Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2007 A New beginning

As we enter the New Year, there seems to be a sense of co-operation from Spain and a grudging recognition of Gibraltar's existance.

Hopefully this will be reflected in improved relations and fewer edit wars over these pages.

Our persistent banned user should take a moment to re-read the page and should find that some of his complaints have been addressed and others have and will be ignored.

Similarly those who felt the need to change the Gibraltar flag to a different one have learnt the error of their ways.

So from that point, lets move on.

--Gibnews 12:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uploading of image

I recently uploaded an image of the 1842 Half Quart coin issue, yet it was automatically reverted as I was identified as 'a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits...' I think this article would benefit from this image as I see it quite apt. I believe my change can be reviewed and restored by established users. Chris Buttigieg 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Asterion for reverting it. Chris Buttigieg 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged by 'voices of all' because they most certainly are not ! Sadly the Gibraltar pages have been subject to edit wars, and some people assume that any edits with Gibraltar IP's must be bad. The pages could do with more Gibraltar editors, Carry on adding material Chris. --Gibnews

Spanish flags

Although the ancient history of Gibraltar may be appropriate to a series of articles about Spain, it is necessary to respect that in Gibraltar and in connection with Gibraltar the use of the spanish flag is highly inflamatory.

Generally the problem is solved that way.

--Gibnews 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment "No enemy flags" makes it clear what your objection is - personal POV. If you read the rationale for WikiProject Spain, it is: "to expand and organise information better in articles related to Spanish history, language and culture." Gibraltar's pre-1704 history very clearly comes under this scope. I would agree that the WikiProject Spain template is inappropriate for the main Gibraltar article, because Gibraltar isn't part of Spain, but Gibraltar's history plainly does come under the WikiProject's scope. Please put nationalism to one side - you can hardly argue that Gibraltarian history has nothing to do with Spain. -- ChrisO 13:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish flag IS a nationalist symbol. Find a formula to remove it.

In any event the Flag_of_Spain shown was not in use at the time that Gibraltar was Spanish. --Gibnews 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I can live with that. --Gibnews 10:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cordoba Agreement

I have removed the reference to the British Government agreeing not to make nuclear repairs to submarines;

1. The facilities are not capable of nuclear repairs, and never have been.

2. Although mentioned in the Spanish media, its not actually in the published agreement.

--Gibnews 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do note that the addition was made by the banned user Gibraltarian, which is why I reverted it. -- ChrisO 08:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Gibraltar IP addresses change periodically, so theoretically an IP from Gibraltar is not necessarily the user Gibraltarian. I once thought that there was one IP address for everyone, but have now learnt otherwise. Chris Buttigieg^talk 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I nearly reverted it too. However, in this case it is right. Despite it being claimed in the media as forming part of the agreement, its not in either the MAE or the GoG documents, so taking it out is best. If it was mentioned it would be in the context of double speak as quite what a 'nuclear repair' consists of is contentious, and the GoG is on record as saying they would make it illegal, even were it possible. HMS Tireless has gone but is not forgotten. --Gibnews 09:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Decolonisation etcetera

Why are we adding the Spanish viewpoint to a simple statement of fact in what is essentially a chronology of events? Our job is to report facts, without bias. Saying that X did something because of Y is, by all measures, a neutral statement. Now if one adds the Spanish opinion, or indeed any other opinion, the event would be rendered an entire breakdown of Gibraltar’s decolonisation, a topic which is discussed elsewhere in articles such as Disputed status of Gibraltar.

Also, the article states that in 1706 Queen Anne had no de jure right to declare Gibraltar a free port. Not only is this assertion wholly unsourced, but may well constitute original research in that it puts forward the assumption that “since Gibraltar was not officially British at the time, the British Monarch could not have possibly had the right to declare it a free port”. Original research is described as “unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis” and seems to sum up this latest addition fairly well. RedCoat10 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi RedCoad, with regards to the first one, I fully agree with you. Our job is to report facts. A fact is that one side of the sovereignty dispute claims that the relationship between UK and Gibraltar is not colonial. The fact is that both UK and Gibraltar government says that (and not that the relationship between both is as they say, something that, in any case, an external and reputable source should assess). That way, I add another fact: the position of the Spanish government (the one that, according to the UN, is also relevant in the decolonization of the territory. To sum up, you're including a POV about a fact (the new Constitution). So, I'm adding another relevant POV, without claiming it's true. Removing a POV is just making the result not neutral. You know that.

With regard to the other one, is so obvious that I don't know what kind of reference you need. Fortunately, I've just received from Amazon The Rock of the Gibraltarians so that I'll add the proper source. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems we now have a reference for the 1706 free port issue, so that's a start. Good.

Regarding the inclusion of the Spanish POV: the bottomline is that this article is about the History of Gibraltar. What we have is a chronology of events, not an analysis of Gibraltar's decolonisation. By stating that "Mr Caruana did this in the year X because he felt that yada yada yada" is not a POV, but rather the recounting of an event in Gibraltar's recent history. The Spanish/UN's stance on the matter is thus rendered extraneous here; in fact, its inclusion would constitute a POV imbalance.

In any case, I'd ask you politely to refrain from reverting again until we have achieved consensus. Thanks, RedCoat10 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:-) I could ask for the other way around (let's keep the original edition until consensus on removing it is achieved), but let's work that way. The key issue here is that including only the official statement of the Gibraltar government is imbalanced by nature. Let's me explain. If someone is attending a trial, a special hearing on a matter he's involved, it's important not only to know what one of the parties said, but also the reactions of the other parties involved (and what's more, the reaction of the judge or the committee). Mind that the example you've provided is not accurate. It's not "Mr Caruana did this in the year X because he felt that yada yada yada", but "Mr Caruana did this in the year X in the special committee on the status of Gibraltar because he felt that yada yada yada" (that is, the important point here is the obvious multiparty nature forum where he did his speech). Therefore, knowing whether Caruana's exhortation was successful or not is important. That is, even if the Spain's opinion could be regarded as irrelevant (something that is obviously false for me since, whether Gibraltarians like it or not, the fact nowadays is that the international status of Gibraltar depend on, at least formally, it may change in the future, conversations between the UK and Spain) the reaction of the committee isn't (otherwise, we're just including propaganda). In fact, if the reactions of the rest of parties are not included, the inclusion of the whole paragraph should be questioned --Ecemaml (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: BTW, not only the Williams, but also the Hills book arrived today, so that if further references or quotes are needed I can gladly provide them (regardless of the "orientation" of Hills book, the good point is that it includes plenty of references)

Before reading that I removed the reference to decolonisation. The significant milestone is that the Government of Gibraltar no longer recognises that there is any point in attending the C24.

You clearly do not appreciate the basis that people make submissions to the C24 is that any organisation that applies can get 10 mins, if we formed an association of Wikipedeia editors we could both make a presentation. Its all quite unimportant nonsense.

HMG is on the record that there will be no further talks between them and Spain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar and that is not forthcoming. The ambassador can say what he likes and stamp his feet, but its got nothing to do with the history of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just proving my point, Ecemaml. :) We are not supposed to be discussing what went on in the UN Committee of 24, or what Tom, Dick and Harry thought of it, irrespective of where it was held. What we have is a simple statement that the GoG decided to abstain from attending because of they felt it unnecessary. Since this article is not one about Gibraltar's foreign affairs or Gibraltar's decolonisation, it would inappropriate if we were to include such material. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi RedCoad, as you can verify, we've been talking about the relevance of including the oppinion of the Spanish representative. Although I don't aggree with you, I've accepted its removal. However, none of you have provided an argument on the irrelevance of including the reaction of the Committee (the one Caruana addressed). However, Gibnews goes on removing such information on the grounds on Improve English. I'm waiting for your warning on him. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we remove it altogether and thereby avoid all the disagreements that come with it? As Gibmetal77 noted, the whole event is rather inconsequential and didn't cause much of a stir with the Committee. I am sure there have been more noteworthy events regarding Gibraltar's decolonisation than this particular affair. What say you? RedCoat10 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time the GoG formally asks in the United Nations to be removed from the list of non-dependent territories on the grounds of the nature of the new constitution. I think that's is really significant, even if the claim was not accepted. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC) PS: BTW goes on removing the reaction of the committee. This time, fortunately, without cheating as the previous one, but with the usual personal attack.

I shall correct you because you are wrong;

• The Government of Gibraltar has not asked the UN C24 to remove Gibraltaar from the list of non-self Governing territories.

• As it has not requested that its absurd to say the request had been denied

You can read the Chief Ministers speech Here

Accusing me of 'cheating' sounds very much like a personal attack, please do not confuse me with user:gibraltarian. Bull fighting tactics will not work. However returning to the article the ONLY significant thing to come out of the meeting is that the CM has thanked the committee and declined to attend future sessions as they seem to be pointless. If you read the proceedings over the last ten years its a reasonable conclusion to come to. The UN still refers to bi-lateral talks (Brussels Agreement) which the UK has stated as a matter of policy it will not attend, and that all future talks will be under the Trilateral process (Cordoba style) Trilateral means that all parties to discussions have equal standing. It is not a case of Britain and Spain discussing Gibraltar in the presence of a representative of the town council.

The next thing of note to happen is the opening of the Cervantes Institute. --Gibnews (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proceedings at the UN

Whatever the Spanish observer at the C24 of the UN happens to think or say is immaterial to History of Gibraltar and the reference given referred only to the statements made by Peter Caruana and Joe Bossano.

This is not the Spanish Wikipedia where an editor can enforce the totally incorrect view that the territory of the airport is run by HMG and is not an integral part of Gibraltar.

The views of a Spanish representative may be appropriate on a page about the outdated territorial claim but has no significance in terms of the History of Gibraltar and more than the views of some that the earth is flat.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your point of view. I don't know whether the territorial claim is outdated or not. I don't care and the role of wikipedia is not supporting or denying any claim. However, besides your rudeness (including a POV cannot be qualified as a "racist" edition, a word Gibraltarian was very fond of) the fact that there is a relevant POV you want to remove remains. BTW the reference given (have you read it?) includes the Spanish reactions, so that, besides removing a POV you don't even read the provided references. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat, the article is The History of Gibaltar that the chief minister decides not to attend future meetings of the UN C24 is appropriate to the history. The rest is not, although it might form part of the article on the sovereignty dispute. Why the Spanish ambassador clings to a position on bi-lateral talks which HMG has clearly stated is not an option is a matter for Spanish foreign policy and not the history of Gibraltar of which IT FORMS NO PART.

You may feel that what Spain thinks is important, it is not. --Gibnews (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, take a look at Wikipedia:Civility and stop shouting. It would be useful not only for you, but also for all Gibraltar-related articles. Also How to win an argument can be interesting, especially the paragraph that states:

Do not water down your language. Using words like "I think" and "in my opinion" water down the effect of your argument. You must state, unequivocally, that your position is the only reasonable one.

Definitely I prefer to talk to other more sensible guys. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the same rules apply to the Spanish Wikipedia where you suppress the truth about the Isthmus being an integral part of Gibraltar because it favours the Spanish POV ? --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want. I've just asked for you to be just a little bit polite and not behaving as a hooligan. You can provide the diffs where I've said that your editions or whichever are "racist comments", or where I've removed a given POV (the claim over the isthmus is totally different from that of the rest of Gibraltar and even the UK government states that its right of sovereignty is of a different nature -alleged uncontested possession for a long time; so that saying that the isthmus is an integral part of Gibraltar is, again, a POV). Please, read meta:Megalomaniacal point of view, especially the sentence that read MPOV is characterized not by a belief that your own personal viewpoints are correct and thus must be represented in Wikipedia but rather by the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral (replace you with Gibraltar and you'll see the usual position on, for example, the isthmus. Et voilà, you have your pure MPOV statement: the truth about the Isthmus being an integral part of Gibraltar. That's the problem and only when you acknowledge that your point of view must be included but other relevant points of view must be also included, the problems will end. It's up to you. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I read the last entry in the timeline the more I believe that it has no place in this article as it is merely a statement made by the CM. Although don't get me wrong, it is important to include it in Disputed status of Gibraltar and Politics of Gibraltar, but not here. That's my view anyway. --Gibmetal 77^talk 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've said previously, possibly you're right. For me, it seems important to note that the formal Gibraltar claims to be delisted from the list of non self-governing territories at the UN has not been considered by the Decolonization Committee. Maybe a redaction on such a way could be more appropriate. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly no point in including the opinion of a foreign ambassador who has never set foot in the territory. --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny. If an alien read your statement, it would think your talking about the Siam ambassador and not the one of the only country that can allow the independence of Gibraltar. However, you go on with your mantra You must state, unequivocally, that your position is the only reasonable one. Cheers --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When your ambassador supports the independence of Gibraltar instead of Annexation add it to the article on Spain. The opinion of the man from The Kingdom of Thailand to use its correct title, is equally important. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tell it to the United Nations. You'll hear them laughing for years. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) PD: and please, stop cheating with your edit summaries. Don't talk about redaction issues when removing information.

