOT mentioned in section 6., which excludes some European territories from EU membership, which would be granted under section 4. So Gibraltar is considered part of the EU by section 4. of art. 299. Moreover, Gibratarians will vote in the next European Parliament elections. So, why is Gibraltar considered not part of EU in this article of Wikipedia? If no good answer be posted here, I'll take the responsability of changing the article my self in a few days. Cheers to all! " Marco Neves

---

Just check the Special member state territories and their relations with the EU wiki . I'm afraid that the new EU constitution will not solve this issue, just to avoid clashes between Spain and the Uk.

theWikipedian

---

It's possibly worthy of note that Gibraltar is voting in the 2004 European Elections (to the European Parliament this month, as a part of the UK's South-West region. The colony could well prove decisive in one of the MEPs elected from that constituency. -- OwenBlacker 23:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Last colonial people?

The article currently says:

Also, it is worth mentioning that nowadays Gibraltarians are the last colonial people in Europe.

By what definition is this said? Many parts of Europe have changed hands back and forth over the centuries, and Gibraltar is hardly the only one to be contested. By such a definition of "colonial people", one could argue that France's control of Brittany is colonial, or the UK's control of Northern Ireland, or Russia's control of Kaliningrad, among many other candidates. So I removed this, unless someone can explain what this meant. --Delirium 08:27, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

The UN regards Gibraltar as a colony, and it is listed on its Decolonisation Committee's list of 'non-self-governing territories'. By contrast, Ceuta and Melilla, Spain's North African enclaves, claimed by Morocco, are regarded as part of Spain, just as Brittany, Northern Ireland and Kaliningrad are officially regarded as part of France, the UK and Russia respectively.

Is overall tone neutral?

I've just had the pleasure of a weekend in Gibraltar and came here to see if there were any photos were required. However as I read the article I got the impression that its POV is much more allied to that of the typical Gibraltarian view than being NPOV. Am I right? If so, does anything need to be changed? Pcb21| Pete 18:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're mostly wrong, and you were wrong to remove the politics article. I am not Gibraltarian, and there are many things about the place that infuriate me, but is a fact that Spain refuses to recognise the +350 dialling code, tries to prevent Gibraltar to join international sporting bodies, bans direct flights and ferry services, causes long delays at the frontier, and is perfectly open about it. Spain has also openly stated at the UN that the 'present inhabitants' (its words) are not a colonial people.

I also replied at Talk:Politics of Gibraltar. NPOV is about more than just being factual (although that is critically important of course). An entirely factual rant about what an ogre Spain is not neutral. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I may have moved this information to relevant sections on transportation, communications, history, etc, and I removed the comment about 'pure colony', which was originally used by the Government of Gibraltar, and references to harrassment, However, your claim that it is a 'rant about what an ogre Spain is' is missing the point. I have also said why Spain thinks these restrictions are justified- hence reference to availability of telephone numbers.

I'm Spanish, so I'm very likely biased 8-). That said, the article shows mainly the UK/Gibraltar view of things. We might need to add something about the aiport, built on spanish ground never part of the Utrecht treaty, for example.

The fact that both UK and Gibraltar are ambiguous about the status of the rock whenever suits them also may be mentioned (if it's part of the UK, which I may agree, why be recognized as an independent country? If it wants to be an independent country, it must therefore be a colony now...)

But in any case, it's a fun to read article. English people tend to get very emotional about Gibraltar, what with the rest of the colonies gone, and all... ;-) User:JopeMoro

There's already an article called Gibraltar controversy that covers the dispute. This page is specifically about Gibraltar itself. The dispute is mentioned (as it has to be in an article on Gibraltar), but we don't want this article just turning into a discussion of the dispute. As far as emotions are concerned - can you explain what Spain is doing holding onto Perejil, the Chafarinas Islands, Penon de Velez de la Gomera and Penon de Alcucemas, with particular reference to Spain sending in the army to recapture Perejil from the Moroccans? jguk 21:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have a separate article, as it leaves a NPOV article on gibraltar as the main one. Not sure what Perejil et.al. have to do with the Gibraltar situation, unless it's used to justify it... But, hey, as I said: English people get very emotional with Gibraltar... 8-) User:JopeMoro

