Jump to content

Talk:Status of Gibraltar

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.129.35.2 (talk) at 21:04, 28 August 2009 (Stop censoring the talk pages, you lot.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bunkering and marine pollution

It seems that the activity of supply of fuel made under the way of "bunkering" its been a source of marine pollution. In my Faculty (of Marine Sciences, in the University of Cádiz) they say to me that its also totally forbidden by the MARPOL, and Barcelona Convention such that practice. Ecologist groups are already complaining oficially to the European Union. I would be grateful if anybody has further information about all this. --Feministo (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The strait is a one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and ships need to refuel. Their needs are catered for by the port of Algeciras, Gibraltar and Ceuta. No doubt as they develop their new port facilities Morocco will also be significantly involved. There is a certain amount of competition in the bay between Algeciras and Gibraltar, with Spanish groups blaming Gib for any problems usually wrongly.
Notable was Greenpeace boarding a Gibraltar based tanker in protest, and whist they were in court, a fully loaded, Spanish tanker the Spabunker IV sank in the bay.
Although accidents can occur on both sides, its a necessary business and its a pity that reports are dominated by political considerations, and many of the reports of 'oil polution due to Gibraltar' turn out to be unsubstantiated propaganda. I fail to see how bunkering can be made illegal. --Gibnews (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is not only a matter of sovereignity. The health of people and ecosistem is affected and there're some laws and conventions that are probably been ignored. Water framework directive is including coastal waters in its range of protection and stablish the goal of stop polluting towards making economy not to threaten present health nor future. Oil and fuel are having highly toxic substances that are being dropped to the waters unnecesarly when bunkering is made under the 'cheaper the better' approach. The coordination to fight pollution and to recover environmental quallity in the Bay is strongly needed. I'm trying to find out the legal framework. It seems that under the lackness of agreement about territorial waters, in the three milles beside Gibraltar, Gibraltar's Government decides actually. Is it like that? --Feministo (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody deliberately drops valuable oil in the sea, and bunkering is done safely and is rigidly controlled, at least in Gibraltar. However there is an element of 'Gibraltar bashing' from Spain where all sorts of stories are published which have no truth behind them. Currently Spain is blocking transit of scrap metal from the MV New Flame at the frontier - which slows down the removal of the wreck. There is no apparent reason for this. There are discharges of oil from passing ships, although satellite surveillance of the straits and logging all ship movements helps identify ships which do this and they face legal action. It is an area where co-operation would help, however Spain does not care to co-operate with the GoG as admitting it exists is not to its liking.
In terms of environmental pollution, there are other bigger issues too !
http://www.esg-gib.net/bay.htm
--Gibnews (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in todays news This --Gibnews (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Flame

