Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

No history before 1704?

  • There seems to be some people who simply would like to use this page to portray the "Gibraltarians struggle to remain British". No interest whatsoever in any History unless this contributes to enhance their POV
  • For the same reason, there is no mention of anything that happened before 1704 and any controversial issue is brushed aside (i.e.: "The Spaniards decided to leave after a brief siege" and similar euphemisms)
  • I added the category History of Spain, as this is indeed part of Spanish History: The siege took place because the War of Spanish Sucession

Hopefully, with some hard work this article could be made to be more neutral Asterion 02:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Removals by Gibraltarian

As usual, Gibraltarian removes and doesn't explain:

  • First removal: But Sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation.

All the Spanish sources that I've read state that George Rook took possession of the Rock in name of her queen, once the city had been conquered. If that's not true, as Gibraltarian claims, it would be good to know when Union Jack and not the flag of the Austrian Pretender began to wave in Gibraltar.

  • Second removal: . San Roque official motto "The town of San Roque, where that of Gibraltar lives on" (in Spanish: 'La Ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar').

Which is the problem in knowing that San Roque, as many of the Gibraltarians of that time settled there, claims to be the heir of Gibraltar? In fact, both cities have the same coat of arms. --Ecemaml 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again your obsession clouds everything. Your allegations against Rooke are not true. your "spanish sources" are those created by revisionist historians with a chip on their shoulder. Gibraltar was taken in the name of Archduke Charles. There was one British flag flown during the battle, by the troops who had landed in the area of the South Mole, and raised this in order to signal to the ships not to shell that location. The motto of San Roque has nothing to do with Gibraltar, it is for the San Roque history, not Gibraltar's. There is no accurate historical record of how many people left Gibraltar for San Roque, nor how long they had been in Gibraltar previously. The overwhelming number of inhabitants were of a transitory nature, not necessarily "permanently" settled on the rock.--Gibraltarian 17:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, my sources are revisionists and cannot compare to yours but... again, can you simply tell us when did the Union Jack begin to wave in Gibraltar? According any source you can query, Gibraltar was declared a free port in 1706 by queen Anna. So that, at sometime between 1704 and 1706, Gibraltar became a Britain possession. Can you tell as when?

With regard to San Roque, I can't understand why you insist in denying that San Roque was founded by refugees from Gibraltar. I'm not saying how many, but some of the inhabitants of Gibraltar refused to be under the rule of Archduke Charles or Britain and left the city (again, your claim that "The overwhelming number of inhabitants were of a transitory nature" is just your POV; at the same time you're saying that "There is no accurate historical record of how many people left Gibraltar for San Roque, nor how long they had been in Gibraltar previously"! So, how can you state the former to be true?) --Ecemaml 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm just waiting the information regarding when the occupation of Gibraltar was left to the British (considering the 1706 date as establishment of the free port). I'd also like to know the sources of the "connection" between the so-called palomos and the Spanish government (I'm not denying it; I'd just like to know if there is a reliable source of it's pure propaganda, as that of Fidel Castro agains dissidents, always accused of being foreing agents). And please, stick to the question and avoid personal attacks. --Ecemaml 15:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ecemaml, considering your disgraceful violations of WP principle, not to mention the violations of basic common decency that you have shown previously, I find your attitude most distasteful impertinent. Do not accuse me of propaganda, as you are the master of it. It is not possible to reason or reach consensus with an obsessed troll such as yourself, whose sole "raison d'etre" is to create discord and disharmony, and to attempt by any means possible (including lies, innuendos, propaganda) to blacken the name of Gibraltar. Get a life!

Trying again to settle differences (even if Gibraltarian just uses ad hominem arguments):