My only point is that the Spanish are (and always have been) attached to their overseas territories. I can't think of any example where they have voluntarily given up the whole of a colony. You Spaniards seem to be even more clingy than us Brits:)

Naah, we gave up Guinea Ecuatorial, Fernando Poo, Sahara Occidental and at least a couple of small other ones, all in Africa if memory serves... ;-) And no, your point is that the article should not reflect the conflict and be kept without any POV that is not the UK one, all I'm saying is that that is inherently POV... But, hey, who cares, I mean, really... 8-)

I don't really care - only pointing out. I don't know much about Equatorial Guinea's independence, but the Spanish government took an interest in it again now it has oil: Spain sent a warship towards Equatorial Guinea just prior to the attempted coup! Spain gave up Western Sahara and Rio del Oro as they had no natural resources and a guerilla campaign for independence: it was uneconomic and militarily problematic for Spain to keep them. Sidi Ifni was only given up after an economic blockade from Morocco too. I'm confused though - are you claiming the article is POV or NPOV? :) jguk 19:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article is not neutral and very POV... (corrected above, also. Note to self: don't wikipediate late at night 8-)

Which bits do you claim are POV? jguk 11:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, i must say about your post about spanish colonial interests in Africa, being a person with a quite good knowledge on history and geography i become surprissed by your statements. No natural resources in Western Sahara! (by the way, Rio del Oro and Western Sahara are the same thing, but you probably dont know), my god, what would you call then to one of the world bigest produccers of phosphates, or the rich saharian fishing bank. Economic blockage at Sidi Ifni? This is offtopic but i am angry that such iliteracy... never heard of the Sidi Ifni war? It happened after spain and france granted independence to Morroco. And you probably dont know that if have been long since it is well known that there is oil at Guinea Ecuatorial. Also, last time i checked there was still a dicator rulling such Guinea Ecuatorial. And yes, the article is POV, just al little example:

"The notion of accepting an arrangement with Spain was resoundingly rejected by the population in two referenda held in 1967 and in 2002, the latter just months after the joint sovereignty principle was accepted by the British government."

It does NOT explain that gibraltar became british due to the Utrecht treaty, and is still british thanks to the Utrecht treaty, and it is stated very clearly:

"And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others."

By the way, the Utrecht treaty was forced into spain after UK and France invaded spain to decide which king should rule spain, quite unkindly, invade our country and as their candidate failed decide to hold a bit of spain, without war declaration. Tipical british.

Calpe

Either Calpe is a Phoenician name or it is Greek.

And there is another town Calpe in the Spanish Mediterranean, famous by the Peñón de Ifach, another rocky mountain by the sea.

Motto

What authority is there for the authenticity of the currently quoted motto "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti"? I haven't seen this anywhere else. Admittedly, the inscription beneath the arms of Gibraltar -- "Montis Insignia Calpe" (Badge of the Rock of Gibraltar) -- is more of a label than a slogan... -- Picapica 08:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The official Gibraltar government website - www.gibraltar.gov.gi - gives authority for this Jongarrettuk 18:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The label on the Coat of Arms is "Montis Insignia Calpe" meaning "Mountain named Calpe". The motto of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti" meaning "Never defeated by the enemy"

New picture - NPOV?

The newly added picture implies that usually there are amounts of british flags in Gibraltar's buildings, and although there might be some during normal times of the year, it can be clearly seen that this photo's flags are in commemoration of the tercentary, fact that is not stated in the picture's text.

I would either strongly NPOV the photo's text or remove the picture itself.