Not as much as the Gibraltarians laugh at the joke about the 'only country that can allow the independence of Gibraltar'. But this is not a place for silly jokes and posturing. The purpose of this page is to discuss items for inclusion about the HISTORY OF GIBRALTAR. The Spanish involvement ended in 1704 as a result of the British conquest. Independence is not within the gift of Spain. Like Las Vegas, what happens in Spain stays in Spain, and Gibraltar is not Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "wishful thinking"? I don't think so. The UK Government on Gibraltar independence:

It is the position of Her Majesty's Government that [..] independence [of Gibraltar] would only be an option for Gibraltar with Spain's consent. (they don't seem to allow a similar right to the Kingdom of Thailand)

You can find the source if you want. And no, the Spanish involvement on the history of Gibraltar did not end in 1704 (sieges, embargoes, United Nations claim, the UK government justifying to Spain every time the Constitution changes...). And that's not because I say it, but because United Nations says that, the UK government says that, every historian that has dealt with the history of Gibraltar uses more than half of the text to talk about the "influence" of Spain in the history of Gibraltar (take William's work if you want)... So the POV you want to promote (the usual falacy of this: "what happens in Spain stays in Spain, and Gibraltar is not Spain"... unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain, but what happens in Spain has a strong impact in Gibraltar) is just that, a POV, and therefore needs to be neutralized (and I'll attempt to do it). --Ecemaml (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to promote your POV that unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain Surely your time would be better spent improving the pages about Spain rather than vandalising pages about Gibraltar, changing words into bad English and copying content from other people's websites to create articles. I could ask user:gibraltarian to return. --Gibnews (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can go on with your behavior. First, I was a racist. Now I vandalize. And finally, attempting to anonymously destroy other guys work seems very nasty (especially when, as it's the case, you're violating the British laws on copyrights... an agreement signed between UK and Spain officials is under Crown Copyright, and the Government of Gibraltar has no power to break the law). Finally, sorry for my English. It's a pity that neutralizing "your" articles make you get nervous. As long as you don't want to show the Spain's POV I'll go on, with my poor English, including it, whether you like it or not. And thank you by recognizing that you have something to do with Gibraltarian. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) PS: finally, partially quoting a sentence is usually called... manipulation? The sentence was, as it can be seen unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain, but what happens in Spain has a strong impact in Gibraltar.

I see you are now turning editing wikipedia into a personal crusade, which is a pity because its about producing an encyclopedia.

• You seemed determined to remove the existing link to the Lisbon agreement, and simply copied and pasted the content to Wikisource. That is against the rules.

• You are alleging that the articles here are mine they are not, they represent the collective work of a number of editors, yourself included, however pushing an unreasonable Spanish POV or indeed excessive unrelated foreign content which has no significance to Gibraltar is not appropriate.

• The user you set up and had banned Gibraltarian claimed you are a racist amongst other things as that was his interpretation of your aggressive and bad behaviour which seems to have resurfaced since Iberia have abandoned their flights to Gibraltar.

• For the record I am not that user, nor do I even know his name.

• Deleting content because you do not like it, and making personal attacks is abusive behaviour and if you continue down this road, it will result in a complaint.

• Where your use of language is wrong. I have corrected it and will continue to do so because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Feel free to correct my Spanish as my use of foreign languages is poor.

In the past you have been more reasonable than of late, and I urge you to step back and look at things objectively - since the Government of Spain decided that it had treat the Government of Gibraltar as an equal in talks under the Cordoba agreement, relations have improved because they demonstrated respect instead of pushing the tired old Castiella proposals, and stopped shouting Gibraltar espanol at people who do not want to hear that.

Gibraltar repeatedly states it wants good neighbourly relations, this needs to be reciprocated and not aggravated.

In relation to the UNC24 if you read the record of the committee over the last 20 years nothing of any substance has been achieved and nothing will be for as long as they will not even visit the territory. The meetings are all the same and quite pointless for all concerned.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you go on using personal arguments attempting to discredit me instead of providing arguments that comply with verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view policies. It's up to you. Please, read WP:CIVIL.

• The history of the article seems clearly that it was me the one that introduced the mention to the Lisbon Agreement and the one that attempted to introduce a link to wikisource including the text of the Lisbon Agreement. I did actually copied and pasted a content that is either in the public domain or under Crown Copyright, just in the same way as you did, so you can give up talking about ethics. BTW, I'm quoting what you've been said in wikisource: Frankly, as someone who has spent thousands of hours and quite a bit of money to make fully transcribed works available clearly labeled as public domain, I resent someone with an agenda of preventing the distribution of public domain work as such.

• I've been told Surely your time would be better spent improving the pages about Spain rather than vandalizing pages about Gibraltar. Your statement is a) an invitation to give up editing in the articles the articles you decide I have to. Sorry to inform that you're not the watchdog of the articles so that you're not qualified to ask me to stop editing in wikipedia in whatever article I wish; b) you've accused me of "vandalizing" when none of my editions, ever, can be qualified as vandalic (please, read carefully Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand what vandalism is); however, editions such as this, where you remove a sourced POV, correctly attributed, on the grounds of "improving English" are much closer to a vandalic behaviour.
  
  On the other hand, you say you're not the owner of the article and, at the same time, you talk about "an unreasonable Spanish POV or indeed excessive unrelated foreign content which has no significance to Gibraltar". Who decides that? You? Your friend the former Chief Minister of Gibraltar? The key point of this discussion is that you strongly believe that you are the one who decides what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Obviously, given your obvious conflict of interest such a claim is simply POV-warrioring.

• "The user you set up and had banned Gibraltarian" was actually banned by the Arbitration Committee and you know that. He used to call me racist, and curiously, unfair racism accusations are one of your preferred "arguments". See here or here.

• You've been the one that has threaten me with the comeback of Gibraltarian (here are your words: I could ask user:gibraltarian to return). Regardless of Gibraltarian being you or not, your words have a simple meaning and it is harassment. I'll open an incident about your threads.

• Yes, please, show a diff where I delete content without providing a proper reason or source (I don't do it like you) or showing a personal attack.

• Thank you for correcting my English. It's actually poor. But it has nothing to do with the actual content of the articles. Using my lack of fluency with the language to make me stop contributing is just another proof of your wish to see me out of "your" articles.

• In the past I've been reasonable. Now I'm also reasonable. Again, it's not you the one that define what objectivity is and what's not. And what's more, you're again lying talking about me shouting "Gibratar español" (again you old tactics meaning that I've said something I didn't actually say). Can you provide a (not mutilated) diff?

• What Gibraltar (and BTW Spain) wants is irrelevant. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not to play the Governments game. I do not have anything to do with any government, political party or whatever. However, I know very well the WP policies and have much more books and information than you (or at least the one you show). If you want your editions to be some sort of extension of the Gibraltar government policies and propaganda, feel free (as long as you present the Gibraltar POV as what is, a POV), but let the rest of people produce an encyclopedia complying with the NPV policy.

• I don't have anything to assess regarding what the UN says or not. It's not our role. We're not a primary source. We don't decide whether the international politics are fair or not. The fact here is that the UN doctrine on Gibraltar exists. And our responsibility is simply showing it, not dismissing it just because you and your friends think it's not reasonable (if the Gibraltar politicians think the UN doctrine is pointless, what wikipedia must say is "Gibraltar politicians think the UN doctrine is pointless", not using such POV as the basis to decide what must be included and what not). This is wikipedia and all relevant points of view must be fairly represented, not only the ones you decide. If you don't want to understand it, it's possibly your problem, not mine.

--Ecemaml (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you do not deny you copied and pasted an article from my website to wikisource contrary to the rules --Gibnews (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you do not deny you have close ties to a former Chief Minister of Gibraltar (maybe Joe Bossano?). Have you read ever this: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? (BTW, it seems quite odd your insistence on promoting your web instead of putting the interesting material you have in its proper wikipedia place: wikisource, especially when it comes to the fact that all the material is in the public domain... see Wikipedia:Spam) And by the way, claiming copyright on a text that is either on the public domain or under Crown Copyright seems... I can't find the word in English... let's say unfair (BTW again, don't worry, I've found another sources to get the text you claim copyright on). Fortunately, I see that you've denied your threads, your harassment... Fine. --Ecemaml (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Hi, Gibnews: Regarding copyright (and your apparent claim of it, please don't be offended if I misunderstood your mention of EU intellectual property acts), unless you are a) the original copyright holder of the document, or b) performed the translation yourself (which, unless the initial document was public domain, would make it a derivative work, and would fall under the same copyright as a)), you cannot claim copyright to it. Sorry --Ecemaml (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic! Wikisource discussions should stay in Wikisource. This page is for discussing improvements to the History of Gibraltar article in accordance with WP:TPG. If you have a grievance with Gibnews, please remain calm and discuss it elsewhere. Thanks, RedCoat10 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RedCoad, including a link to the Lisbon Agreement text hosted in wikisource from this article is an improvement. Attempting to prevent me from doing it on the grounds of an anonymous report about an inexistent copyright violation is, I should say, bad faith. I also remember that Gibnews has threaten me with asking Gibraltarian to return... It's strange that such kind of out-of-topic issues are not equally warned. But you're right in a point: this should be talked about elsewhere. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the wording at the bottom of this page is Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. are you denying that was what you did ? --Gibnews (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, RedCoat10 is right. You should be discussing this over at Wikisource. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest Changes?

Is the title of Wikisource articles being changed? Justin talk 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a post linked to this article on the NPOV noticeboard. Justin talk 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations

There is a section in the article about the Politics of Gibraltar which goes into detail about the United Nations, as the detail is of a political nature. The history of Gibraltar does not need to mention the details of what happened at the UN as that is not in Gibraltar.

Please refrain from blindly edit warring on this and at least have the courtesy to discuss this and obtain a consensus, you are NOT the official historian for Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

a) You haven't had the courtesy of discussing your changes and obtaining a consensus before making your changes. That's the way it works, especially considering that such text has been there for years.

b) Gibraltar was a colony.

c) Gibraltar was (and is) subject to a decolonization process in the United Nations. Therefore, your statement The history of Gibraltar does not need to mention the details of what happened at the UN as that is not in Gibraltar is as pointless as not mentioning the Yalta agreements in the history of the United Kingdom as Yalta (or Tehran) aren't in the UK.

--Ecemaml (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please step back from this, take a deep breath and CALM down. Edit warring is bad. You have included a large chunk in the history of Gibraltar about what Spain did at the UN. The article has by its nature got to be CONCISE as a lot happens in and related to Gibraltar every year, enough to fill a Wiki on its own so the history page is a summary.

I relocated a large chunk of the text, including references and resolutions to the section in the article about the politics of Gibraltar, where this stuff belongs and were people interested in it can find it.

If there is anything else to do please DISCUSS it here. Do add edit summaries suggesting there is some grand alliance between me and others to frustrate your ownership of Wikipedia articles about Gibraltar, please assume good faith. --Gibnews (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And as a self-governing territory Gibraltar has effectively been colonised, perhaps we could include some details about that. Justin talk 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the United Nations don't think the same... but, of course, what they say is rubbish and bla, bla, bla... Obviously, such a statement is a respectable POV, but nowadays a POV. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had in mind an edit discussing the machinations of the UN that allows it to ignore the views of the people that it is supposedly decolonising. I.e. why doesn't the UN think the same, if the people of Gibraltar have overwhelmingly endorsed the status quo in a referendum that was described by outside observers as the epitome of democracy? Justin talk 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting POV (I should say that I sincerely agree with the Gibraltarian point of view about the UN decolonization process). Unfortunately, POVs shouldn't be administered depending on how good or bad we think they are. That's something that, as I go deeper in Gibraltar-related issues I verify that is deeply misunderstood.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecemaml (talk • contribs) October 20, 2008

Edit-warring

Edit warring isn't going to get us anywhere and isn't conducive to reaching a consensus. I suggest we avoid implementing any further changes until there is consensus to do so. I've removed the material regarding Spain at the UN after having realised that it was originally added, or rather rewritten, on the 16 September without consensus.[1] There is obviously little consensus for its inclusion and any further attempts at reinstating it may well be perceived as disruptive. --RedCoat10 • talk 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that and have reverted the article to the above state, excepting I have included the templates, although there presence needs some justification; I looked for it and found none so assumed they were part of an old dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Submarines in Rota

The article, when speaking about HMS Tireless issue, states: "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay[41] and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are possibly repaired in Rota, Cádiz without any complaint".