  • The following paragraph has been removed: At sometime 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 in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation. Gibraltarian arguments are Allegations against Sir George Rooke are untrue and unfounded
My position is as follows. It seems out of discusion that the Rock was taken in the name of the Archduke by a British-Dutch fleet under the command of Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt. It seems also that in 1706 a decree of queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port. Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt left the rock sometimes between 1704 and 1705 (since he dead in the siege of Barcelona in 1705). Therefore, sometimes between both dates (August 1704 and February 1706) the Union Jack should have been waved in Gibraltar. When? Gibraltarian should know (he's Gibraltarian and the Rock celebrated in 2004 the third centenary of the "independence"; quite strange if the Rock just passed from the hands of a Spanish pretender to another). Finally, the article Governor of Gibraltar explicitly says: British ocupation.
  • Also removed (in bold): Considering themselves the real Gibraltarians, those who left took with them many important 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 (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').
The people who left Gibraltar (many or few, it doesn't matter, considered themselves the real Gibraltarians; therefore, they took the symbols of his town and created a new settlement that not only retained the same coat of arms, but also the name. It that's considered not relevant, the middle part of the paragraph (that saying that those who left took with them many important 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) should be also removed, since important context is being dismissed.
  • Also removed the mentions to the controversial neutral zone: ". The neutral territory exists to this day between the North Face of the Rock and the Spanish town of La Linea. and The British constructed a fence at the neutral territory. The British government claims that such a construction is the Britain's side of the neutral territory (according to them, in fact the fence was actually 1 metre inside British territory).
As long as the Spanish government never ceded such a neutral territory (it's not mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht), it would be interesting to see the arguments of the other side with regard to the occupation of the isthmus. Since maybe the first mention should not be present (but in Disputed status of Gibraltar), I can't see why the second one is removed.

Please, can you stop your personal attacks and provide required information? --Ecemaml 11:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are an obsessed troll and I am not going to spend my life educating you. Go back to school if you wish to learn more. The "isthmus" as you call it WAS indeed ceded in Utrecht, (together with forts, fortifications etc) and further clarified in Versailles 1783. It is only "controversial" because you make it so.
Some sources added (you can read Spanish, so that you're kindly invited to read it). I've corrected the mention to George Rooke since you was right. It was an apocryphal legend. With regard to the isthmus, please, you know that you're lying. Here you have the text of the Treaty (from http://www.gibnet.com/texts/utrect.htm):

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

As you can see, there is no mention to the isthmus. Best regards --Ecemaml 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Ecemaml, the ONLY liar here is you! You are a troll, and post with the sole purpose of creating discord. The proof of this is your insistence on making allegations against Sir George Rooke, which you have now withdrawn, accepting at as pure invention. Not content with this you include the story anyway, but mention it as untrue. Why bother even adding a story which you know is not true, other than to cause dispute? You have shown your true colours.

With regard the "Isthmus" it was standard accepted International Law that territories extended to the distance of two cannon shots. There were sentry posts along the current line of the frontier, also the Devils Tower and Torre del Tuerto. This clearly covers the whole area in question.

Discussion

As there is a global disagreement on Gibraltar-related articles, discussion is "taking place" in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml 13:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

... to make it accurate and neutral

Some data constantly removed by Gibraltarian to make it accurate and neutral (sic):

  • However, the Gibraltar area, such as the rest of the South Iberian Peninsula was part of the Byzantine Empire during the second part of the 6th century (reverting afterwards to the Visigoth Kingdom).
  • 1309 - ... The Spaniards took the Upper Rock from where the town was bombarded. The garrison surrendered after one month. Gibraltar then had about 1,500 inhabitants.
  • 1703 February 12 - The Archduke Charles is proclaimed king of Castile and Aragon in Vienna. He takes the name of Charles III ([1]).

(There is usually a discrepancy on the chronology between Spanish and British sources. The reason is that England still used the Julian calendar. By 1704, the Julian calendar was eleven days behind the Gregorian. Therefore, the siege began on 21 July according to the Julian calendar)

The beginning of the English/British occupation of Gibraltar has been over the time imprecise... (for instance, in its speech at the United Nations in 1994, the Gibraltar Chief Minister Joe Bossano stated that Gibraltar has been a British colony ever since it was taken by Britain in 1704 [2]).
  • 1704 August 7 ... These objects (see San Roque Council Web site, in Spanish) remain nowadays in San Roque (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', see San Roque Council Web site, in Spanish). Only about seventy people remained in the city (most of them religious or belonging to the Genovese trader colony; see list in [3]). The traditions of the villages that received the refugees still talk of this departure as the Exodus of Gibraltar (Éxodo de Gibraltar).

Although nominally in the hands of the Archduke Charles, Britain began to monopolize the rule of the town. Even if the formal transfer of sovereignty would not take place until the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht, the British Governor and garrison become the de facto rulers of the town.