What does everybody else think?

xDCDx 10:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the caption rather than the actual picture is the problem. With it suitably reworded, I think the picture would be fine. (And note I have been arguing that the article has a pro-Gibraltar-is-British-and-look-at-those-evil-Spainards POV). Pcb21| Pete 10:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have slightly edited both the image text, and the image foot. I think that now is more factual, hope nobody gets angry with the change. xDCDx 14:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Territorial waters

This section seems long in comparison to the rest of the article. It's interesting in the context of the territorial dispute of Gibraltar, but it seems strange to devote so much space to a side issue (bearing in mind that Spain claims all of Gib, not just the territorial seas). I propose deleting, or moving to a new page dealing with Spain's claims to Gibraltar. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 07:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stories planted by Spain Government

I've edited out The Spanish Government, as part of its campaign to reclaim the Rock repeatedly plants. This is a very seious allegation; some sources are needed here

Ejrrjs 23:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language

The one and only official language of Gibraltar is English. Gibraltarians, when speaking amongst themselves, often speak in Spanish (the local dialect is called Llanito, which has been influenced by English, but is intelligible to all Spanish speakers. To refer to Spanish as a vernacular language first sounds silly, second, it is unclear as to what it really means, and third is tautologous since Llanito is already referred to in the article. Jongarrettuk 06:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Territorial waters and economy

I've decided to be bold and delete the territorial waters section - it seems out of place here and is rather an arcane subject. It's also, imho, too long in comparison to the rest of the article. If someone wants to start a page on Spain's claim on Gibraltar, it can go back in there. Please don't revert without making comment on here as to why you disagree with me.

I have also deleted two paragraphs in economy, which seemed more to be discussing arguments between Spain and UK rather than Gibraltar itself.

By the way, these changes have meant I've had to move the piccis and delete the last one of the 1939 map so that the article still looks ok. Jongarrettuk 06:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created Gibraltar controversy with the text you removed, and added a wikilink to it in Gibraltar and another in Politics of Gibraltar, I also replaced the text-stamped and low resolution image of the article by the, in my opinion neater, 1939 map. If somebody has high resolution text-free images of Gibraltar, feel free to add them. --xDCDx 15:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've carried out quite a significant rewrite - I'm sure people will tell me what they think and improve upon it further (In particular I'd like to find some up to date economic statistics to add.) I'm also moving quite a bit to the [[Gibraltar controversy page, which will need some significant tidying up. 20:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)~

Map

Can someone find a decent map? As I read the article, there are no maps giving even a general idea of the layout of the country. P3d0

• If somebody wants to process it, there's a satelite pic on the NASA site image PIA03397

Population density

|1| True density

Data from the article (and the CIA factbook)
Area = 6.5 km²
Population Total (2003 E) = 27,776
Density = 4270/km²

Anyway, let's do the math: 27,776/6.5 = 4273,2307692307692307692307692308
Why do you think it is approximately 4,800?

Ejrrjs 20:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|2| Density ranking

According to List of countries by population density: Monaco (16,000/km²) leads followed by Singapore (6,430/km²)...but these are sovereign countries, not "territories".

How about Hong Kong (6,771/km²) ?
Or Macau (18,182/km²)?
Why does it matter being the *most* something, anyway?
Please, clarify.
Ejrrjs 21:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I got this from the Guinness World Records website [1] (see Modern Society, then People and Places). This disagrees with the size given on [2], which is a Gibraltar government website. Guinness are obviously excluding Macao and Hong Kong and all sovereign states. jguk 22:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, why should wikipedia exclude Macao and Hong Kong? Their status as Special Administrative Regions of China are more or less similar to G. status within the UK (i.e. some degree of self-governance but not full sovereignty). What other non-sovereign territories are you thinkging of as having less density than G.? Ejrrjs 22:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motto

If the motto is "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti", why does the picture have "Montis insignia Calpe" ("Sign of Calpe mounts"?)? Is it the Spanish coat for Calpe?--Erri4a 17:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

> The Motto of Gibraltar is indeed Montis Insignia Calpe and Nullis Expugnabilis Hosti is that of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment EREVAN

The Spanish

Just who exactly do they think they are? Spain hasn't had that land in a long time I can't blame the British Military keeping bases there Dudtz 7/21/05 6:15 PM EST

How does your very POV statement contribute to anything? Surely you can at least understand why they claim the land, SqueakBox 22:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

No squeakbox, I cannot understand why they claim the land any more than I understand why Hitler claimed Austria and Poland, or Saddam claimed Kuwait. Modern spaniards may regret the decision of their King in 1713, but that does not make it invalid. Gibraltar is next to spain, not a part of it. In 2005 Democracy must be paramount anyway. 27/8/05