Now that's a personal opinion, not backed with any proof. The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was repaired in Gibraltar [the cooling system, nothing less]. That's a fact. Spanish officials complained. That's a fact. American nuclear vessels possibly repaired in Rota. That's an excuse written in an encyclopedia without providing further evidence. The burden of proof is up to you, and I'd really like to know what are exactly doing the american nuclear vessels in Spain, as I would complain as well if they repair'em in Rota instead of doing it in the U.S.

Please, correct it or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, that sounds suspiciously like a threat, way to go for achieving consensus. Justin talk 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody likes threats, but the best way to evade consensus is by not reading an argument and focusing in it's last words instead. What do you think about whats been said above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And now the text says "The inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay[41] and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota, Cádiz without any complaint".

Its really funny how, without modifying the references an encyclopedic text can change from "possibly repaired" to "are repaired". Please, provide a source for that statement or delete it. It cannot be that hard! Be objective, for God's sake!

PS: and don't delete again the "citation" tag and say "a citation already exists" when it is simply NOT TRUE. This article is completely unreferenced concerning this particular issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that you're new to Wikipedia, so here are a couple of pointers on how to use talk pages properly:

• Use indentation as shown in WP:TP to clearly indicate who you are replying to
• Please avoid excessive markup (this includes writing in upper case letters)
• You should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment.

Secondly, I have removed the fact tag since the material in question is cited to globalsecurity.org (more specifically [2]). The citation makes it quite clear that nuclear submarines have been 'refitted' (i.e. 'repaired and re-equiped' according to my dictionary) at Rota. Please refrain from removing cited material without discussion or consensus. Thanks. RedCoat10 • talk 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, RedCoat, but the source provided specifically states that nuclear submarines have not been refitted in Rota the last 30 years: "The Chief of Naval Operations deployed Submarine Squadron 16 to Rota, Spain, on Jan. 28, 1964, and embarked upon USS Proteus (AS-19). USS Lafayette (SSBN 616) completed its first FBM deterrent patrol with the Polaris missile and commenced the first refit and replenishment at Rota. During the early 1970s, the submarines assigned to Squadron 16 were completing conversion to the Poseidon missile. That transition was completed when USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657) returned to Rota on Jan. 14, 1974. Treaty negotiations between Spain and the United States in 1975 resulted in a planned withdrawal of Squadron 16 from Spain, and the Chief of Naval Operations ordered studies to select a new refit site on the East Coast. The treaty with Spain was ratified by the US Congress in June 1976 and called for the withdrawal of the squadron from Spain by July 1979. Kings Bay, Georgia, was selected as that new refit site, and the site selected was announced by the Secretary of the Navy in November 1976.".

That's what I was talking about. Besides, I thought that repairing nuclear submarines near our homes was not a positive thing. Perhaps spaniards and llanitos could work together for that matter.

Cheers. And again, thanks for the tips. Cremallera (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is and never has been an intention to regularly refit subs at Gib. It was a one off, the result of a failure in a non-nuclear component. Do you want a nuclear submarine sailing with a defect? Justin talk 10:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Never said so, Justin. I am just trying to keep incorrect information outside of an enciclopedic article. I am aware that never has been an intention to regularly refit nuclear vessels in Gibraltar, but HMS Tireless lied there for a whole year. That's the fact the article states, while adding the subsequent claims made by Spanish officials. But somehow also says "American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota", thus providing an unreferenced statement (seemingly to diminish the legitimity of those claims. Of course, I could be wrong).

PS: nope. I do not want damaged nuclear submarines sailing, but at least they could be repaired near London and not near Cadiz, if you know what I mean. When a country owns nuclear submarines (not the Spanish case), must endure potential risks by it's own. Cheers!Cremallera (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tireless was there for year because the damage was greater than expected and to sail would have been dangerous. The statement about Rota is referenced, that is kind of the point. And the Spanish complaining about British nuclear submarines, having happily allowed US submarines to be repaired for 30 years does on the face of it show an interesting double standard. However, the article presents the basic information to the reader allowing them to draw their own conclusions, it isn't there to diminish those claims. So yes I do think you're probably wrong in that respect. Justin talk 13:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement about Rota is referenced? The report about the naval station of Rota linked gives general and historic information about the base, and it literally states that nuclear vessels are no longer repaired there, as they are being refitted in Kings Bay (Georgia, AKA not Spain) for the last 30 years.

One last issue, please inform yourself a little before saying things like "and the Spanish complaining about British nuclear submarines, having happily allowed US submarines to be repaired for 30 years does on the face of it show an interesting double standard", since Spain was under a dictatorship by that time, so those were not-so-happy times and the democratic officials are not showing an "interesting double standard" when not following Franco's politics. See ya' Cremallera (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement about Rota is referenced, the clue is the little number in square brackets hyperlinking to a section called references and pointing the reader to a hyperlink, which if you follow tells you that US nuclear submarines are routinely refitted at Rota and have been for 30 years. Frankly what happened under Franco is irrelevant, it continues under democratic Spain - so they are showing an "interesting double standard". Rather like Ceuta and I really do look forward to the creative ways to justify why that is DIFFERENT. Oh and if you want to have a chat about the unhappy times under Franco, I'll ask my mother for her opinions. Justin talk 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask your mother if you wish, but remember that there is a difference between being isolated behind a fence and being a victim of a fascist dictatorship. Cremallera (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For information my grandfather could be described as a victim of a facist dicatatorship having fled Spain for holding unpopular political views about freedom and democracy. So I guess she might know a little about it. Don't assume things about people. Justin talk 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Then he could be described as an exilé (one in tens of thousands, unfortunately), not your mother. If you don't like rude answers, then don't be cynical when speaking about painful historical events like a fascist dictatorship by calling in your mother "to have a chat" with me about "the unhappy times under Franco". Respect to deserve respect. Cremallera (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They. My mother fled with him as a small child. Respect to deserve respect? Quite frankly I suggest that you take your own advice before dishing it out to others. And another bit of advice you might take would be not being "cynical when speaking about painful historical events like a fascist dictatorship". Those same democratic officials are still pursuing an irrational claim on Gibraltar that was started by Franco. Thats another interesting double standard. Justin talk 13:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware that Franco was in charge during the siege of 1705, negotiations held between Philip V and George I in 1721, the siege of 1727 or the siege of 1779, as I did not know that United Nations' resolutions concerning decolonisation were admitted even when they are based on irrational claims. By the way, I've read again my comments and I cannot see where I've been disrespectful to you or your family. And, sir, you have been. Cremallera (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where have I been disrespectful to your family? Being direct is not being disrespectful, put it down to being a terse Scotsman. Looking back at your little diatribe I will point out that the last time Spain attempted to seize Gibraltar was in 1779. It was then resurrected by Franco much later, so my statement on Franco is basically correct. And indeed democratic officials of democratic Spain continue to pursue an illogical claim that was started by Franco and ignoring the contrary wishes of the population who have democratically demonstrated on multiple occasions that they do not wish to be annexed by Spain. As for the UN, the UN does not state that decolonisation requires that the population be handed over to Spain's tender care against their wishes, rather Article 73 of the UN Charter states they are entitled to determine their own path. Similarly, Article 103 would veto any of the creative interpretations of International Law proposed by Spain. Justin talk 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you needed to ask, this phrase is quite disrespectful, and not only to my family: "Oh and if you want to have a chat about the unhappy times under Franco, I'll ask my mother for her opinions".

On the other hand, the mere fact that Spain has not tried to militarily recapture Gibraltar does not translate into consentment (why should?). In my opinion, we all should be glad that violence has been the discarded option for 200 years already, to say the least. Besides, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to pursue decolonisation issues in the UN before 1945, when it was created. And that's a statement that leads us to a broader (and more modern) context: decolonisation. Anyway, that's not the point discussed in this section, not even the article to do so (I assume that this debate is being held in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar article). Cremallera (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that routine repairs to nuclear submarines DO take place at Rota on a regular basis and Spanish politicians turn a blind eye to it. If Gibraltar was part of Spain no doubt the same would happen here, but its the case that any old excuse to go Gibraltar bashing is considered fair game.

As regards repairing things, if someone had taken responsibility for the damaged [Prestige|Prestige oil spill] in Spain an environmental disaster would have been avoided. And Lola Palacio is on record claiming that it was Gibraltar's fault. --Gibnews (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, find a reference and post it, Gibnews. I could trust you, but that's not what wikipedia is about. Cremallera (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a reference, although the USN is sparing in its information about how and when it repairs its ships and their movements. They have a dedicated nuclear submarine support vessel that calls regularly at Rota. I understand some Spanish environmentalists protest them being there. The politicians seem to remain silent though.

Nuclear submarines could not be repaired 'in London' and the reason the Tireless was not repaired in the UK was it broke down in the Med. Gibraltar was the nearest BRITISH port.

If you mean the reference to Lola Palacio see here --Gibnews (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I don't need you to tell me about the Tireless, nor how BRITISH Gibraltar is or how irresponsible Spanish officials were in the Prestige situation. What I am asking is simple: if you want to include something in an encyclopedia, you'd better back it up. And don't blame The Pentagon for not sharing the information you need to affirm something, please. The Tireless issue was published in like 50 different newspapers.

Cheers, my BRITISH friend! Cremallera (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you do not want to know the truth about the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar as you have probably only read the fairy tales that appeared in the Spanish media. It may upset you to hear that Gibraltar is British but it has been for 304 years and there is not going to be any change so get used to it. If you are Spanish there are a lot of articles about Spain which need improvement. This one is about Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fairy tales"? I want you to notice that there are at least 1600 Spanish newspapers/webs/programmes for every Gibraltarian one, according to the quite simple population criteria. Don't flatter yourself with your oh-so-great and independent media, as this is not the place.

On the other hand, please refrain from telling me where should I write and where I should not. Besides and for your information, this article is both within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar and WikiProject Spain. Cremallera (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please resist the temptation to be offensive It does not matter how many newspapers there are in Spain, none of them seem to be objective about Gibraltar and that is the subject of this article, indeed many of them simply reproduce what EFE or the PP says about any topic. By way of contrast The Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest daily newspaper in the world.

There is a large American base in Rota. At one time they stored nuclear weapons there and it remained a secret for many years. --Gibnews (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth about the repair of HMS Tireless? Is there something unclear about it?
Look. Nobody's discussing about HMS Tireless here. Since you affirm so vehemently that nuclear vessels have been repaired (and surely are being refitted just now!) in Rota for the last 30 years, I assume you MUST have some VERIFIABLE data about it. Let's take a look at the information provided until now:

A) Report about the naval station of Rota, stating that a "treaty with Spain was ratified by the US Congress in June 1976 and called for the withdrawal of the squadron from Spain by July 1979. Kings Bay, Georgia, was selected as that new refit site, and the site selected was announced by the Secretary of the Navy in November 1976". Unfortunately, the report is no longer linked as a source. It has been silently removed, perhaps because it did not confirm your statement but the opposite. To help future readers of this discussion, here's the link erased: [3] This can be checked just by looking at the article's history.

B) New source nº1: Two-month repair for USS Tullibee [4]. The webpage linked states: "The early months of 1978 were spent in preparation for her fourth Mediterranean deployment. Departing New London in March, the submarine conducted operations with various units of the 6th Fleet. The deployment was marred somewhat by a propulsion casualty which necessitated a two-month repair period spent at Rota, Spain. TULLIBEE returned to New London on 30 August. Operations out of that port took TULLIBEE into 1979.". That was like... 30 years ago. This link just confirms the information already given and does not support the "fact" that nuclear vessels are already repaired in Rota.