  • 1706 February - By a special decree, Queen Anne declares Gibraltar a free port (upon request of the Sultan of Morocco, to be allowed to supply the town) (while the Catholic Encyclopedia provides this date, the Gibraltarian government dates it to 1705). Spanish sources points out that, at that very moment, the English monarch lacked of de jure titles to do so, since Gibraltar was yet a possession of one of the pretenders to the Spanish Throne, not ceded by any Spanish power to England.
  • 1711 - The British government, now in the hands of the tories, order the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expell any foreign (not British) troops. Although he answered positively, he let a German regiment to stay. It would remain there until 1713 March.
  • 1721 March - Philip V of Spain requests the restitution of Gibraltar to proceed to the renewal of the trade licenses of Great Britain with the Spanish possesions in America.
  • 1721 June 1 - George I sends a letter to Philip V promising "to make use of the first favourable Opportunity to regulate this Article (the Demand touching the Restitution of Gibraltar), with the Consent of my Parliament" ([4]). However, the British Parliament would never endorse such promise.
  • 1727 February-June - Second of the sieges by Spain trying to recapture Gibraltar (Thirteenth Siege of Gibraltar). Depending on the sources, Spanish troops were between 12,000 and 25,000. British defenders were 1,500 at the begining of the siege, increasing up to about 5,000. After a five-month siege with several unsuccessful and costly attempts, Spanish troops give up and retire.
  • 1730 - A Belgian Engineer, the Marquis of Verboom, Chief Engineer of the Spanish Royal Engineer Corps, who has taken part in the 1727 siege, ... The fortifications, known to the British as the Spanish Lines, and to Spain as La Línea de Contravalación are the origin of modern-day town of La Línea de la Concepción.
In 1782, work on the Great Siege Tunnels starts. Those tunnels would became a great and complex system of underground fortifications which nowadays criss-crosses the inside of the Rock. Once the Siege was over, the fortifications were rebuilt and, in the following century, the walls were lined with Portland limestone. Such stone give the walls their present white appearance.
  • 1815 April 20 - An isolation camp to prevent the spread of the epidemic outside the fortress walls ([5]) is set up in the neutral ground. This fact can be tracked as the beginning of the present-day dispute with Spain over the isthmus sovereignty (see Disputed status of Gibraltar#The isthmus). A communication from the British Governor to the Spanish authorites was held. While Spanish sources account that it was a request for permission, modern-day Gibraltarian and UK sources account this as a mere information for reasons of public health and courtesy, since, according to them, the area is British territory so no permission was required.
This one replaced with:
The British authorities at Gibraltar constructed an isolation camp to prevent the spread of the epidemic outside the fortress walls. The Spanish government was informed of this for reasons of public health and courtesy, but this has been interpreted by revisionist historians as requesting permission for this. As far as the British government was concerned, the area is British territory so no permission was required. This fact can be tracked as the beginning of the present-day dispute with Spain over the isthmus sovereignty.
  • 1894 - The construction of the dockyards starts.
  • The repatriation of the civilians started in 1944 and proceeded for some six years. However most of the population had returned by 1946
  • 1941 - ... (see Hitler's Directive No.18 here)...
  • 1942 - Spain "occupies" the remaining of the neutral zone (map). The Spanish government states that it does so to prevent further British annexation.
  • 1965 April - The British Government publishes a White Paper dealing with the question of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht.
  • 1966 - In response, the Spanish Foreign Office Minister Fernando Castiella, publishes and presents to the Spanish Courts the Spanish Red Book (named so because of its cover; its reference is "Negociaciones sobre Gibraltar. Documentos presentados a las Cortes Españolas por el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores", Madrid, 1967)
  • 1967 - ... Although the Spanish goverment gets a diplomatic triumph in the United Nations (since the resolution 2353 states that the holding of the referendum [...] to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2231 (XXI)), it has virtually no effect in the politic life of Gibraltar.
  • 1969 - ... (this fact is another disagreement in the present-day relationships with the Spanish government, since a solution for the pensions corresponding to the period of time those Spanish workers had worked in Gibraltar is pursued).
  • 2002 : A group of Spaniards, claiming to be the descendants of some of the population that left the town after the takeover in 1704, asked for the right to vote also in the referendum [6] (in Spanish). They were not allowed to do so.
  • 2004 August - Gibraltar celebrates 300 years of British rule. Spanish officials labeled this as the celebration of 300 years of British occupation [7] (since soveraingty on the colony was not ceded until 1713).
  • 2004 December - The governments of the United Kingdom and Spain agree to allow the Gibraltar government to represent itself in a new open agenda discussion forum.
  • 2004 November 18 - A joint commission (Comisión mixta de Cooperación y Colaboración) is established between the Mancomunidad de Municipios de la Comarca del Campo de Gibraltar (the Council Association of the Gibraltar County, the Spanish area that surround Gibraltar) and the Gibraltarian government.
  • 2004 October 28 - The governments of the United Kingdom and Spain agree to allow the Gibraltar government to represent itself in a new open agenda discussion forum (tripartite talks) [8].
  • "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza" (Gibraltar. The reason and the force), by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar) is available here. Isidro Sepúlveda Muñoz is a Contemporary History Professor in the UNED ("Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia"), the biggest Spanish university.
  • "Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar. Donde termina España" (Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar. Where Spain ends), by Máximo Cajal, Ed. Siglo XXI Editores, Madrid, 2003, ISBN 84-323-1138-3. Máximo Cajal is a Spanish diplomatist, ambassador in different countries and currently the special representant of the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, in the Alliance 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.