---

Why spain claim the rock? I think you miss the historic background in wich the rock was invaded, after the death of the last Hausburg, the two powers of europe (United Kingdom and France) started a fight to decide who would be the king of spain, after the defeat of the UK candidate, the UK demanded gibraltar as compensation for not keep suporting the "rebels" at catalonia who were favorable to the defeated rival. Thus a treaty was signed giving the fortress of Gibraltar to U.K. it says it clearly, only the "fortress" and city (plaza) is to be given to UK. But as usual the british, given the hand, takes the arm, and not only the fortress but also the surrounding lands where taken. Those are the points of Spain:

1) UK fail to folow the guidelines of the treaty (extending the territories of gibraltar to the surroinding lands).

"quiere el Rey Católico, y supone que así se ha de entender, que la dicha propiedad se ceda a la Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna territorial y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país circunvecino por parte de tierra."

"and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about." 

2) The injustice of the treaty, as there was no declartation of war between spain and UK at that time, in fact there were two external powers fighting in spanish lands, making the ocupation of gibraltar and ilegal act

---

> Excuse me but this is incorrect there was an actual declaration of war dated 15 May 1702 given by the allied powers (Great Britain, Holland and Asutria as principal components) to Felipe V. Therefore were is the illegal act mentioned here. To my understanding all war is intriniscally wrong but we have them and we surround them in themes of legality whether there is a declaration or not. Has anyone considered the wishes of any inhabitant of any territory whether or not there is a history behind the land they now inhabit. We are no in the year 2005 and our world is powder keg full of the most tremendous problems. If we forget the wishes of persons towards how they wish to live in the land that they have occupied for centuries then I submit that we deny the supposedly modern ethical mores of our age proclaiming the UN ideals of freedom of territories and inhabitants and subjugate ourselves for mere nationalistic expediency to pre 1900 ideals of detaching the land from the people that have through there sweat and work inhabit the same. We revert to the old mores of the Kings of old that saw all as mere chattels. Well I guess this is my opinion EREVAN

Reference desk

Editors of this article may be interested in the following which was posted at Wikipedia:Reference_desk#Gibraltar_Article_on_Spanish_verson_of_Wikipedia :

---

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my indignation at the complete misrepresentation of facts seen in the article on Gibraltar in the Spanish version of Wikipedia.

With its half-baked assertions and its thinly-veiled insinuations about political malpracticse, the article in question is no more than cheap Spanish propaganda aimed at discrediting the Rock of Gibraltar and should simply not be allowed to figure on your pages.

It is no right, in my view, that articles on Wikipedia should be based on unfounded and wholly unsubstantiated allegations which are evidently politically-motivated and have little educational value.

I urge you to remove the offending article as soon as possible and allow a Gibraltarian (as opposed to a Spaniard)to produce a more objective and accurate article regarding Gibraltar.

Best wishes

Anon

---

With its half-baked assertions and its thinly-veiled insinuations about political malpracticse, the article in question is no more than cheap Spanish propaganda aimed at discrediting the Rock of Gibraltar and should simply not be allowed to figure on your pages.

Would you be so kind as to point at the so called half-baked assertions? Having read the spanish article and being well known on the history of the treaty i see none, in fact is probably more neutral than the english counterpart.

Unexplained deletion and/or vandalism

There is someone using the IP address 212.120.225.253 and similar sort, who insists in deleting other people's paragraphs. I would appreciate if this individual have the courage of signing up as a full member. At least this way we would know who is the culprit. Asterion 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the culprit has been identified as Gibraltarian. The same person has been vandalising the Spanish language wikipedia for weeks. He is not interested in facts, unless these reflect his own vision. I have recently added new historical details to this article, only to have them deleted by this full-time vandal. Asterion 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the Spanish WP. Gibraltarian has been blocked because of his vandalism on the Spanish article about Gibraltar. If any of you are interested in the topic, and you can understand written Spanish, please visit the Spanish discussion page, particularly the lasts headlines. Here you can find out the causes of this blockade.