As RedCoat has pointed out, the incident caused a strain between Anglo-Spanish relations and was a subject of discussion in the Tripartite forum. That's absolutely true. However, I don't think any incident between two frontier territories, even if there is a dispute between them, are related to such a dispute. With regard to the New Flame incident, it must be proved that it's somehow related to the sovereignty dispute. There has been other incidents involving Gibraltar, such as that starred by Odyssey, and I can't see a relationship with the dispute. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was discussed at the tripartite forum as its a bilateral matter between Gibraltar and Spain. However, like the Prestige disaster, politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar.
If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?
Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame, search www.europasur.es
a) 46 articles and mentions
b) 231 articles and mentions
The former caused more REAL pollution
http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?ESGX070205_1.xml
And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail. --Gibnews (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gibnews, I'm quoting and commenting your statements:
Gibnews said: "politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar"
In spite of my poor English, the meaning of "seem" is obviously subjective. What you're stating here is that you (or other guys, which ones?) believe that the New Flame incident was used to attack Gibraltar. However, it's not what the text actually says. Instead, it's in an article named "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and into the section "Recent disputes" without any qualification. Therefore, if Gibraltarians think that the Spanish attitude is related to the sovereignty it must be worded that way, thus respecting the NPOV.
Gibnews said: "If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?"
I don't know, but we're not here to make original research. It's not the deductions you make but simply facts and sources to provide appropriate attribution and therefore comply to the NPOV (BTW, can you provide a link or reference to such a statement? It would be useful in order to find out what really happened?).
Gibnews said: "Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame"
Again, your personal research. As you believe this issue is related to the sovereignty dispute, you think wikipedia must account it in such a way. At the end, you're simply confirming that the noneutrality label is right. If you want to include a statement by the Gibraltar government claiming that the New Flame incident is related to the sovereignty issue, please, do it, but don't forget to redact the sentence in a neutral way: "The Government of Gibraltar linked the Spanish protests to the sovereignty dispute".
Gibnews said: "And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail"
An edition being wrong does not mean that other editions should be allowed.
I've learned something with you: reversion is easier that editing. Therefore I'll go step-by-step. Once we've solved the New Flame issue we can approach, if you like, the next issue. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PD: I think that this reference, provided by you, clearly talks about the Spanish position (and I'm not able to see any reference to a sovereignty dispute).[reply]
The incident caused a strain in Anglo-Spanish relations precisely because of the sovereignty dispute. The issue was taken to the EU and was on the agenda of the Tripartite forum[1]. Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why? Because of the sovereignty dispute; Spain refuses to recognise the GoG as a "competent authority". In any case, the fact that there are differing views over the status of the waters around Gibraltar[2] (something that was brought up at the EU) should be enough to justify its inclusion. RedCoat10 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I now understand the key of your position: "Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why?"
Possibly because Gibraltar is a sub-state entity and usually a State talks to a State not to a part of a State. Moreover, I remember having read somewhere (would you know where?) that Gibraltar was a "European territory whose external relations the UK government is responsible". As Spain is a "external country" to Gibraltar, what does your statement proves? It seems to me that your statement shows mostly a problem between Gibraltar and the UK (BTW, we have a pending discussion on why wikipedia readers are not able to know which the position of the UK on a possible Gibraltar independence is, but, as said, step-by-step).
On the other hand, the other part of your statement seems rather sensible (and BTW, has nothing to do with the current redaction of the paragraph). What your source states is that the New Flame incident was used by the Spanish opposition (right-wing) to blame on Gibraltar (the funny thing is that what the source says denies your first statement: "Spanish socialist MEPs [I can assume it talked somehow on behalf of the Spanish government] responded by saying that Madrid had been in close contact with Gibraltar and that the wreck was under control, adding that maritime safety was already on the Tripartite Forum's agenda.") and that the EU Commissioner linked the PP MEPs claims to the status of the Gibraltar waters (BTW, it should be interesting to have first-hand sources to know the claims of the PP MEPs... yeah, I know it's a harsh task, but I've done it in the telecom dispute article, so that it would not be so difficult).
To finish, would you like to propose a redaction of the paragraph that focus on real issues (the ones you've mentioned) and not in conclusion-building? Best regards and thank you for providing sources of facts and not sources to build a conclusion --Ecemaml (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, a source like this (hope you can read Spanish) is much more illustrative of the relationship between the sovereignty dispute and the New Flame incident. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS: [*http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Exteriores/corrige/Narbona/admite/New/Flame/aguas/espanolas/elpepiesp/20080214elpepinac_9/Tes this one] also is related to the dispute.[reply]
Which I've read and can't see any reason to redact as you suggest, the article points out that Gibraltar has put forward a proposal but it's ignored by the Spanish who want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?) as they don't trust the guarantees provided by Gibraltar. Its plain the accident was the result of the sovereignty dispute that has prevented a sensible working solution to control traffic in/out of the two ports. No, I can see any reason to redact that Paragraph - the incident is a result of the sovereignty dispute. Justin talk 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, let's me ignore most of your edition (BTW, I wasn't talking to you but to RedCoat). I don't care about what you guess or not. The article says nothing about the Spanish wanting a unitary authority (that is, you're not telling the truth since it's only the proposal of a small opposition left-wing party), so that, please, refrain from sharing your guesses (which by the way are based on false statements) with us.
On the other hand, the paragraph that I wanted to highlight was this:
That's what the article must state (along with the information I've provided in my second link... that Spain does not recognize the waters where the New Frame sunk and with the European Parliament information that RedCoat has brought here). However, nothing of what currently is in the article is actually related to the disputed status of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missinformed, SPAIN has accepted Gibraltar's territorial waters by signing the UN convention, Some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense, may not understand that but WE need to distinguish between the state and statements of politicians of the day, or indeed this case, the regional Government which has no aurhority over matters of state. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one who seems missinformed is not me:
On the other hand, take this edition by me as a formal cease and desist. I know that you don't like a lot of Spanish people. However, it's not relevant for the purpose of our dialog. This time it's been "some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense", but I can quote, if you want all the pejorative sentences about my government, my country... In the same way as me not inserting in every edition (I don't think so, just as example) how stubborn the Gibraltarian authorities are, or how fedup of the money laundering activities of Gibraltar I formally demand you to cease and desist of such mentions on the ground of your continuous violation of the WP:CIVIL guidelines on the grounds of "Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner". Otherwise, I'll open an incident notice about you and ask for your permanent banning from Gibraltar-related articles, as long as it's pretty obvious that you're not able of behaving in a way according to wikipedia's rules. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To be blunt, this is a co-operative project and you do not get to decide who does and doesn't contribute to a discussion. Also:

Izquierda Unida, por su parte, anunció ayer una iniciativa para pedir que se cree un organismo "unitario" para regular el tráfico en el Estrecho. "No se puede seguir con este descontrol y Gibraltar no ofrece garantías", dijo el diputado de IU Ignacio García.

Izquierda Unida (United Left a Spanish political party), meanwhile, announced yesterday an initiative to request that an "unitary" agency regulate traffic in the Strait. "We can not continue with this disorder and Gibraltar does not offer guarantees," said UI deputy Ignacio Garcia.

So why should it be suppressed that Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain, in an area of a sovereignty dispute? Do not ever call me a liar again. Also the opening article says:

La seguridad marítima también paga un peaje por el histórico conflicto sobre la soberanía de Gibraltar. A pesar de que casi 30.000 barcos atracan o fondean cada año en Algeciras y Gibraltar, ambos puertos no se informan de las entradas y salidas de estas embarcaciones que navegan por la misma bahía. Ésta fue una de las razones que propiciaron el abordaje entre el New Flame y el Torm Gertrud, ocurrido el pasado 12 de agosto frente al Peñón. Por el estrecho de Gibraltar, uno de los pasos marítimos más transitados, circula el 10% del tráfico mundial.

The historic dispute over the sovereignty of Gibraltar also extracts a toll on maritime security. Despite the fact that nearly 30,000 ships berth or anchor every year in Algeciras and Gibraltar, neither port is informed of shipping leaving or entering the other, although the ships are sailing in the same waters. This was one of the reasons that led to the collision between the New Flame and Gertrud Tormo, which occurred last Aug. 12 near the Rock. The Straits of Gibraltar, one of the busiest shipping lanes, circulates 10% of global traffic.

The accident stems from the sovereignty dispute, it should stay. Justin talk 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree, but it's pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with the current redaction. The elements currently included are just wishful thinking. No source claims that the New Flame incident is, in itself, a recent dispute on the sovereignty issue. Moreover, the sources that RedCoat and Gibnews have provided clearly states that the government of Spain has no complaints about the way the Government of Gibraltar has faced the crisis. Even if so (that is, any involved party claims that it is related to the disputed status of Gibraltar) it should be properly attributed.

However, during the discussion, some sources have come out that relates some issues of the whole incident to the sovereignty dispute. So, those issues are the one that should be quoted:

  • The first El País source. It clearly states that the incident in itself could have been caused by the sovereignty dispute. As long as there is no formal communication between both ports, and such an incommunication is related to the dispute, it must be quoted that way ("The New Flame incident was .... It has been asserted that the crash between both ship is related to the sovereignty dispute since, because of that, there are no proper communication between the ports of Algeciras and Gibraltar.
  • The second El País source that states that, according to the Spanish government, the place where both ships crashed is not in the territorial waters of Gibraltar.
  • The unknown Gibraltarian source (please, provide if existent) that states that the Government of Gibraltar has complained because the Government of Spain has contacted the UK government before contacting with Gibraltar.
  • The RedCoat's source that states that Spanish right-wing MEP have complained against the Government of Gibraltar in the European Parliament and that, according to the Commissioner, such a complain was related to the territorial waters complains.