C) New source nº2: USS Boone repair [5]. Data found on the link: "On November 30, 2006, USS Boone (FFG 28) lost all steering control in the Mediterranean Sea due to a lost rudder. Within hours of the casualty, numerous US Navy and contractor activities sprung into action to coordinate and complete an emergent voyage repair to return USS Boone to service to support the Global War on Terrorism. The Navy faced a large hurdle to identify and transport a replacement rudder to Rota, Spain, and prepare and carry out an extremely complex repair procedure. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard personnel removed the replacement rudder from USS Crommelin (FFG 37) in Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and transported the rudder to Rota, Spain. The Navy's Supervisor of Salvage and Diving developed the repair procedure and coordinated the repair operation, which involved over 30 US Navy and contractor divers. The repair team completed the rudder replacement on December 28, 2006 and returned USS Boone to underway operations".

Nice try but, at least, you could pretend that you try to inform people by writing wikipedia articles instead of using wikipedia to prove your points. Next time, please, check yourself the data because I don't have enough time to correct every bogus source you post (and I've been nice with the wording chosen): USS Boone is the funniest nuclear submarine I have ever seen. It just looks like a frigate! [6] and [7].

With that said, we are not here to discuss about the repair of HMS Tireless or our views concerning the whole Gibraltar issue. The article affirms something without a much needed reference to the statement made. And that's the key in wikipedia: VERIFIABILITY. I have assumed good faith and waited for a week, just adding the tag of "citation needed". You've systematically removed it without providing the information requested and semi-protected the article. Is there a way to achieve consensus?Cremallera (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As has already been politely pointed out to you the claim is properly referenced by a reliable source. Feel free to ask an administrator if it helps, though I would imagine you'd be disappointed with the response. Justin talk 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Justin, thanks for being polite. You've told me several times that the claim is properly referenced but I can't see it: the claim is written in present tense and the sources provided speak about 30 years ago, which is misleading. I am not asking for the inconditional removal of the sentence IF you can provide current data.

Finally, I'd preffer to talk with you all to achieve consensus rather than asking an administrator, but please do not avoid the issue discussed in this section: repair of nuclear vessels (not the Spanish Media, nor Loyola de Palacio, nor the Prestige Issue). Cremallera (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just making the point that the 'Spanish media' tell lies about Gibraltar and cannot be trusted. -Gibnews (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, yanito... At least you're no longer pretending to be an objective and neutral contributor, you bigot.

Alright, I think we are not understanding each other's positions, so let's get it straight from the very beginning.

I would like to focus our attention in just a paragraph of the whole article, which I think is fine overall. What I am requesting is a reference concerning a single statement. Let's see:

"The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, which expressed its concern about the effective safety for the inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland — some 250,000 people. Some Spanish inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar". Until now, the content is neat.

"The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay[41] and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota, Cádiz without any complaint[42] [43] (...)".

Probably, the Government of Spain used "this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar". Arguably, there are "more severe environmental problems in the Bay" [this statement is referenced here: www.gibnews.net. It would be fine to provide some other sources for it, but I'm OK with that].

This is the sentence I have trouble with: "American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota [42] [43]". This statement is written in present tense, and as I understand it, says that US nuclear submarines dock at the Naval Base of Rota and are currently repaired there. As I notice, there are 2 quotes to back up this statement (and there was another one, a report about Rota, actually deleted). But, both of them link to information already discussed, about a nuclear submarine which held refit in Rota in 1979 and about a (non-nuclear) frigate repaired in 2006. On the other hand, the deleted source mentioned that US vessels were repaired in Rota, but that this is no longer correct as "Kings Bay (Georgia) was selected as the new refit site" since "Treaty negotiations between Spain and the United States in 1975 resulted in a planned withdrawal of Squadron 16 from Spain".

So, we should work together to find out how to rewrite the paragraph according the information we've got. Do we agree in that there is not a single reference concerning the use of Rota to currently [as of today] refit nuclear submarines? I am not denying it happens, I am stating that we don't have any verifiable proof yet. Or do we? If so, please, lead me into it, because I am unable to locate it. Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first I think we need to clarify what we are talking about. Nobody is suggesting that Nuclear submarines undergo a refit in either Gibraltar or the American base at Rota, Spain. Not for that matter do either engage in nuclear repairs as that requires a special licensed facility.

In the case of HMS Tireless, there was a repair to the water cooling system external to the reactor. The detail of that remains confidential and will not be published in wikipedia.

What goes on at Rota is hard to determine, as the Spanish and US Governments keep quiet, but we all know that submarines go there and that the dedicated US nuclear submarine repair ship docks there at the same time. The scope of repairs may be simply to change the washer in a tap in the heads, which is probably all that happens regularly in Gibraltar. Nevertheless that constitutes a repair to a nuclear submarine.

I expect a trawl through the Spanish online newspapers will reveal something, as your Spanish is better why not look and include a link? Google only turned up the links I found. --Gibnews (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[8] Any particular reason why this was removed? Justin talk 10:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also wondering why it has been removed.

And, Gibnews, I quote you: "nobody is suggesting that Nuclear submarines undergo a refit in either Gibraltar or the American base at Rota, Spain" while the article still says literally "and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota, Cádiz". So yeah. We could say that nobody is suggesting it, but positively affirming it, indeed.

That's why I am asking for consensus to remove the sentence or rewrite it if we cannot provide a proper (and I mean both current and verifiable) reference. Still, any ideas? Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between a refit and repairs? --Gibnews (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[9]

Naval Station Rota 36deg/37min N 6deg/19min W

Naval Station Rota, Spain is strategically located near the Straits of Gibraltar and at the halfway point between the United States and Southwest Asia. Because of this ideal location, the base is able to provide invaluable support to both US SIXTH Fleet units in the Mediterranean and to USAF Air Mobility Command units transiting to Germany and Southwest Asia. Naval Station, Rota and its tenant commands are located within the boundaries of the 6,100 acre Spanish 'Base Naval de Rota.' Under the guidance of the Agreement for Defense Cooperation, the US and Spanish navies work together and share many facilities. The US Navy has the responsibility for maintaining the station's infrastructure, including a 670-acre airfield, three active piers, 426 facilities and 806 family housing units.

Naval Station Rota provides support for US and NATO ships; supports the safe and efficient movement of US Navy and US Air Force flights and passengers; and provides cargo, fuel, and ammunition to units in the region. The Naval Station is the only base in the Mediterranean capable of supporting Amphibious Readiness Group post-deployment wash-downs. The base port also offers secure, pier side maintenance and backload facilities. Rota supports Amphibious Readiness Group turnovers and hosts Sailors and Marines from visiting afloat units. The base also provides Quality of Life support to Moron Air Base, ARG support sites at Palma de Majorca, NATO headquarters in Madrid and the Military Sealift Command's Maritime Prepositioning Squadron. Rota also supports NASA Space Shuttle missions, and ongoing operations in the European theater of operations.

[10]

1. Sixth Fleet CTF 60 (Battle Force)
2. CTF 61 (Amphibious Force)
3. CTF 62 (Landing Force)
4. CTF-63 (Logistics)
5. CTF-64 (Submarines)
6. CTF 67 (Maritime Surveillance)
7. CTF-69 (Submarines)

[[11]]

Commander Submarine Group 8 is in the administrative chain of command under Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. As Commander Task Force Six-Four and Commander Task Force Six-Nine, the Commander exercises operational control of the U.S. Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) and Fast Attack Submarines (SSNs) deployed to the Mediterranean. In these roles he is responsible to Commander U.S. Sixth Fleet.

Rota is used to service and maintain the US 6th Fleet, this includes nuclear submarines and nuclear powered warships. I guess we can leave it as it is then? Justin talk 13:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I just want to make 2 points:

• I fully understand the difference between refit and repair. As I am also aware of that "secure, pier side maintenance and backload" does not translate in refitting nor, by any means, repairing nuclear submarines. Meanwhile, the article still says that American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota.

• And, using the same sources quoted by Justin:

[[12]]

Submarine Flotilla Eight was established in March 1963 at the AFSOUTH Post Bagnoli, Naples, Italy and was assigned responsibility for all U.S. submarines in the Mediterranean. To exercise his national operational responsibilities, Commander Flotilla EIGHT was designated Commander Task Force SIX-FOUR (U.S. SSBN Operations) and Commander Task Force SIX-NINE (U.S. SSN Operations), subordinate to the Commander, U.S. SIXTH Fleet

Commander Submarines Allied Naval Forces South (COMSUBSOUTH), was established in September 1967 as Commander Submarines Allied Naval Forces Mediterranean (COMSUBMED). This is the NATO "hat" worn by Commander Submarine Group 8, a US Navy Rear Admiral. COMSUBSOUTH is a separate staff from COMSUBGRU EIGHT that coordinates NATO southern region submarine operations throughout the Mediterranean under Commander Allied Naval Forces, Southern Europe. Commander Submarines Allied Naval Forces South (COMSUBSOUTH) is a functional commander that is responsible to Commander Allied Naval Forces Southern Europe (COMNAVSOUTH) for the planning and execution of submarine operations in the Mediterranean. In order to meet the above requirement COMSUBSOUTH (CSS), becomes the NATO Submarine Operating Authority (SUBOPAUTH) for the Mediterranean area. Located at Naval Support Activity, Capodichino in Naples, Italy, COMSUBSOUTH is staffed by 24 submarine community personnel from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and all other allied naval submarine forces.

[[13]]

The Chief of Naval Operations deployed Submarine Squadron 16 to Rota, Spain, on Jan. 28, 1964, and embarked upon USS Proteus (AS-19). USS Lafayette (SSBN 616) completed its first FBM deterrent patrol with the Polaris missile and commenced the first refit and replenishment at Rota. During the early 1970s, the submarines assigned to Squadron 16 were completing conversion to the Poseidon missile. That transition was completed when USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657) returned to Rota on Jan. 14, 1974. Treaty negotiations between Spain and the United States in 1975 resulted in a planned withdrawal of Squadron 16 from Spain, and the Chief of Naval Operations ordered studies to select a new refit site on the East Coast. The treaty with Spain was ratified by the US Congress in June 1976 and called for the withdrawal of the squadron from Spain by July 1979. Kings Bay, Georgia, was selected as that new refit site, and the site selected was announced by the Secretary of the Navy in November 1976.

After 30 years as guardians of the gateway to the Mediterranean, the gatekeepers of Tactical Support Center (TSC) Rota stand relieved as of July 1999. Established in 1969, TSC Rota’s location near the strategically vital Strait of Gibraltar made it the point man of Sixth Fleet’s Mediterranean patrol. As Soviet surface and subsurface naval deployments to the area steadily increased throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, TSC Rota operations specialists provided the mission planning and support that enabled maritime patrol aircraft to conduct continuous surveillance and tracking of Soviet ships and submarines before, during, and after their transit through the Strait. Data from these missions, analyzed by aviation systems warfare operators at TSC Rota, was then forwarded to Sixth Fleet commanders, providing them with critical intelligence regarding Soviet naval vessel’s acoustic signatures, operating characteristics, and warfighting capabilities. TSC Rota personnel’s crucial role as guardians and protectors of Sixth Fleet’s front door earned them the moniker "Gatekeepers of the Med." With the collapse of the Soviet Union, TSC Rota’s focus shifted to adapt to the evolving missions of Sixth Fleet. The unit became the focal point for the integration of Spanish naval forces into NATO, and it participated in numerous yearly exercises aimed at strengthening that relationship. Although a permanent unit has been deemed no longer necessary, nor cost effective, Sixth Fleet will still maintain area presence in the form of a Mobile Operations Control Center (MOCC). The MOCC, based in Sigonella, Sicily, can quickly deploy to Naval Station Rota to provide all the command-and-control functions of a permanent TSC.

To be more precise, there is a square in the upper part of the Rota's report in which we can read exactly:

Units (striped text not mine):
Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 2
Naval Special Warfare Unit-10
Naval Security Group Activity, Rota
725th Air Mobility Squadron

So no, we should not leave it as it is if we want to keep in touch with reality. We have not a reference for the disputed claim yet, and we have discussed it ad nauseam already. And now, it's beer time. See you soon. Cremallera (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're listing units based at Rota, the write up clearly states that the 6th Fleet is repaired and refitted there. The 6th Fleet includes both nuclear powered submarines and surface vessels. And a reference has been provided, you've simply tried to obfuscate what the reference said. To be blunt, your POV is clouding your judgement. Justin talk 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Then read what I have posted before. Wikipedia is not the place to do original research: the provided sources state that "the base is able to provide invaluable support to both US sixth Fleet units (...)", and since the US 6th fleet comprises submarine squadrons, therefore you infer that nuclear vessels have been refit there, which is a fallacy.