Sorry for my English if it's not good enough. See you! [OrlandoSM http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/usuario:OrlandoSM] --62.81.214.70 08:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, OrlandoSM, the whole of Gibraltar has been blocked from spanish WP. This is due to abuse of position by some Admins. The article is being used by many as a vehicle for spanish anti-Gibraltar propaganda, lies and insults. I have been ammending these and making the article truly NPOV, a concept which most of those taking part do not appear to understand. Most ppl there are obsessed with blackening the name of Gibraltar......and are not interested in truth or neutrality. Asking 20 spaniards and 1 Gibraltarian to come to a consensus over Gibraltar is like asking 20 wolves and 1 turkey what they would like to eat. The poor turkey would not have much of a future. Ammending POV edits, and deleting bits which are either lies, or pure propaganda is NOT vandalism. But the Admin 'Dodo' has no concept of fairness which is why he has blocked the whole of Gibraltar. They have abused the fact that they outnumber me....and are behaving like playground bullies. I have vandalised nothing........but I will not allow these guys to use the Gibraltar article to spout their anti-Gibraltar rubbish. --Gibraltarian 18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, dear Gibraltarian, I really don't know why you usually write "spanish" or "spaniard" instead of "Spanish" or "Spaniard". I thought that the second form was the correct one in English, but you could know it better than me.

Dear Gibraltarian, you haven't been outnumbered. The page was blocked because there was no consensus in the content of the Economy headline. I searched for some backing about what I think is the NPOV, and you didn't. Instead of that, you called me "flojo" ("lazy") and denied your chance for looking evidence of your vision of NPOV. Your lack of reasons was overwhelmed with our links to several pages proving what is thought to be the NPOV. So, this version remained.

Later, you VANDALIZED the Spain and the San Roque (Cádiz) articles in response, and then you became blocked. Please don't change the story.

I suggest you one thing. Paste here all the links we (you, me and others) used in the Spanish discussion about Gibraltar Economy , and then, let the rest decide about them. Do you agree?

Again, sorry for possible mistakes in my English. See you. --62.81.214.70 08:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/usuario:OrlandoSM

I thank you for your offer, but since the block is unjustifiable in the first place and WP is a FREE encyclopedia I should not have to use an intermediary. I did not "vandalise" anything, unless of course you take the view (like Dodo) that anything that dares to contradict or disagree with his almighty wisdom is vandalism.

It is clear that with some people there can never be consensus. See my analogy above. Many people seem intent on blacking the name of Gibraltar. That seems their only purpose in posting. E.G. one individual claims that Gibraltar is a "paraisco fiscal", which he claim transaltes as "Tax haven". It does not. The term "paraiso fiscal" has particular conotations in the spanish language which include illegality, illicit activity, and lax financial controls. This is not the case, and cannot therefore be applied to Gibraltar. Not only that but he insisted that the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) had "declared" Gibraltar to be so. This is simply untrue, the OECD has never said such a thing. Not one OECD document says "Gibraltar is a paraiso fiscal".

The OECD, IMF, FAFT and Egmont Group all have declared that Gibraltar has comprehensive anti-money laundering legislation and resources, however this apparently seems "prohibited" information.

There are also statements to the effect that Gibraltar has "stolen" land and waters from Spain, and that Utrecht did not cede the area of the Isthmus. It is stated as a fact but is also simply untrue. It is merely a warped interpretation of the Treaties. Utrecht clearly says something quite different. These are just examples of the extreme POV of the article.

However, the fact remains that the bloack is comletely unjustifiable. Dodo does NOT "own" the article, nor WP. This is a FREE, I repeat FREE encyclopedia, and open to editing by ALL. Not just those who Dodo or whoever deems "worthy" of editing. The post of admin is not one of deciding whether he likes or agrees with what someone has written. There has been a clear and gross violation of NPOV, and also a clear and gross violation of the post of Admin by Dodo. Nothing can alter that reality.

There can clearly be no consensus while the page is infested with closed minded people, whose sole purpose is to blacken Gibraltar. I am outnumbered.....so whatever I say which does not conform to the version as dictated by Dodo, Ecemaml or Hispa will be overruled. "The Gospel according to St Dodo" is apparently sacred, and no other opinions than his are valid. He is the self-appointed Dictator of the Gibraltar page. --Gibraltarian 11:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2074555_1_1_1_1,00.html

The OECD is pleased to announce that Gibraltar has made a commitment to improve the transparency of its tax and regulatory systems and to establish effective exchange of information for tax matters with OECD countries by 31 December 2005. Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. As a result of having made a commitment in accordance with the OECD's 2001 Progress Report on the OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices, Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly. The OECD looks forward to working with Gibraltar and encourages other jurisdictions to come forward with similar commitments.

