Talk:Status of Gibraltar

Why Gibraltans don't want to become part of Spain: This is a complicated issue that ties into the modernization of the Gibraltan consitution, but let me try and answer it alone:

1. Gibraltans are worried about their rights and feel an existential threat.
2. They are worried about revenue. Revenue from the (British) military installations are significant. (Smuggling is also a significant contributor). See Gozney, R. Gibraltar and the EC: Aspects of the Relationship in RIIA Discussion Papers no. 49, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1993.
3. Gibraltans feel fraternalistic deprivation.
4. There is an historic dislike. (Don't forget Spain severed all links from 1969 to the Brussles agreement in 1985, including phone cables).

I would also recomment Peter Gold's excellent work, including: Gold, P. Sovereignty Negotiations and Gibraltar’s Military Facilities: How Two “Red Line” Issues Became Three in Diplomacy and Statecraft 15, pages 375-384, 2004.
--Magicmike 16:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Point 2 is not valid as the British military spending is only about 5% of the economy. You allegations of smuggling are baseless. There are a significant number of Spaniards who buy tobacco in Gibraltar and then smuggle it into Spain. They are known locally as Matuteras. There have been cases of Guardia Civiles taking bribes to allow this activity.

We have no historical links with Spain, nor do we wish to have any other than those of European neighbours.

I have no idea what you mean by "fraternalistic deprivation".

--Gibraltarian 10:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Currently this page includes material removed from the main Gibraltar page. The article needs tidying up and adding to. Jongarrettuk 21:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

trial of Spanish civil guards

Could someone provide a link to a news story on this issue? Ejrrjs 02:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gibraltarian, not 'Gibraltan'

The adjective is Gibraltarian, not 'Gibraltan'. If you can't get that right, what chance do you have of being taken seriously by Gibraltarians?

As for smuggling, this is a thriving trade in Spanish-controlled Ceuta and Melilla. If you've ever visited Gibraltar, you will notice that one of the first things you see when you cross the border from Spain is a CEPSA petrol station - CEPSA being a Spanish petrol company. All the staff working there and nearly all the customers are Spanish. Looks like Spanish companies are benefiting from this 'parasite economy'!

And, what do you mean by fraternalistic deprivation? Feeling let down by the British? Put it in plain English! Quiensabe 19:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Launches

The article claims that there is a law against fast launches. From memory, the law was passed after the Spanish protests. So there was a problem and it was solved. If so, please correct the article. --Error 00:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The law was introduced after protests from the people of Gibraltar. Spain has no such law, and thses vessels are now based in Spanish ports, and still undertaking smuggling activities, bringing Cannanbis & Tobacco from Morocco & Ceuta. These does not seem to worry the spanish government.--Gibraltarian 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian removal

Gibraltarian insists on removing information that, although might be subject to discussion, clearly show the Spanish position. Here it is:

Spain claims that Gibraltar extended beyond the originally territorial boundaries agreed in the Treaties of Utrecht (they only quote the "port, fortifications, and forts" and not the isthmus). This includes the so-called Neutral Zone over which the airport and part of the harbour was built. Spain has pushed for joint administration of the airport.

If Gibraltarian wants to keep the NPOV, I invite him to show Gibraltarian and UK position, not to remove uncomfortable information. --Ecemaml 14:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not "uncomfortable" just untrue and POV. --Gibraltarian 17:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, which is your interpretation of the UK occupation of the isthmus? I'm just giving the one of the Spanish government, including a mention of the Treaty of Utrecht, which does not cede at all the isthmus. Again, I repeat what the NPOV is:

Being crystal clear is your interpretation. The interpretation of the Spanish government is the opposite. And showing both sides of the dispute is what is called NPOV. I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view:

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

Therefore, I will call for an arbitration with regard to your attitude. --Ecemaml 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, Gibraltarian, don't remove statements you don't like. I'm still waiting for you to show the arguments on the Britishness of the isthmus. Wikipedia needs that side of the dispute to show a neutral point of view. --Ecemaml 11:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for this section? I have never heard of the "Neutral Zone", but have heard about the airport claims. I'm sure there must be an offical position of the British/Gibraltar Governments on this issue. Astrotrain 13:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. The so-called neutral zone is not foreseen in the Treaty of Utrecht. Because of that, the Spanish government claims that such zone has been ilegally occupied by UK. I'd like to see the UK/Gibraltarian version instead of just removing what seems to be be confortable. --Ecemaml 15:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only "source" is mischievousness, and a desire to create discord from Ecemaml troll. Utrecht does indeed cede the area in question, and he knows this, and this has been dealt with elsewhere. Utrecht ceded Gibraltar "together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging;".....there were such "fortifications and forts" along the line of the frontier. It was also standard practise in International Law that territory was counted as up to 2 cannon shots distance. WP is NOT, repeat NOT a discussion forum. It is not the place for you to invent or regurgitate nonsense about Gibraltar, and me to have to spend my days searching for references to prove you wrong, when you know full well that you talk nonsense in the first place. From anyone else I could assume good faith........from Ecemaml troll I know it is pure malicious intent.--Gibraltarian 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Further reading; http://www.gibnet.com/texts/neutral.htm http://www.gibnet.com/texts/vog1.htm

Avoiding further edit wars

OK Ecemaml and Gibraltarian, there are a few wikipedia policies that are relevant here:

• Neutral point of view (and also see the tutorial): This policy is absolutely 100% non-negotiable. If you disagree with the policy (summarized succinctly in the following sentences), you should not be writing for Wikipedia.
  • "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly".
  • "Mak[ing] your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so".
• Cite sources:
  • "Citing reliable sources serves... to reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise".
• Wikiquette:
  • "Treat others as you would have them treat you".
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks (see some examples)

Simply reverting each other's edits will not be tolerated. If it continues and discussion does not take place, all Gibraltar pages will be protected until everything gets sorted out.