All the rest is just POV editing. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS: sorry Justin for calling you a liar. In the beginning it was "Spanish [..] want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?)" and now it's "Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain" (unfortunatelly, it goes on being wrong; its one political "figure" the one which is calling for a "unitary" agency regulate to traffic in the Strait). However, as long as the Strait involves not only Spain and the United Kingdom but also Morocco, it's yet to be proved that this MAP (Member of the Andalusian Parliament) requires a Spanish agency in charge of it (again, we're not here to speculate...)[reply]

The MV New Flame incident itself could not have been prevented by ANY co-operation or authority as the captain decided to break all the rules. However the hysterical reaction from Spain is a direct result of the dispute and is typical of the need to blame Gibraltar for anything, real or imaginary. It is manifested in a lack of regional co-operation where scrap metal from the vessel is banned from crossing the frontier, and all the allegations of pollution which are made and then cannot be backed up by independent analysis of the oil recovered.
The territorial waters may be 'disputed' but no Spanish warships defended them and Spain signed the UN convention which gives Gibraltar 3 miles minimum that way. A cynic would note that Spain signing aggreements does not mean much, as the Portugeese know with Olivenza. --Gibnews (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


And a cynic would say also that the UK signing treaties does not mean much, as the Spanish know with the Colony of Gibraltar, which now occupies much more terrain than it should according to the Treaty of Utrecht. In fact, the treaty never ceded jurisdiction to Britain, but the propierty. So shut up.

Postscript: Spain signed the UN convention which DOES NOT give Gibraltar any territorial waters. Eccemaml just quoted this, but I'll repeat it for you to -finally- understand: "In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments referred to above have no legal significance and do not change the treaty. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty of Utrecht was signed by Spain and Britain, it does not specify the size of Gibraltar, but it does make it clear the whole territory is British forever. Wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin. --Gibnews (talk)


Nope, Gibnews. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed between the Crowns of Spain and Britain, whom never took the people into consideration when bartering land. And that's because the notion of nation-state is quite newer than the feudal notion of "propriety" as ownage of land and it's inhabitants.

The Treaty of Utrecht states: "The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever".

As you may know, there is a difference between the terms "propriety" and "sovereignty". To own something does not qualify you to impose a currency or law on it. Besides, and concerning the size of Gibraltar, it states: "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging" (then, of course). Maps of that time do exist. And the area occupied by Gibraltar is now much larger.

And last, but not least, just because you do not share a position, it does not make it "ill-informed". While indeed "wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin", you should not be surprised if someone responds to your own biased opinions. Or is it fair to say "Spain signing aggreements does not mean much" (because it is OBVIOUSLY a fact, a neutral statement, and it is absolutely necessary in this talk page), but it is inappropriate to answer such a fascist insular oversimplification? So you can dish it out but you can't take it?

With that said, keep nuclear submarines offshore and take care, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is not the place to interpret the wording of 300 year old treaties, however I'm pleased you consider the importance of what PEOPLE want. In the 2002 referendum the PEOPLE of Gibraltar made their position in relation to union with Spain well known when 99.3% voted against the idea.
American nuclear submarines regularly visit and are serviced at Rota in Spain, there seems to be no problem with that. And the only nuclear incident in the bay of Gibraltar area has been from Acerinox in Spain.
This is not a debating forum and please do not edit talk archives. --Gibnews (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish POV edits

Instead of adding [citation needed] tags, why not spend some time collecting sources and being productive? Rewriting the article to show Spain in a good light is uphill work. --Gibnews (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is, because there is a bunch of bigoted gibraltarian editors to avoid just that. Whatever reality might be.
You censor even the talk pages. Jesus Christ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADisputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=310051535&oldid=302409798
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADisputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=265304257&oldid=265160234
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADisputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=265120574&oldid=265118887

Conquered by England ?

Although the formal Act of Union was later, its generally claimed that Gibraltar was conquered by the British rather than the English. The history books, or at least the one at hand here, refer to raising the UNION flag and not the English flag. British to me signifies people from the British isles, and not necessarily those acting under the 1707 act or having 'British Citizen' in their passports.