And yes, tax haven is translated as "paraíso fiscal" (http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=tax+haven) --Ecemaml 14:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, your obsession with attempting to blacken the name of Gibraltar is well known. As you will see from the text you quoted, Gibraltar was REMOVED from that list in 2001. And NO, "paraiso fiscal" is not an accurate translation for tax haven as it contains particular connotations of illegality, illicit activity, and lax financial controls none of which apply in Gibraltar. In any case Gibraltar was REMOVED from the list of NCCT's in 2001.

I quote again: "Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven" and "Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens". In plain English this means that Gibraltar is a co-operative tax haven. It doesn't mean that it's not a tax haven. And if you don't like the translation of tax haven into Spanihs, you can complain to the Real Academia Española. They'll be glad to hear from you. For sure. --Ecemaml 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Either way nothing even remotely justifies blocking the whole of Gibraltar from editing .es, WP is a FREE site, for editing by ALL, not just when you find it convenient, or they happen to agree with your version. You & Dodo have self-appointed yourselves as Dictators of WP.es, and are abusing your position there. --Gibraltarian 09:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss about es.wikipedia. --Ecemaml 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC) PS: and remember, don't make personal attacks. It violates wikipetiquette.

You have a cheek to talk about wikipetiquette! After your obsessive harrassment of me, and your abuse of power in .es you have no right to lecture anyone. And pointing out that you and Dodo have self-appointed yourselves as dictators in .es is not a "personal attack" it is merely a statement of fact.--Gibraltarian 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

>>> By all that is good not even here in wilepesia is any political references kept out. I would ask the moderators to leave political discussions to other organisms. I would exhort them to refer only to third party identifiable facts. ie from verifiable sources other than those coming from the persons who are in dispute. In this case I would not let Gibraltarians or British or Spanish write on this subject as none of them, even though they may think so , can be impartial. Moreover I would exhort the Spanish Wikepedia not to write the Gibraltar references by themselves as any writing they put in would be suspected regardless as to how impartial they consider it to be. In any case I have found that some of the references of certain people put in the Spanish Wikepedia were well known comments in a totally bombastic site in "lycos" called Gibraltar Español. It needs impartial entries. This is the geography, this is the population , this is the historical facts captured on such and such taken on such and such there have been x number of referenda, became member of EU on x and with y conditions, just refer to "there is a dispute between Spain & Britain over Gibraltar" Period. This would end this eternal squabbling that does Wikepedia no good. Anything would be viewed as insulting to either of the camps. Wikepedia is an encyclopedia (i.e. facts not opinions)political discussions should be kept to political arenas. Sorry Eceaml but perhaps you should be very careful in your wikepedia site as I think you ar being duped by those that post in that Gibraltar Español site both Gibraltarian and Spanish. They are using Wikepedia .es which I find to be quite invaluable in my research of Spanish and Hispanic themes. I do question not the impartiality of the moderators as if they are Spanish they are not by the simple reason of being of that nationality. And in the same way that I refrain other than by mentioning facts to edit this site for the mere reason that I am Gibraltarian and not the A. Gibraltarian. Then again you may all now think this edit I have done suspect * shrug * it is no concern to me if the good name of the factual wikepedia which I have adored since its inception is maintained. Whether the moderators will hear me is another matter. Erevan

Hi Erevan. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. Especially in the point in which you say Wikepedia is an encyclopedia (i.e. facts not opinions). Just the opposite. The WP:NPOV states that when there are contradictory POVs all must be shown. Of course that wikipedia is not a forum nor a place to prove who is right and who is wrong. But it's the place for all POVs be described (beyond the pure facts that you mention). The British position is this: bla, bla.... The Spanish position is this... The Gibraltarian position is this one... Moreover, pure facts should not be invented. I'm trying to refer only to third party identifiable facts, as you can see in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. If you're interested, it would be invaluable to share your points of view and sources and produce some high-standard articles about Gibraltar. User:Gibraltarian has proved beyond any doubt that he's not able to play that game, so, if you're interested in improving such articles, you're welcome. --Ecemaml 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No dispute

I altered the reference to spain disputing the sovereignty as, although it may be neutral is inaccurate. Spain fully accepts British sovereignty over Gibraltar, and has said so repeatedly. However they do request that sovereignty be returned to them, or alternatively in the case of decolonisation they should be given the right of annexation.