Sure, it is possible that nuclear submarines are refitted in Rota. It could be. But the last documented repair we've found dates back to 1978. To be blunt, it is not me who claims something without providing a proper reference. Cremallera (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And last but not least, given the links provided, the only allusion regarding Rota as a refit site for nuclear submarines states that a Treaty between Spain and the United States signed in 1976 resulted in the withdrawal of Squadron 16 from Spain by July 1979 while adding that Kings Bay, Georgia, was selected as the new refit site[14].

I have remarked this thrice and you have not said a thing about it yet. I think it is quite specific. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the third time; NOBODY has said that Rota undertakes submarine refitting you have stated you know the difference between this and Repairs --Gibnews (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez! According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary,
Refit: to put a ship back into good condition by repairing it or adding new parts.
Repair: to put something that is damaged, broken or not working correctly, back into good condition or make it work again.
So what? It does not alter the fact that you've not yet provided a single current source for the statement discussed, you genius.Cremallera (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you know very well what the difference is between a refit and a repair. A refit is a major scheduled overhaul of a vessel, and is only conducted in a home port suitable for it. A repair can be conducted anywhere. In the case of US nuclear submarines repairs which cannot be undertaken by the crew, eg changing a washer on the tap in the heads, are done by a specialist repair vessel - which calls at Rota regularly. --Gibnews (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the difference. I told you, remember? You can swear to God it "calls at Rota regularly", but wikipedia used to be an encyclopedia, and your word is not enough. Please, Gibnews, provide a current source. You've had almost 2 months to do so already.Cremallera (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1) A source has been provided.

2) Source backs up edit.

See my post on 31 January, you're still arguing semantics to try and deprecate a source that backs up the edit. Your POV is clouding your judgement and I thought you were going to bring in an admin? Could you not find one? Justin talk 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I've added the tag "Failed Verification" for the sources 42 and 43, because they do not lead to information regarding any repairing operation of nuclear vessels in Rota. I am not arguing semantics. In fact, it is Gibnews who tries to constrain the discussion within the mere meaning of the words "refit" and "repair", when I've said since the very beginning that the problem lies in the lack of a proper source. And by proper I just mean a current reference which states something about nuclear vessels being repaired at Rota.

As it has been said already, the first one, "USS Tullibee Repair" dates back to 1979, and the second, "USS Boone Repair" refers to the repair of a non-nuclear frigate (and the link is dead, by the way). It does not seem a "semantic" argument to me, but one focused on actual content. Plain and simple.

Last, but not least, I am not bringing in an admin because I hope that, in the end, we'll understand each other's positions: I am just asking for a reference mentioning a recent repair of a nuclear vessel, Justin. And that's something yet to be done. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The source I provided clearly states that the US 6th Fleet is repaired and refitted at Rota, the fleet includes both nuclear and conventional vessels. There is a proper source, you just dismissed it. Your focus is clearly a POV agenda rather than improving the article and you're not prepared to accept it. So by all means bring in an admin now, let get this settled. Justin talk 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not dismissed it. In fact I've already said that the provided source states: "the base is able to provide invaluable support to both US sixth Fleet units (...)", and since the US 6th fleet comprises submarine squadrons, therefore you infer that nuclear vessels are repaired there, which is a fallacy. Of course you know that an encyclopedic article can't be based on fallacious deductions, and Wikipedia is not the place to do original research, so don't be so fast to blame me for having a "POV agenda". You should take into account that:

1- Indeed, the US 6th fleet comprises both nuclear and conventional vessels (the latter, overly).

2- "Invaluable support" does not automatically translate into repair, by any means.

This is going nowhere, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the content of the sources provided, while the article says "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are repaired in Rota, Cádiz without any complaint", it could say "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint". What do you think?Cremallera (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats an improved response, actually looking for a consensus solution for once. However, I think it needs to mention the fact that the US 6th fleet includes nuclear vessels. How about: "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse for creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support for units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, including nuclear powered vessels, without any complaint". Which I wouldn't have a problem with and neither would Gibness I suspect. Justin talk 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But then it'll be the same as actually is. If you want, you could take a look at the existing Wikipedia article about the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which states "The first incarnation of Task Force 64 consisted of nuclear-powered submarines armed with long-range strategic missiles (SSBN). Until the end of the 1970s these ships were homeported in Naval Station Rota, Spain. The mission was strategic deterrence. It is extremely unlikely that any SSBNs are actually still assigned or operate with CNE/C6F in the Mediterranean". What we could do is to link the phrase about the 6th fleet to it's wikipedia article, and keep it simple, leaving the conclusions to the reader. We don't have current data of US nuclear submarines docking in Rota, and while I assume its quite possible it happens, that's something to be adressed both in the Rota and 6th Fleet articles.

With that said, I'd preffer: "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse for creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support for units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint". Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope thats not acceptable, you're setting out to expunge the point that nuclear vessels have docked in Rota without complaint. That is censoring the article to bias it in favour of the Spanish Government by hiding an obvious double standard. British nuclear submarines are not based in Gibraltar, so we don't have current data of UK nuclear submarines docking either. Justin talk 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Under New Zealand law, it is illegal for nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear weapons to enter New Zealand territorial waters. As noted here, this law effectively bars the US Navy from New Zealand ports because US government policy is not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear material on US Naval vessels.

The reason I'm saying this is that if the Spanish were not prepared to allow nuclear-powered vessels into Rota, this would bar all US ships from that port - just as US ships are barred from New Zealand ports. The fact that any US Navy vessels are allowed into Rota demonstrates that the Spanish are at least willing to allow nuclear vessels in.

As such, I would accept Justin's latest version (with a few changes for English grammar), and would not accept Cremallera's. The whole point is that the Spanish are complaining about British nuclear vessels in Gibraltar while allowing American nuclear vessels into Rota. Pfainuk talk 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Pfainuk, but please notice that the Strait of Gibraltar is one of the most important maritime routes in the world and a strategic passage. Thus, it's not equiparable to New Zealand's territorial waters. Besides to say such a thing we have to provide a reference, not just try to logically infer it [ WP:NOR ].So let's do it, references that do not support the fact that nuclear vessels are repaired at Rota:

1- http://frontierindia.net/uss-trident-strategic-missile-submarines-complete-1000-patrols "Naval Submarine Base King’s Bay was established in 1980, replacing a closed U.S. ballistic submarine facility that had been based in Rota, Spain".
2- http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53167 . "The facility here was established in 1980, replacing a closed U.S. ballistic submarine facility that had been based in Rota, Spain. In 1989, USS Tennessee was the first Trident submarine to arrive at the facility. Another Trident training facility is based in Bangor, Wash".
3- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/kings_bay.htm "A Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was being drafted with Spain in 1976. It would require withdrawal of Submarine Squadron Sixteen from Rota, Spain, by July 1979. As a result, the CNO ordered, in 1976, a study to select a new site for relocating the SSBN tender from Rota to the East Coast. A site selection steering group evaluated sites along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts".

In fact, the last american nuclear vessels to dock near the strait of Gibraltar... Have docked into the port of Gibraltar itself (why not in Rota? There is a large US base and it's really close to Gib). References that support the fact that US nuclear submarines dock and have been repaired in Gibraltar:

1- http://www.surinenglish.com/20080509/news/gibraltar/florida-arrives-gibraltar-port-200805091108.html (09-05-2008) "USS Florida arrives in Gibraltar's port".
2- http://www.gibraltar.gi/locals/news.php?action=view_article&article=3515 (29th July 2008) "That this House notes with concern that excessive Spanish restrictions enforced at the Spain-Gibraltar border delayed the arrival of vital equipment needed by the US nuclear submarine USS Florida".
3- http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_16392.shtml (May 7, 2008 - USS Florida) "Ecologists protest another nuclear submarine visit to Gibraltar".
4- http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08691.htm, a picture of "USS Memphis (SSN-691) entering Gibraltar 20th January 1998".
5- http://www.esryle.com/coblinks/tdish/0728.htm "2006 - the U.S. nuclear powered submarine MEMPHIS (SSN-691) arrived in Gibraltar to provide a rest period for the crew before continuing on to operational tasks".
6- http://www.vox.gi/Local/US_Nuclear_Submarine_Augusta_Visits_Gib.html "Today (27-04-2007) USS Augusta is visiting Gibraltar for a short stay as part of her scheduled operational training. Augusta, a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine ia the second ship of the US Navy to be bear the name Augusta".

So, given the sources provided, I still suggest: The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse for creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support for units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint. Do we agree? Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly no, and to be blunt you have not provided a reference to support your edit. Rather you've trawled a number of references to refer to a closed facility and then used WP:OR to infer that nuclear vessels no longer use Rota. The 6th fleet includes a number of nuclear vessels, which routinely berth at Rota. A compromise has been suggested, your edit has already been rejected and really the endless circular arguments do not advance things any further. Your mission seems to be to expunge a comment for POV reasons, that is not acceptable. Justin talk 11:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on you. You say that nuclear vessels are repaired at Rota. I just say that you have to prove it. And that's what's all about. Logical argumentation basics, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

'argumentation' is not an English word. --Gibnews (talk)

And you are British? See the wikipedia article & a random online dictionary. See you, Gibnews. Cremallera (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am ENGLISH and that word is not whatever you or the Americans might say its an abomination. --Gibnews (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again no I proposed a compromise edit that is clearly supported by sources. You refuse to accept it because you wish to expunge content that you don't like. Now this has gone repeatedly round in circles, we are no further forward. And you seem to be returning to form, being unnecessarily argumentative and raising the temperature unnecessarily. Much like you did yesterday. Like most people my good faith assumption and patience have limits and they're just about exhausted. Justin talk 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Repetition won't make it true. Your compromise edit is not supported by any of the sources given. The most you can affirm taking them in account is that Rota is used in support of units of the US 6th Fleet. You could take a look at it's own article for further information also. Cremallera (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Denying an obviously verified fact is foolish, the edit is clearly supported. Your attempt to expunge material you feel is embarassing to Spain is clear for all to see. Now there is clearly no consensus to remove it, it is supported by sources and you have no real argument against so I will be making the edit. Justin talk 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling and related issues

Mr Kuntz,

• No, I have never heard of BRD except as an abbreviation for Federal Republic of Germany.Now, I know what you mean. I don't think cryptic suggestions like yours particularly helpful.
• Nor do I know what you mean by "MOS spelling on British article" - I have read the MoS and find no support for your position.
• No, "Hapsburg" is not the only possible British English version. "Habsburg" is at least as acceptable (apart from being more correct).
• Your insistence on using an archaic, outdated spelling borders on claiming WP:OWNership of this article.
• There is no justificaton whatsoever for your blanket reverting. Just because you don't the proper spelling, you need not restore other gibberish.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In his book, 'The Rock of the Gibraltarians', 1987 Sir William Jackson, soldier and historian spells it HAPSBURG and that is the way its spelt in Gibraltar and the article is about Gibraltar. I'll be reverting any other spellings. --Gibnews (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1. BRD is a standard term for experienced wikipedians. After the first time I reverted your change, I did put a polite note on your talk page explaining why. Your reply was less than polite.
2. MOS states on spelling that British English takes preference on articles related to British subjects.
3. In British English, Hapsburg is the preferred spelling, I checked.
4. WP:OWN is more characterised by a person claiming they are the sole guardians of the truth and everyone else is wrong.
5. The quoted source actually contradicts you.
6. After making a change and being reverted for a specified reason, the correct response is to take the issue to talk to build a consensus. You have chosen to edit war, even though your quoted source contradicts you.
7. Dismissing other editors contributors as gibberish, is yet another characteristic of WP:OWN. Just pointing out that you've edit warred, responded in a hostile and dismissive manner twice, your edit summaries are quite aggressive. After already being blocked for a WP:3RR violation, you should really calm down and consider what you're doing before embarking on yet another edit war. Justin talk 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews,

It is totally irrelevant how any odd author spells it, even if you are using his work. What matters is which spelling is correct and (in the case of more than one correct spelling) which spelling is more common. Gibraltarians have no definining authority on how to spell the name of the family that once ruled them. Hence I will revert any of your claims to WP:OWNership of this article, no matter whether your claim it on your personal behalf or on behalf of Gibraltarians.