If you would like to make changes to the article, I suggest that you propse them here before implementing them. If at all possible, include at least one reference that supports your text. Simply stating that "Some people think this" or "It has been said that" is not acceptable. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.....except assuming good faith with this individual is not possible as he has already proven beyond doubt that he is acting out of pure mischief. Ecemaml has already abused his powers as Admin on .es to block the WHOLE of Gibraltar from editing indefinately. Just because we do not agree with the "Gospel according to Dodo & Ecemaml". I am acting in good faith......but I cannot "assume" it on his behalf.--Gibraltarian 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I think you need to. As an outside observer, I haven't seen him do anything that would suggest that he is maliciously trying to make the wikipedia worse. It looks to me like he wants to tell his side of the story. It's actually extremely rare for people to invest a lot of time into a project with the purpose of causing trouble. They may ultimately cause trouble, but only as a side effect of trying to make things better. I'm not sure if that's happening here or not, but I'm fairly certain that both of you are trying to improve wikipedia. You probably disagree with me, but I hope you see my point and are willing to at least try to assume that Ecemaml is, like you, trying to improve wikipedia. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts Spangineer, but you are unaware of some of the history involved in this. Some people have been using Spanish WP to spout political propaganda about Gibraltar, and to spread lies and generally be offensive to the people of Gibraltar. I tried to make NPOV edits, but Dodo & Ecemaml sefl-proclaimed themselves dictators of .es and abused their positions as Admins to deny the WHOLE of Gibraltar access to .es. This unjustifiable restriction remains in force. I have received considerable abuse from several wikis, including Ecemaml. He proved in .es beyond doubt that his intentions are mischievous. He appears obsessed with blackening the name of Gibraltar. WP is NOT a discussion forum, and an article about a country, territory or city should be simply information about it, presented in a neutral fashion. Sometimes alternative POV's on an issue can be presented, but most of the time it is quite possible to word something from a neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial. If anyone wants to expound spanish anti-Gibraltar propaganda they may do so.....but NOT on WP. There are other forums for this. --Gibraltarian 09:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian, you obviously does not want to understand how a wikipedia works. It's not Dodo or me the ones that have blocked anyone. It's the whole community who has decided to take such a extreme measure. Your case has been extensively discussed in the es.wikipedia mailing lists. And while at the beginning, after your continious edit wars (similar to those here) and abuse towards other wikipedists (as you're already doing here) lead to your temporal blocking and the the blocking of the Gibraltar article (being me one of the wikipedists that suggested such measures instead of other more extreme ones), the fact that you began to vandalize other articles anonymously (from, unfortunately, all the IP addresses of your ISP), further abuse and even threaden other wikipedists made my mind change (along with others that didn't wanted at the beginning such a blocking in the whole IP address range). Nobody has complained about such a measure (which sometime in the future will be hopefully removed). Therefore, it's you the responsible of making Gibnet blocked in es.wikipedia. On the other hand, the results of the effective neutralization here (as long as you take the decision of providing your sources and not trying to impose your UK/Gibraltar view as the truth) that will be reached here can be easily translated into Spanish. Hopefully then, the blocking will be removed. But anyway, it seems clear (at least for me) that you are not interesed in such a balanced POV, but only in yours. And finally, you are getting wrong trying to bring here issues from other wikipedia --Ecemaml 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And definitely, you don't understand what the NPOV is (compare your words Sometimes alternative POV's on an issue can be presented, but most of the time it is quite possible to word something from a neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial with the text of Neutral point of view). Unfortunately, Gibraltar is in itself a controversial topic. And there is no such neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial. In such situations, the NPOV states, as long as I understand it, that both POV should be represented (not that abstract non-controversial NPOV which doesn't exist and, surprisingly, seems to be always the UK/Gibraltar POV). --Ecemaml 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, you are a liar and a troll. Your "raison d'etre" and presence here is with the sole purpose of creating discord. Your actions....yes YOURS (don't try & shift blame) in blocking the whole of Gibraltar are totally unjustifiable. You know this. This MUST BE REMOVED FORTHWITH! WP is a FREE site, not just free when it suits YOU or Dodo. Your behaviour is disgraceful, an affront the the principles of WP and of basic common decency. There has been no "consensus" in .es, merely a conspiracy. It is unjustifiable, and MUST BE REMOVED. NOW.--Gibraltarian 12:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements

Hi, I'll try to summarise all the disagreement points. I'll develop them step by step, since my spare time is not as large as needed (please, wait for the whole of the arguments):

The term "restrictions"

Where? Disputed status of Gibraltar
My suggestion: leaving it this way (the Spanish government explicitly rejects the use of the term "restriction" since it usually involves a sense of condemnation).
Rationale: although Gibraltarian insists on removing the sentence, it expresses the point of view of the Spanish government and is explicitly identified (i.e. not presented as a face)
Sources:

• El País Book of Style. Entry: Gibraltar, item 6. El País is the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain with strategic agreements with other leading world newspapers such as La Reppublica, New York Times, Le Monde, The Independent...

Status: argumentation and sourcing finished from my side --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The apocryphal story about George Rooke taking possesion of Gibraltar

Where? History of Gibraltar
My suggestion: leaving it as is now: . For many time, Spanish sources have stated that immediateley after the takeover of the city, sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession of the Rock in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation. However, it is proved that this version as apocryphal since no contemporary source accounts it. Such a fact would do cause a big crisis in the alliance supporting the Archduke Charles (anyway, a British garrison was established in the Rock).
Rationale: The story is widely spread in Spain. Not having seen any serious source stating the opposite, I've always included it as a fact. As I've found a source that explictly denies it with crystal clear arguments, I think it's better to add it for the sake of completeness. I don't see any argument to deleting it. Furthermore, not explicitly talking about them would lead to further additions and new edit wars
Furhter information about the first years of the ocuppied city are also welcome (when the Prince of Hesse left the city, when Dutch forces did the same...) Sources:

• "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. x, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, in Spanish. Isidro Sepúlveda Muñoz is a Contemporary History Professor in the UNED ("Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia"), the biggest Spanish university.