The version I pasted is both neutral and accurate.

Also it is not true that anyone was expelled from Gibraltar in 1704. The terms of surrender were quite clear in that thos who wished to stay were welcome to do so. Rather than support Archduke Charles in his attempt on the throne some decided to leave, but many others remained.

A Gibraltarian

You know this is true but it is quite clear that your intention is to get rid of anything you dislike, treating this page as your personal fiefdom.

For your information:

On 17 of July of 1704, the Anglo-Dutch Navy began the siege of Gibraltar. They demanded the unconditional surrender and a forced oath of loyalty to Carlos III. The Gibraltarian city council replied on 1st August, refusing the ultimatum. During the nights of 3rd and 4th of August, heavy shelling took place, targeting the castle and the town itself. Next day the Spaniards surrendered the town to the Prince of Hesse. The Gibraltarians were made to choose between being expelled or remaining in the Gibraltar on condition of recognizing the Hapsburg as their new king. At the same time, the invading armies started a campaign of looting and plundering, together with desecration of local Catholic chapels. Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay. Among the things the native population took with them were a statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the historical documents signed by Catholic Monarchs in 1502 for with Gibraltar's coat of arms was granted. The expelled ones took refuge in the chapel of San Roque. Asterion 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian. Your edits doesn't mean that they are not somehow true but you have you abide by Wikipedia rules about the "Point of view", WP:NPOV. Discussing the issue here is the right way to get your point of view heard and maybe you'll be right at the end of this discussion. Reverting for the sake of proving your point is just not the right way. Cheers -- Svest 21:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

---

Asterion, your post is little short of a pack of biased inflamatory lies, and a clear attempt to portray the British as pirates, and the poor spanish inhabitants as victims of wanton barbarity. It has little resemblance however to reality. Gibraltar wasn't invaded for the glory of the British Empire, but on behalf of a valid contender to the spanish throne. Warfare by it's nature is barbaric, but your post is far from neutral. WP is NOT a discussion forum, and not your own personal "Hate British" board.

The fact remains that no-one was forced to leave, and therefore your comment that "22 were allowed to stay" is nonsense. Of course I abide by the NPOV rules, but so must everyone else. Look up the word "neutral", it may enlighten you.

Gibraltarian. The problem I talked about above concerns only the edits about requests often the return Vs disputes. Obviously, the request version is POV if compared with the disputed version. I am not into pirates stuff and obviously I am not reverting the page for that reason. Cheers -- Svest 10:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The word "disputes" may indeed be neutral, but is inaccurate. The government of spain does NOT in fact dispute British sovereignty over Gibraltar. They accept it, albeit grudgingly, and have said so repeatedly. They do not dispute the fact that they ceded sovereignty to Britain under Utrecht 1713, nor that they confirmed this cession under Versailles 1783. They do however request it's return, and also demand the right of annexation if UK were to give up sovereignty. But the sentence as you write it is neither neutral or accurate, and my version is. Neutrality is not the sole criteria, accuracy must also count.

Cheers, A Gibraltarian

---

Gibraltarian, I have some problems understanding your English, but will not be correcting it. Maybe you should stick to Spanish then. Every single one of the words I used is true. Maybe you should just cross the border and check out the original historical documents in San Roque Town Hall Museum. At the end of the day, you are just a few miles away, much closer than me certainly. Love thy neighbour. Asterion 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Asterion, there is nothing wrong with my English, which is my first language, and I have good 'O' & 'A' level passes in the subject. If you lack sufficient command of the language to understand it then you should take lessons. Your post is politically motivated, politically charged, inflamatory nonsense. I have little faith in spanish "historical" documents considering the lies that they constantly spout regarding Gibraltar. I am just a few miles away, and know more about Gibraltar and its history than you ever will. WP is NOT however a discussion forum, nor a forum for political sniping. It is an information page, and the information displayed must be accurate and neutral. Yours is neither.