For sure, all these deletions must prove that it's me the troll. --Ecemaml 09:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Gibraltarian pretends that the current version of the article is neutral and accurate. You can see an extended version that also introduces the Spanish POV in History of Gibraltar/temp. It includes all the information mentioned in the section before. --Ecemaml 09:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not the "spanish" POV, merely your own, which is based upon years of Franco inspired propaganda, and your clear racist attitude towards Gibraltarians. You are a troll, go elsewhere if you wish to cause trouble.--Gibraltarian 09:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Gibraltarian, it seems that your clock stopped in 1969. Fortunatelly, in Spain Franco died thirty years ago. Can you point out which elements that you insist in removing are Franco's propaganda and why? --Ecemaml 10:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Franco may have died, but his policies and attitudes are unfortunately very much alive.--Gibraltarian 11:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in both sides, as you constantly show. Lack of respect for the people that doesn't think as you like, claimed possesion of the truth... But apart from your ad hominem argumentation, I ask you again, can you point out which elements that you insist in removing are Franco's propaganda and why? --Ecemaml 12:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I will NOT spend my days justifying myself to a troll!--Gibraltarian 15:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea who is right or no, I'm just interested in reading about this article for research, but obviously you're lacking arguments my dear Gibraltarian...

Warning! The discussion on this article is taking place in Talk:Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#Disagreement_points_in_History_of_Gibraltar. Sources and justifications are being provided. --Ecemaml 10:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to this debate, but, FWIW... The proposed version at /temp History of Gibraltar/temp seems fairly neutral. I'll have to look up a few things to verify them, but that's for later. Possible omission in the WWII section is bombing of Gibraltar by the French Air Force after their fleet was destroyed at Oran to pervent it falling into Nazi hands. Made a couple of typo corrections. Not sure about bit about Tireless, but will think about it and put something better in when I get the form of words right. Controversy continues, as Spain now protests whenever a nuclear submarine visits Gibraltar, so difficult to write it completely objectively.

However, the issue is contentious, and I agree that a version of the history is perhaps easier to settle on than one on the dispute itself, which is still highly charged in Gibraltar, and with some Spaniards. I've had trouble getting my head round the maze of comments to get at the sense. There will probably always be two versions of the history (if not three), but they can be presented side by side with the emotional charge removed. I don't agree with all statements, but they are the Spanish view, as long as the British/Gibraltarian view is given equal prominence I have no problem with that. The intelligent and open-minded can make their own minds up. Rockeagle 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I protected the page. It seems to be the only way to stop Gibraltarian. I'm going to indefinitely block his user account. This will give us the chance to block any sockpuppets he uses. I've had enough. He's violating 3RR every day. Time to end this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I Beg your pardon???? It is Ecemaml the troll who has been ignoring the 3rr rule. I will NOT permit him to use WP to spread his racist anti-British, and anti-Gibraltar fascist inspired propaganda. NO WAY! It is also a gross abuse of the powers of an admin to arbitrarily decide to indefinately suspend someone's account for merely defending truth, accuracy and NPOV, when you igniore the antics of a troll like Ecemaml. This is what Ecemaml wanted right along, and Woohookitty has been played by him like a puppet. What a farce! Gibraltarian
Dude, calm down. If you want to prove your point, why don't you post something on your arbitration page? And even if Ecemaml is indeed a troll, he still doesn't deserve any personal attacks - please read WP:NPA. If you have evidence that Ecemaml is indeed causing trouble, please present it to us on your arbitration page. You, with your personal attacks, are only discrediting yourself by doing so. --TML1988 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
And, he hasn't "played me". Good god. I'm an admin. That means that I'm basically like a police officer. I am here to uphold policy. I haven't even read either article you've been hitting!!! I blocked you, Gibraltarian, because of your constant personal attacks. I'm here to uphold policy and nothing more. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs link fix

History of Georgia (country) - thanks.