Mr Kuntz,

1. I cannot remember any politness on your part.

2. Still, Habsburg is correct and globally also the more common spelling.

3. Exactly. And you are doing just that.

4. You have not taken it to talk either. Now I have done so. The "quoted source" is not an argument anyone can take seriously as no one book can dictate that we must use its preferred spelling.

5. I feel myself totally in the right. I called gibberish what think to be badly worded sentences, sentences you chose to revert to without mustering any defence of them. I was blocked for 3RR on another article but in fact I did not actually violate that rule. The block was uncalled for. It takes two to edit war.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V), so your 'which spelling is correct' argument is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, even if Habsburg is more common, it's not used in Gibraltar and according to WP:ENGVAR "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". RedCoat10 • talk 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance of that soundbite to this issue. You will certainly not dispute the existence of the spelling "Habsburg" and ask for verification of it. Furthermore, your argument is fundamentally flawed when you pit a "correct spelling" against verifiability. Most words have a correct spelling and we do not dispense with orthography on WP. In this case, there happen to be two spellings in usage in English, but one is dated while the other is increasingly recognized as the correct spelling and more widely used nowadays.

What is used in Gibraltar is of no consequence. WP uses the more widely used Habsburg spelling (just look around) and hence it should be used everywhere, except quotes and book titles (that of course need to be quoted accurately). There is no variety called "Gibraltarian English" - and in "British English" both forms are acceptable, with a tendency to ... (see above).

As for the other issue: "legally entitled to do so" means the same as "have a de jure title to do so", hence your complaint seemed strange. The second wording is not particularly elegant, to say the least. But I tried a compromise version that is both linguistically better and clearer. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RedCoat10, in response:

1. I suggest you check the history on your talk page, my posting was polite your response was far from it.
2. Again checking what the convention is in Britain and Gibraltar, it is Hapsburg, and as pointed out to you more than politely as per WP:ENGVAR the appropriate spelling for that variation of English is apposite.
3. On the contrary, WP:OWN, I politely pointed out my reason for my revert, you simply ignored it and blindly reverted. Its Bold, Revert, Discuss not Revert, revert, revert.
4. I beg to differ, see [15], notice in addition to assuming good faith and that your edits were done in good faith, I attempted to make a light hearted remark. Your reply is [16] and distinctly unpolite.
5. You may well feel yourself in the right, three people disagree with you. And their objections to your edit point out their objection is backed up by policy and reliable sources. Justin talk 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Your posting on my page was neither polite nor impolite. It was just normal. However, your reactions here were not polite, certainly not more polite than mine.
2. Re your supposed conventions: cite them here clearly or don't bother. Simply saying "we should use BrE" is not enoug, as "Habsburg" is a proper BrE spelling.
3. You stated your reasons (though not "politely" and not for all of your changes) but doesn't make you innocent of claiming ownership (especially your blanket reverting indicates this).
4. Lighthearted remarks usually don't help when accompained by insistant reverting. My reply however was in no way impolite. I just added that we need not discuss a certain point and waste our time on it. But it seems I was wrong as you seem to think that "Habsburg" is somehow wrong in BrE.
5. I was in the right re my block as I never violated the rule in question. I also feel in the right here as I have come in good faith, editing in good faith and get pseudo-argument for it (though I grant you, that you are less guilty in this than the other two). Which policies are you talking about? Clearly cite them here or don't use that argument. "Reliable sources" - the sources for Habsburg would be measured in tons. In contrast to this, a lone book cannot turn this around (except of course when we quote this book).

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you're not prepared to listen and its rather a trivial matter to edit war over. Hapsburg is the accepted spelling in British English, WP:ENGVAR would back up its use on this article. I've heard nothing in response other than a rather arrogant "I am right and everyone else is wrong".

You were blocked because of your behaviour I see nothing to indicate to me it was a bad block. Rather than modifying your behaviour, you immediately come to this article and repeat it. You should know better, a slow revert war against consensus and in violation of wikipedia policy will simply earn you another, longer block. Justin talk 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the matter is so trivial, then why do you edit war over it? Remember it needs at least two to edit war.

WP:ENGVAR does not support your view. It merely gives general terms that do not dictate the outcome of our dispute either way, as both forms are accepted spellings in British English. Hence, your postings here not less "arrogant" than mine.

I was blocked after I reported somebody else who had violated 3RR because the admin thought "he has not reverted four times, he has not violated the rule but let's block him anyway" - IMHO it was an abuse of power and unfortunately in WP such abuses are almost never correct on appeal.

My behaviour is actually ensuring that WP does not use outdated spellings.

I will open an RfC for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. Your blanket reverting is unacceptable, your attempt to intimidate opposing views and your misquoting or misusing of policies. Do you seriously doubt that the spelling "Habsburg" exists? If not then your quoting WP:V or WP:RS is seriously misguided. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means open an RFC its a better response than indulging in an edit war, you've already sailed perilously close to WP:3RR already. And I'll remind you that 4 reverts is a guideline not a right, you were blocked for edit warring and from my take on it, it was a good block.

It is a trivial matter but putting erroneous information into an article does not build a quality article. Your behaviour is disruptive, unproductive and is wasting the time of the people who patrol this article. Justin talk 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I have already pointed out to you that the spelling Habsburg exists but in British English Hapsburg is traditionally used. Talking of blanket reverting, that is precisely what you're doing. And pointing to policy and guidelines was intended to simply highlight the problems with your edit. It is rather sad you assume bad faith and decide its an attempt at intimidation. Speaking of intimidation, bad tempered and confrontational responses to good faith warnings are inappropriate. Justin talk 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, and I have already pointed out to you that the spelling Hapsburg exists in British English and was traditionally used. However, recent times have seen a shift of British English spelling towards the (historically more proper, though that needn't concern us here) spelling Habsburg. This is line with the overall trend to take "native spellings" more into account.

My point above was: the mere fact that a book of Gibraltar uses one spelling does not mean anything for our article here, except for quotes and book titles. You cannot highlight "problems with (my) edit" if the policies do not actually speak on the specific issue.

As for "blanket reverting" - you and others are guilty of it but I am not! Why? Because I made several changes and argued for them. You argued contrary for some issues but not for others. But you revert them both. Apart from disagreeing with you contentwise, I have no problem with you reverting what you think to be wrong. But you'll have to state that you think something to be wrong and say why you do so! On all items. Why don't you do this? And if you only disagree with me on the b vs. p issue, why do you revert all the other changes?

PS. My message on your talk was the equivalent reply to your message on my talk. You can be confrontational even while sweet-talking. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My message on your talk page was polite, policy based and a warning is a requirement of policy. That was all. If you wish to read more into it, that is purely down to your bad faith assumption. The message I removed was needlessly confrontational but typical of the way your approach to this issue has been disruptive and unnecessarily so.

Again I have repeatedly told you why I reverted your changes, I don't see the point in repeating the exercise, the reasons haven't changed. Let us see what joy the RFC brings. Justin talk 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

What is the proper British English spelling of Habsburg that should be used in Wikipedia articles like this one? —Str1977 (via posting script) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. Let's leave this section to those that have not already commented. We four already know our respectives views on the matter. Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot accept you trying to limit who contributes to an RFC, I am perfectly within my rights to comment on an RFC. Justin talk 12:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again bad faith by you. I was not trying to limit you in any way but it makes little sense for us four that have already commented to repeat what we already have stated. But since you did, so will I. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As a total outsider to this article, and without having read the discussion above, I say "Habsburg". "Hapsburg" just looks old-fashioned, like writing "Coblenz" for "Koblenz" or "Mayence" for "Mainz". —Angr 12:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found the BBC using Hapsburg, at least in 04. The Independent appears to use Hapsburg, academic papers, The Times Higher Education. It still appears to be used in many history departments in the UK too. As there are two spelling variations, were we to accept both are used in Gibralter, we default back to using what was pre-existing in any case, which was Hapsburg unless I miss read the history. No need to change. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Narson, there appears to be no reason to change. WP:ENGVAR says that we shouldn't switch between varieties of English and Hapsburg does appear to be a legitimate variation in Gibraltar English (the variety which this article should be written in). Pfainuk talk 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Engvar says we shouldn't switch but that's not the matter here as HABSBURG is a proper British English spelling. And the variety to use here is British English, not a supposed "Gibraltar English". Should we write articles on Birmingham in Brummie? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar English is the English as used in Gibraltar, and is very similar to British English. But where formal usage (as opposed to colloquial usage such as I assume you mean by "Brummie") differs between Gibraltar and Britain, the variant used in Gibraltar should apply on articles about Gibraltar.

You say that Habsburg is a proper British spelling, which rather implies that Hapsburg is also a proper British spelling - and that therefore per WP:ENGVAR you shouldn't be switching between two valid British English spellings. Scarian (below) shows that the BBC does use Hapsburg - searching Google demonstrates that the two are used in approximately equal proportion on the BBC website (136-127 in favour of Hapsburg). Given this, and assuming your argument that British English should be used, we have two equally appropriate spellings. In that situation, the original spelling as used in the article and in the source that that section comes from - Hapsburg - should be retained.

Though I don't have similar sources for Gibraltar English off hand, using the spelling from the source used in the article would not be a bad idea and I also have no reason to disbelieve the Gibraltarians here who say that Hapsburg is preferred in Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry if this link has already been quoted) See [17]. By policy, BBC journalists always use BritEng. Secondly, please stop edit warring over this or the article will be locked. Arguing over spelling never did anyone any good now, did it? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I did point out it was a trivial issue but one editor decided that he was right, everyone else was wrong and embarked on this ridiculous edit war. Consensus and policy are not trumped by strongly held opinions. It is also worth noting that I did take the trouble to comment on his talk page but received a less than polite reply, comments here based on policy based arguments are just ignored. What do you do when one editor decides to be needlessly disruptive? Justin talk 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS see User talk:Str1977, clear WP:3RR violation and 2 x warnings for reverting the edits of three other editors. Justin talk 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your pointing out that it was a trivial matter is contradicted by your die-hard insistence on your version. It is not a matter of me vs. everybody else - you, Mr Kuntz, are not everybody else. I was wrongly blocked at another article. Finally, anyone can post warnings out other people's talk page, even you. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, inserting the word penis everywhere is a fairly trivial matter, it will still get a revert. That it is trivial does not mean it should be allowed to stand. If we allowed someone to do it once, they might go around other articles starting off edit wars over EngVar. You are trying to change one perfectly acceptable and long standing (article wise) spelling to annother acceptable one. What is the net gain? Nothing. Just WikiDrama and edit count. I think at this point it is pretty clear you won't develop consensus for change, so might I suggest everyone hits random article and finds something more interesting to do? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the example you give is not a trivial matter but a case of vandalism. Do you compare my edits with vandalism?

And despite your claims, Engvar does not support your view. The Wikidrama is cause by those insisting on an increasingly obsolete spelling for no other reason than their whim. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't a case of insisting on my version, its a matter of following guidelines as per WP:ENGVAR that the generally accepted British English spelling would be appropriate in this article. Correcting a deliberately introduced error is perfectly acceptable no matter how trivial the spelling issue is. However, edit warring over a trivial matter, coming close to another WP:3RR block so shortly after the last one and still insisting that everyone else is wrong clearly shows you haven't learned from that experience. Justin talk 15:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep on referring to Engvar - what are the words actually supporting your view? I found none!