P.S. If my neighbour were to leave behind their macho posturing, and fascist inspired policies towards my homeland, and behaved as modern democratic Europeans, then it might be possible to love them. While they continue with their illegal restrictions and attempts to force the annexation of my home then it is not possible.

Regards A Gibraltarian

---

Asterion and Gibraltarian - please refrain fron constant reversion; please see Wikipedia:1RR and Wikipedia:3RR. Now I've just done some brief research, and have made a small rewrite of Asterion's addition to the Gibraltar history - i've omitted parts of the text that need to be substantiated with references (preferably neutral). I have also found a link detailing the articles of surrender at http://www.gibraltar.freeuk.com/docs/1704surr.htm. What do you guys think? SoLando (Talk) 17:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten text: During the Spanish War of Succession, on 17 July 1704, the Anglo-Dutch Navy began the siege of Gibraltar. They demanded the unconditional surrender and a forced oath of loyalty to the Habsburg pretender to the Spanish throne, Charles III. The Governor of Gibraltar refused the ultimatum on 1 August. During the nights of 3rd and 4 August, heavy shelling took place, targeting the castle and the town itself. The next day the Governor surrendered the town to the Prince of Hesse. The Gibraltarians, if they wished to stay, had to recognise Charles III as their new king.

Many important objects of Gibraltar's history were taken by the inhabitants that left, including a statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the historical documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502 for which Gibraltar's coat of arms was granted. These objects remain in the nearby San Roque chapel.

Text omitted:

At the same time, the invading armies started a campaign of looting and plundering, together with desecration of local Catholic chapels

Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay.

I have no objection to your amended text but considering Gibraltarian's previous behaviour, I still think he would delete anything about the subject as soon as we turn around. Best regards, Asterion 19:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Only 22 were allowed to stay" is a bit harsh - "only 22 chose to stay" (under the conditions set out) is more to the point, jguk 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What about "Only 22 did stay"? Your thoughts? Also, I do not think this is strictly correct ("...nearby town of San Roque, which those that left took refuge in...") as the town did not actually exist before that date Asterion 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I automatically assumed there had to be some settlement, as your version states that they took refuge in the chapel of San Roque. By the way, have you got any references to substantiate the omitted text? SoLando (Talk) 21:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find something in English. However I am satisfied with the omisions. Once I get the chance I will start working on the article called Exodus of Gibraltar, where the full details (with references, of course) would be better placed. Off to bed now! Asterion 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

There is no reliable accurate historical record on how many left, and how many stayed. No-one was forcibly expelled, so those that stayed did so out of choice. Also calling them "Gibraltarians" may not necesarily be correct, as there were not too many permanent residents at the time most being traders of a transitory nature. Again there is no reliable historical evidence on precisely how many or who left, nor how long they had been established in Gibraltar. A more neutral version perhaps would be "those that were in Gibraltar at the time". "Forced" an oath of loyalty seems rather harsh, it is natural that they should expect people to do so as he was a claimant to the Spanish throne. This whole editing issue only come about because of the Spanish obssession over Gibraltar, and their refusal to accept democracy. This is just sour grapes surfacing. The article as originally written was both accurate and neutral, and this latest addition is unnecessary. Also the date quoted (17th July) is highly suspect.--Gibraltarian 09:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Spanish claims

As I understand Disputed status of Gibraltar, Spain claims the isthmus "neutral zone" on which the airport is built. Also the territorial waters are disputed. --Error 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, Spain does indeed claim the isthmus but has no basis upon which to do so. Also the territorial waters are British to the extent defined in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. --Gibraltarian 09:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

From a purely British point of view: We do not realy care about Gibraltar. It was not even talked about until we had some friends who are from Gibraltar. What is clear: they are steadfast that they are not Spanish. They see them selves as British, and wish to remain British.

After Gibraltar, does Spain wish to 'recover' Portugal? It is another bit of Europe that is attached to Spain that they can claim. Then France perhaps?

---