Status: argumentation and sourcing finished (only the specific page is left) from my side --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The getaway of the inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704

Where? History of Gibraltar
My suggestion: leave this way (with any proper sourced version from Gibraltarian) A large column of inhabitants of the city, lead by the Spanish garrison and the members of the townhall abandoned the city. Most of them took refuge in the proximity of the chapel of San Roque, where they founded a new town named San Roque (other settled down in what today is Los Barrios or even far away, in abbandoned city of Algeciras). Considering themselves the real Gibraltarians, those who left took with them the symbols and objects of Gibraltar's history, including the statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the historical documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502, granting Gibraltar's coat of arms. These objects remain nowadays in the nearby San Roque chapel, where the refugees settled down (therefore San Roque official motto is "The town of San Roque, where that of Gibraltar lives on", in Spanish: 'La Ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar'). Only seventy people remained in the city (most of them belonging to the Genovese trader colony). The traditions of such villages still talk of this fact as the Exodus of Gibraltar (Éxodo de Gibraltar)
Rationale:
Sources:

• "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 91, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, in Spanish.
• "Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar", Máximo Cajal. Máximo Cajal is a Spanish diplomatist, ambassador in different countries and currently the special representant of the Spanish Prime Minister in the Alliace of Civilizations. He was the only survivor of the assault of the Embassy of Spain in Guatemala by the forces of the Guatemalan dictatorship in 1980.
• "Atlas de Historia de España", Fernando García de Cortázar. Fernando García de Cortazar is a Contemporary History Professor in the Universidad de Deusto. Ph.D. in Modern and Contemporary History and Theology, member of the “Société Européenne de Culture”, member of the Real Academia de la Historia (Royal History Academy). He's published more than twenty books on History of Spain, the Spanish Civil War, the Basque Nationalist, the relationships between the Church and the State... One of his books: "Breve historia de España" (The History of Spain in a Nutshell) has sold up to now more that 350.000 issues in Spain.

Status: argumentation finished from my side. Sourcing to be made more accurate --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The status of the isthmus

Where? Disputed status of Gibraltar
My suggestion:
Rationale:
Sources:

• El País Style Book (http://www.estudiantes.elpais.es/LibroEstilo/dic_gi.asp). El País is the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain with strategic agreements with other newspapers such as La Reppublica, New York Times, Le Monde, The Independent...

Status: to be developed and sourced --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The alleged nullity of the "reversionary" clause (and the rest of provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht)

Where? Spain, Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar
What Gibraltarian includes:

• The Gibraltar Government has pointed out however that this "reversionary clause" is overruled by Article 103 of the UN Charter. (History of Gibraltar)
• As the UK and Spain are both members of the European Union, which is committed to free movement of goods and services, the UK government and Gibraltarians point out that this supersedes any 'restrictions' contemplated in 1704. (Disputed status of Gibraltar)

My suggestion:

• The Gibraltar Government claims however that this "reversionary clause" is overruled by Article 103 of the UN Charter. (History of Gibraltar)
• As the UK and Spain are both members of the European Union, which is committed to free movement of goods and services, the UK government and Gibraltarians claim that this supersedes any 'restrictions' contemplated in 1704. Disputed status of Gibraltar)

Rationale: Obviously, Gibraltarian's edition breaks the NPOV (First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views)
Sources:

• UN resolutions 2231 (XXI) and 2353 (XXII)

Status: to be developed and sourced --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Is it possible to provide the sources of?

• A small group of Gibraltarians, known as the palomos or 'doves', advocated a political settlement with Spain, and met with Spanish officials in secret to try and bring this about. This provoked widespread public hostility and civil unrest. (History of Gibraltar) I'm referring to the last part of the sentence. Although I've heard of such "palomos", the implicit accusation is new for me.

And that's all right now --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)