"Correcting a deliberately introduced error is perfectly acceptable" - That what I did! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No you deliberately introduced a spelling variation that conflicts with the policy and convention on Wikipedia. In case you hadn't noticed the consensus is against your edit both before and after your RFC. Justin talk 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Not only me but three other editors (Gibmetall77, Gibnews and Redcoat10) reverted your edits and pointed out the same reasons. Another three editors since (Pfainuk, Narson and Scarian) agree with our comments. And one (Angr) who expressed support because it looked "old fashioned" but offered no policy based argument. So it is pretty much you against everyone else. Justin talk 16:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Three still doesn't mean everybody. And discounting opposing arguments for spurious reasons (you say he is not policy based - neither are you. You talk a lot about policies but you never cite them because they would not support you.) indicates that you will manipulate anything to get your way. I can do that too: One of your supporters is a well known troublemaker and some are quoting nationalist arguments. Feel better now? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NPA --Gibnews (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 )UTC)

WP:ENGVAR, WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:V take your pick. Hapsburg is preferred according to WP:ENGVAR, the source for the edit meets reliable sources WP:RS, WP:V Hapsburg is used in the source. As someone else has already pointed out the preferred spelling should reflect the source. All policy based objections, indeed everyone opposing this change puts forward their case on the basis of policy and good practise. The one person who supported you didn't, which is not to discount their view by their way and is not a spurious argument since consensus is about weighing up the strength of argument. Now my argument is policy based and I am not manipulating anything to get my own way and right from the very start I have approached this in a calm, reasonable manner. Yet again you've resorted to a needless personal attack, see WP:NPA needlessly generating heat and light over a trivial matter. Justin talk 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I previously said In his book, 'The Rock of the Gibraltarians', 1987 Sir William Jackson, soldier and historian spells it HAPSBURG and that is the way its spelt in Gibraltar and the article is about Gibraltar. The article makes extensive reference to that book. After all we refer to Spain and not its real name España because this IS the English wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one book. HABSBURG is a proper British English spelling too. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally agree --Gibnews (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Both are proper English spellings, with B on the up and P on the down. Hopefully one day the ghibberish, ignorant P spelling will be eradicated from the face of the earth. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to be offensive about this; The spelling in common use in Gibraltar is HAPSBURG. It also seems that the consensus here is to leave it that way. Even you spelt it that way before editing the talk page.

As regards your edit about 'the Gibraltar Question' it is termed that way by the Government of Spain, and that is specifically why the word Spain is used. Kindly do not change things if you do not understand. --Gibnews (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Either spelling is acceptable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the leading undergrad text on this topic is The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 by Charles W. Ingrao (Cambridge University Press, 1994). So, I take it that the leading scholars in the field now prefer "Habsburg". So, I agree that "Hapsburg" is now a little old-fashioned. On the other hand, popular usage often lags behind scholarly usage, so I don't really think "Hapsburg" is wrong. Probably either is acceptable in contemporary usage. Adam_sk (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Habsburg is the most common spelling. Even the Hapsburg link in the article goes to House of Habsburg. Tom B (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd certainly spell it "Hapsburg".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tireless

The point of the judgement of the European Court was that Britain was under no EU obligation to inform the public - ie the people of Gibraltar - about a military radiological incident.

Not that there was any incident, and the case was simply brought by Spain to try and make trouble over Gibraltar, as usual.

One could compare that the the real radiological incident which occured with a release of 137Cs from the civil Acerinox plant in Algeciras where they did not inform anyone, and it was only detected when it set off alarms in France.

If you read the summary of the judgement, it provides protection for the military and that is why including the word is important. --Gibnews (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, don't worry. The statement hardly can represent a Spanish POV since it is taken literally from the Official Gibraltar Website and reflects the exact wording chosen by the European Court of Justice in a declaration that backs up Britain's position and not the Spanish one. I see that you think that the words "the public that might be affected by a radiological emergency" reflect a pro-Spanish bias, but can't be the case, as it is simply the text comprised in the fifth article of the "Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989": "Member States shall ensure that the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency is given information about the health protection measures applicable to it and about the action it should take in the event of such an emergency". Thus, the Gibraltarian authorities decided to use the sentence as a headline in the article they published in their own official webpage.

No hidden intentions here, but accepting your point, now it is clear that it was about a military radiological incident. Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Acerinox Accident

Tireless issue belongs to the History of Gibraltar article. Any reference (official ones are better, aren't they?) should be welcomed.

Acerinox accident does not, even if you feel that by including it you contribute to "neutrality". The Tireless was repaired at Gibraltar by governmental decision (out of necessity), an accident in a stainless steel manufacturing processing plant has nothing to do with the government, but the wastes were also decontaminated and storaged properly, of course, under scrutiny of the Spanish officials. Any particular reason why the reader might be interested in an accident which did not affect the history of Gibraltar? Cremallera (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is intended as a counterpoint to your placing a comment out of context to infer complacency and a lack of suitable radiological safegaurds, when the converse is actually true. An accident at a Spanish plant where radiological safeguards are the responsibility of the Spanish Government and the protection systems so inadequate they didn't even detect the accident puts the Spanish concerns over a minor repair to a nuclear submarine into context. Finally, the plant released an airborne cloud of contamination so are you suggesting this magically bypassed Gibraltar? I'm happy to remove my edit if the need for it is removed. Justin talk 11:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My addition is not out of context (please, assume good faith): it is the literal transcription of a press release (by the Gibraltarian authorities) concerning the complaint made to the European Court of Justice regarding the Tireless case, included in a paragraph about this very issue. Somehow you felt that it was "to infer complacency and a lack of suitable radiological safeguards", and to balance things you included how diligent the UK government was. That's quite fine! A rational addition.

But in a later edit you felt compelled to include the Acerinox issue when it's been already stated that "there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay", you could cite the Acerinox accident there, but it is quite improper to use an industry accident as a response to a politic decision don't you think? Cremallera (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your addition is out of context, you lift one item from the source, much like when a critics review says "not that brilliant" and the quoted review on the poster says "...brilliant". Its accurate but paints a deliberately misleading picture. WP:AGF does not require a suspension of common sense, nor to ignore the bad faith precursor to this discussion - and you have needlessly created conflict many times before. We both understand exactly what your motive is but I am not going to indulge you in an edit war. I have made an offer, I am happy to remove the comment if you remove the need for it. Until then it stays. Justin talk 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the entire headline of the article. This is not a negotiation. If you think that your addition is not necessary, be bold and remove it. I won't remove a referenced statement from an official gibraltarian source just to please another editor. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things about that 'official gibraltarian source' the correct usage is Gibraltar not Gibraltarian and that site is not run by the Government of Gibraltar but bya commercial company.

The important thing is the court ruling, where they threw out Spain's complaint on the grounds that a military matter does not infringe any EU noorms. That is what wikipedia needs to show. --Gibnews (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree more, and that's why the phrase "concluding that the UK does not have to inform the public that might be affected by a radiological emergency" was included, to begin with. Later, and accepting you were quite right, I added the word "military", to clarify things. But it has been thrown down the well in favour of "and was rejected outright, with full costs awarded to the UK" and actually the article does not explain the reasoning behind and just reflects the outcome.

PS: the webpage "http://www.gibraltar.gi/" claims to be the "Official Gibraltar Website". I haven't investigated further.

En fin... See you, Gibnews. Cremallera (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fallacy by Association

What would you think after reading those 2 phrases together? Gibraltar is a Financial Centre. Financial Centres are used in financing mafia and terrorist networks. Both are factually correct, but they lead to a fallacious deduction when put together.

That's just what has been done in the last revision of this article with 2 statements:

1- The base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint.

2- The U.S. Sixth Fleet includes nuclear vessels such as aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class as part of CTF-60 and nuclear submarines as part of CTF-64. USN vessels also routinely carry nuclear weapons and official US policy is to neither confirm nor deny their presence. Nimitz carriers at Rota? Jesus Christ!.

Please notice that the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) covers approximately half of the Atlantic Ocean, from the North Pole to Antarctica; as well as the Adriatic, Baltic, Barents, Black, Caspian, Mediterranean and North Seas.

NAVEUR-NAVAF covers all of Russia, Europe and nearly the entire continent of Africa. It encompasses 105 countries with a combined population of more than one billion people and includes a landmass extending more than 14 million square miles.

The AOR covers more than 20 million square nautical miles of ocean, touches three continents and encompasses more than 67 percent of the Earth's coastline, 30 percent of its landmass, and nearly 40 percent of the world's population.

Somehow, all this is linked to the naval base of Rota in the need to demonstrate (fallaciously) that nuclear vessels also dock there. It's been impossible to obtain a direct reference, don't try it by indirect means. I'll revert to the previous revision for the sake of not allowing disinformation in Wikipedia. Cheers Cremallera (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is at issue here? Whether or not nuclear vessels have ever docked at Rota? That can be proven I believe, even just cursory glimpses at the web pull up anti-nuclear groups who point to incidents in 71. Or is it whether it is currently used by nuclear vessels? I mean, it did used to be a SSBN base, so I am assuming /current/ usage is up for debate? In which case we would need sources to state that nuclear vessels do use it, we can however cite that the spanish attempt for a 'Nuclear Free' Rota was rejected infavour of a US 'Neither confirm nor deny' policy, at least according to one of the books I've found. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! That's what I am asking since the very beginning: sources. Neither original research, nor fallacies. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also found this: http://navsource.org/archives/08/100/0870820.jpg

The SSN Minneapolis-St.Paul tied up in Rota in 2007. Pretty obviously still being used by nuclear reactored vessels. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Narson, that the point. US Nuclear submarines still do use Rota. And the supposed analogy is riddled with logical fallacies, various Spanish allegations about financial dealings in Gibraltar and connections with organised crime have been investigated by financial regulators and not only was Gibraltar utterly exonerated it was praised for its financial proprietary. So any article written for WP:NPOV would of course have to mention that. However, the US 6th fleet, its nuclear submarines and ships with nuclear weapons DO use Rota without complaint from the Spanish Government. That happens to be true, its properly cited and it is staying in the article. Justin talk 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW you are now in material breech of WP:3RR. Unless you revert immediately I will be making a report but as I have already indicated I am not going to edit war and will not be reverting myself. I hope that someone with more common sense will re-add properly sourced material back into the article. Justin talk 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's much better.

As adding references (Statement by the Government of Gibraltar relating to the Ministry of Defence’s proposal to carry out repairs to HMS Tireless in Gibraltar) and internal links (to the U.S. 6th Fleet) are not reverts, I am not in material breach of WP:3RR. Thanks for the "warning", though. Cremallera (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are in breech of WP:3RR, someone has already reverted that material back into the article. Do I take it from that comment that you intend to continue edit warring and should I make a report? Your choice. Justin talk 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that the actual content is right and does not reflect a clear POV? Besides, the correct source would be something along these lines: http://navsource.org/archives/08/100/0870820.jpg and not the current sources shown.

Last but not least, it is not my choice. It's you who threatens me to make a report. Cremallera (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources given are perfectly adequate and note they don't reflect any POV, they do to some extent reflect a need to balance edits done for POV reasons. Now I have given adequate warning that you are in breach of WP:3RR, far more than I need to. I am not threatening, I am informing you of my intention. As always you feel the need to create tension where there need not be. So are you going to stop the edit war or not. Answer is a) yes or b) no. Justin talk 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tireless paragraph

I propose this edit: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremallera (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, which expressed its concern about the effective safety for the inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland (about 250,000 people) — . Some inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any official complaint". Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. A complaint about the repairs to the submarine was made to the European Court of Justice [ECJ], on the grounds of the Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergencyand was formally rejected in March 2006 with full costs awarded to the UK, concluding that it does not apply in military matters . Before authorising any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government had conducted a full safety assessment and concluded there was no risk to the public.

Any thoughts? Cremallera (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Better English;

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterlandin Spain and of the ii9nhabitants of Gibraltar - around 250,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar.^[18] The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident as part of its campaign against Gibraltar, and others noted that there are real environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to support the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any official complaint". Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. A complaint about the repairs to the submarine was taken to the European Court of Justice [ECJ], on the grounds of the Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergencyand was formally rejected in March 2006 with full costs awarded to the UK, concluding that it does not apply in military matters. . Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government had commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded there was no significant risk to the public.

--Gibnews (talk)

Perfect. My english is not as good as it should be. Just some points:

1- Why "people living in the hinterlandin Spain and of the ii9nhabitants of Gibraltar" should be prefered to the original (the actual wording of the article) "inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland". Is it better written? No problems, though.

2- "Noted that there are real environmental problems in the Bay". This phrase suggests that repairing a nuclear submarine (not specifically the Tireless, but any nuclear vessel) is not a real issue for ecologists and people concerned with the environment, while it really is (whether they are wrong or not is another kettle of fish). I'd preffer to keep the current wording displayed on the article.

Agree with your additions. More comments on english grammar are welcomed! Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with Gibnews' version once its been cleaned up. However, I feel that the routine presence of nuclear submarines of the US 6th fleet should also be noted. Justin talk 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is already noted: "Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida[11] and Ecologistas en Acción[12], have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way", a quote that has been in the article for long already. Please notice that the paragraph refers to a repair, not the mere presence of the Tireless. On the other hand, what do you mean by "cleaned up"? You sure speak better english than me, so please, clean it up. Cremallera (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland in Spain and of the inhabitants of Gibraltar - around 250,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident as part of its campaign against Gibraltar, and others noted that there are real environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to support the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including US nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. A complaint about the repairs to the submarine was taken to the European Court of Justice [ECJ], on the grounds of European directives on the health protection measures for radiological emergencies but was formally rejected in March 2006 with full costs awarded to the UK, concluding that it does not apply in military matters. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government had commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded there was no significant risk to the public.