Its a narrow point, but one that needs discussion rather than heavy handed threats. --Gibnews (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:LAME. What history books? When does it date from? Who was the author? Why does your interpretation of who the British are trump everyone elses? Was Scotland an ally of England in 1704? What Ireland an ally of England in 1704? What Irish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? What Scottish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? Does the raising of the Union flag mean that the Kingdom of Great Britain existed in 1704? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Treaty of Utrecht say? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it did not become British till the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which of course refers to the state formed by the Union of Scotland and England), the initial occupation included Dutch and British forces. Do you have a source for the edit you wish to make? And on a personal note the confrontational attitude you're adopting is counter productive, as is threatening admin action on a content dispute in which you are involved. Justin talk 09:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, Queen Anne was Queen of of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1704. "Conquered by Britain" therefore seems appropriate. RedCoat10 • talk 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then as it was (quickly) occupied in the name of Queen Anne, preceding the ToU, then I assume the long standing intro was in fact correct.
Jackson specifically refers to UNION flags being raised after the capture. Wikipedia says When the first flag was introduced in 1606, it became known simply as "the British flag" or "the flag of Britain". I am not using Wikipedia as a source, however it needs to be consistent and using a British flag suggests British activities. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson also refers to "The British units in the landing forces [...]" (page 96). - RedCoat10 • talk 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove my compromise edit in favour of the previous consensus text. Justin talk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I note that the editor involved, who is apparently an admin, has initiated a discussion elsewhere see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#No Scotland in 1704. I thought it would be polite to inform other editors. Justin talk 13:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84 does have a point. The previous version says that Gib was conquered "by Britain". The notion that it was conquered by the British three years before there was any such country is misleading. If a source asserts that Britain conquered Gibraltar in 1704, then that surely reflects poorly on that source's attention to detail.

The notion that Britain is meant in a geographical sense is bizarre. One wonders what role Glen Coe, or the White Cliffs of Dover, or the Lleyn peninsula played in these events. In any case, that's certainly not what's implied by the sentence. Conquest is a political act. It is not something that geography does. If somewhere is conquered by Britain, it is well implied that it was the state, not the island, that did the conquering. Regardless of what flag was raised, Gibraltar could not have been conquered by Britain in 1704 any more than it could have been conquered by the USA in 1704.

So, Gibraltar was conquered by England, by Scotland, or by both England and Scotland. England seems most likely because Scotland didn't join the War of the Spanish Succession until the Union. Best option, it seems to me, is to either leave it as is, or sidestep the question by saying it was conquered in the name of Queen Anne. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. Though he went about it the wrong way in edit warring. Would my compromise wording suffice? Justin talk 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem. Pfainuk talk 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Gibraltar was conquered in the name of Charles III of Spain, but Rooke realising the advantages ordered the raising of the Union Flag Rather than being occupied in the name of a state, it was done in the name of Queen Anne, who became Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland on 8 March 1702. Under the ToU it was given to the Crown of Great Britain. So the issue is arguable. In 2004 we celebrated the tercentenary of British Gibraltar.
The Siege of Gibraltar was a military action during the War of the Spanish Succession during which the fortress of Gibraltar was captured by allied British and Dutch forces after a three days’ siege, on August 4th, 1704. The attack was carried out by a brigade of Dutch and British Marines.
During the war with France and Spain, the British attacked the Rock of Gibraltar: 1,900 British and 400 Dutch marines prevented Spanish reinforcements reaching the fortress. Later, British ships bombarded the city while marines and seamen stormed the defences. These later withstood nine months of siege. Today the Royal Marines display only the battle honour "Gibraltar", and their close relationship with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps continues.
The only thing we can be sure of is it ceased to be Spanish in 1704. --Gibnews (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of things, I would suggest that it is not uncommon for the authors of sources either to forget that 1704 was before the Union or to ignore what they perceive to be a relatively minor inaccuracy in order to make their points. But it is still inaccurate to suggest that there was a British state before 1707 and it would be better for us to be as accurate as is reasonably possible.
Justin's compromise - which is what is currently in the article - does not specifically name "Britain" as the captor, and as such I have no problem with it. It is clear from this compromise that Spanish control of Gibraltar ceased in 1704. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Status_of_Gibraltar&oldid=310607178"