The reference to real environmental problems should stay, there are real problems and the repair to Tireless did not result in any pollution or a radiological incident. Justin talk 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. But we should discuss some issues:

1- The reference to environmental problems should definitely stay, albeit not by saying there are "real" environmental issues but stating that there are "more severe environmental problems". A good amount of people see the repair of *any* nuclear submarine as an environmental concern.

2- The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident "as part of its campaign against Gibraltar" or "to create dispute over Gibraltar", as the article currently states? The Government of Spain has a position on the issue, not "a campaign against Gibraltar".

3- To state "support the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including US nuclear submarines)" and "have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way" is redundant.

4- "On the grounds of European directives on the health protection measures for radiological emergencies". It was on the grounds of one Directive: "the Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" (it's 5th article, to be precise). I can't see why omitting this is better.

5- We should also indentify the pleading parties: the Commission of the European Communities & the French Republic VS. the United Kingdom, while stating that the unsuccessful parties were ordered to pay the costs.

To sum up:

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland in Spain and of the inhabitants of Gibraltar - around 250,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. The Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic filed a complaint about the repairs to the submarine to the European Court of Justice [ECJ], on the grounds of the Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency which was formally dismissed in March 2006 concluding that it does not apply in military matters. The unsuccessful parties were ordered to pay the costs. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded there was no significant risk to the public.

Better? Cremallera (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, its whitewashing key points. 1) Environmental concern is not an environmental problem. Real problems do exist. The comment should stay. 2) The Gibraltar Government can accuse Spain of whatever it likes, we report that, we don't soften it to take into account a Spanish POV. The comment should stay. 3) No it is not redundant, the comment should stay. You have campaigned for months to expunge that comment, there is clearly no consensus to do so. 4) It was simple brevity the full title is cumbersome and was included in the citation. Its not necessary. 5) Fine, but the previous text was perfectly acceptable it shouldn't be changed.

The only real change needed is to change European Directives to singular. Justin talk 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1- The text does not deny that there are several environmental problems in the Bay. Let's keep the current wording. 2- I was just asking, as the current wording is not what you've proposed. So what exactly said the Gibraltar Government? 3- Fine. 4- Not a great deal of text is added. Precision should be preferred. 5- Identifying the pleading parties is a good addition.

Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Fine. 2. Fine, use Gib Government's words. Gibnews should be able to find a suitable citation. 3. Fine. 4. I disagree, its cumbersome and awkward. Brevity is preferrable and is no less precise as it is cited. 5. Fine.

Justin talk 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems that we have consensus. I'll keep the article's current wording on point 2, as a temporary compromise. When we obtain the suitable citation, we'll just need to change the assert without further comments. I'll add the citation needed tag as a reminder. As for point 4-, I'll use your version, just adding "on informing the general public", because it was really the point of the pleads, as Gibnews rightly asserted.

Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No we do not have a consensus; You have re-introduced poor English in places, and tried to say the complaint was from France. Like they make trouble for Gibraltar? There is only one country that persistently does that. --Gibnews (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the complaint was from the European Commission, but European Directives can be enforced by any member state of the European Union also. The transcription of the judgement provided as reference states:

"31 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the United Kingdom has applied for costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which have intervened in the proceedings must bear their own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs".

Let's reword it: France is just a "Member State which has intervened in the proceedings". As for english grammar, what's wrong? Justin is a native english speaker and said nothing about it. Cremallera (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the issue is not that simple. Seemingly, the Comission of the European Communities has filed various complaints:

1. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Case C-218/02, 29 January 2004): Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation - Failure to transpose in whole territory.

2. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Case C-65/04, 9 March 2006): Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - EAEC Treaty - Scope - Directive 89/618/Euratom - Health and safety - Ionising radiations - Use of nuclear energy for military purposes - Repairs to a nuclear-powered submarine - Formally dismissed, as the Directive does not apply in military matters.

Perhaps reverting the edit was the better thing to do, providing more time to elaborate. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In which case I have reverted, consensus is close lets not jump the gun eh? BTW 2 was dismissed on the grounds of the precadent set in 1, that case was lost too. BTW the version you edited was not the version I agreed with. Justin talk 13:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as they refer to different directives. What's wrong with the edits? Cremallera (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong ? Bad English which I corrected and you totally ignored and that you are trying to divert attention from the fact that the complaint made to the European Commission was made by SPAIN because its ALWAYS Spain which compains about Gibraltar, whether its in the EU or UEFA or the UN. --Gibnews (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I've already provided links to the judicial decisions. The European Court of Justice *understands* that the pleading parties in both cases are the European Commission and the U.K. As for the "bad english", be bold and just correct it, but take in account that a significant amount of the edit was taken either from the current article, from your version or Justin's, who seems to be a native english speaker also. By the way, could you search for Gibraltar Government's public declarations about the issue? Thanks! Cremallera (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

The version I agreed to:

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland in Spain and of the inhabitants of Gibraltar - around 250,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident as part of its campaign against Gibraltar, and others noted that there are real environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to support the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including US nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. A complaint about the repairs to the submarine was taken to the European Court of Justice [ECJ], on the grounds of the European directive on the health protection measures for radiological emergencies and on informing the general public but was formally rejected in March 2006 with full costs awarded to the UK, concluding that it does not apply in military matters. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government had commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded there was no significant risk to the public.

Justin talk 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But you also agreed:

1- The reference to environmental problems as it currently is.

2- The words of the Government of Gibraltar. I plainly agree with this also, we should use whatever Gibraltar's Government said. But since we haven't got a citation, we should keep the current wording of the article temporarily. There is no problem here, really, we just lack the proper reference. Provided the citation we should change the assert without further discussion.

3- (including US nuclear submarines), agreement already reached.

All this is reflected in the edits I made (check it out).

As for the complaints to the European Court thing: the European Commission complained. We already knew it and attempted to put a correct explanation (2 case filed, the parties involved, the issues dealt with and the outcome). What's wrong with the later edits, really?

With regard to the proper usage of english language, do you see something incorrect in the edits I made? (Disagreements aside, I mean). See you. Cremallera (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See below

1. To be explicit as there appears to be a confusion, what I agreed to was the words immediately above.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

I didn't see that reflected in the edit you made. As regards the case my understanding was the European Commission got involved as the result of a Spanish MEP petition. Justin talk 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be. I haven't data about it, just the judicial declarations. Anyway, the Commission did not dismiss it (as could have done) and filed the complaints instead (and this can only be done by majority vote of the members of the Commission, where all the Member States are represented). Thus, the parties are correctly cited. Anything else? Cremallera (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think you're dismissing the point entirely when its very relevant. You make the case that the Spanish POV should be represented but dismiss their influence when its to malign Gibraltar and in a way that leaves it open to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy? Justin talk 12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am dismissing nothing, Justin. I just don't know it, neither do you: you suspect it, and suspicion is not a reliable source. Anyway I've been looking for it (could you give me a hand?), but European Union's site is quite a mess, and I've found this so far. Google hasn't been helpful either.

Considering that a complaint can be filed by any entitled individual and the first one seems to have been promoted by a citizen, while the latter was possibly raised by Spanish environmental groups to the European Ombudsman, we should proceed to make the edit according to the information we currently have and not presuppose the hidden hand of the "malignant Spanish Executive". We can add further information anytime (that's always a good thing, don't you think I would oppose to it).

So, the only issue we have to concord yet is the phrase about the environmental problems, perhaps? What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you did appear to be dismissing it, so the edit mentioning the European Commission would also mention that it results from a complaint by Spanish Environmental groups. Who said malignant, I didn't. Malign means to bad mouth, to criticise unfairly. 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So, the edit should be something along these lines:

• 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, with concern expressed about the safety for the people living in the hinterland in Spain and of the inhabitants of Gibraltar - around 300,000 people in total. Some saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar, although the Government of Gibraltar denied it, considering "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent". The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organizations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. Following the protests raised by citizens and Spanish Environmental Groups to the European Ombudsman, the Commission of the European Communities filed various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies: the Court declared that the United Kingdom had not properly transposed the Directive concerning the "protection of the health of workers and the general public" , and formally dismissed the complaint regarding the Directive "on informing the general public about the health protection measures", concluding that it does not apply in military matters. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public and that sufficient contingency in terms of emergency planning was provided by the means of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE booklet). Cremallera (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally I don't see anything wrong the content other than as I have previously intimated its giving too much emphasis on the ECJ, if the reader wants to know more, the detail can be in the footnotes. At present its unbalanced, move more to footnotes and simply mention the commission took it to the ECJ. Justin talk 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting better, note the correct spelling of organisations in English and not the abortion favoured by Noah Webster. I do not think that the GoG report commented on GIBPUBSAFE. Although I have a copy of the report its not in the public domain. --Gibnews (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No UK in 1704

I know this has been argued elsewhere, but a country that didn't exist in 1704 can't have captured Gibraltar regardless what the sources say. English Bobby (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we know. All contentious terms removed. Justin talk 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Er no there not! English Bobby (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NOWHERE did it say that The UK or Great Britain did anything anyway, however all the references say The British and thats who did it, with assistance from the Dutch as noted. Apart from ranting English Bobby has not produced one reference to support his POV - so put up or shut up.

'tell it to the marines' who say:

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 Official Royal Navy site.

--Gibnews (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I could find you a thousand references that attribute the conquests of Great britain to England or the English but that would still be wrong. Unlike you i can see that whilst your just trying a pathetic attempt to rewrite history to fit personnel beliefs about the union and gibraltar. We cannot attribute a conquest to a country that did not exist and saying british imply's UK. So you shut up! English Bobby (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also i think another of your problems is you think you own these articles. Sorry to disagree but you don't! English Bobby (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through your contribution history I see nothing positive or to improve the project. There is nothing to argue about, the contentious terms are removed. So quit wasting everyone's time and cluttering the talk page with nonsense. Justin talk 11:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a thousand imaginary references, what does the Encyclopedia Britanica say? in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Sir George Rooke captured Gibraltar for the British. --Gibnews (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww, looks like i touched a nerve of two unionists again. Don't think i can't see what your both doing. I've seen it happen to my compatriots before, a bunch of brits trying to muscle out the Englishman for trying to defend his countries dignity and history from selfloathers & lundies. As for the article firstly there are several areas where the word british and English mingle implying they mean the same people which is shoddy and secondly there are many areas which still have british in them when the UK (Including british nationals) didn't exist which is also shoddy. Also gibnews you accuse me of having a biased Nationalist POV well your little rant at the top of this section has really made obvious your Unionist POV as well as in another arguement we had elsewhere in which you were totally uncompromising. All in all i'm not going anywhere, one of the reasons i got a user account (after several years of using Wikipedia) was to combat unionist bias like you lot!!! English Bobby (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I join this exercise in unconstructive pedantry by pointing out the the 'Royal' bit of Royal Marines was only granted in 1802. TangoSixZero (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but their website refers to Gibraltar being their first battle honour, and that today they are the Royal Marines. The Encyclopedia Britanica refers to capture by The British. Interestingly enough the Spanish Wikipedia says it was an act of piracy by Great Britain although they do not mention raising the jolly roger instead of the union flag referred by historians, eg Sir William Jackson. A flag which predates the Act, as does the word British. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what british means to you but i always thought it either meant someone from the british isles in a geographic sense in which case the article should refer to the Spanish as Iberians or it meant a citizen/subject of the United Kingodom, which did not exist in 1704. Also the much used quote you tell us actually states "Raised the English flag" at the start (its in the article) and then british after that. This is further proof of what User PFainUK was saying in that sometimes sources, especially ones written many years after the event may have gotton confused. The fact that the Union was brought about only three years after the capture of Gibraltar (By England), it is fairly understandable that writers would either not notice or simply state UK to avoid confusion, even if it is abit inaccurate. English Bobby (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Although its common to call the inhabitants of the British Isles British and was so before the Act of Union, you do not call the Spanish Iberians.

• www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=Capture_of_Gibraltar

Refers to English ships but does not say who captured Gibraltar

• news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/europe/.../3645338.stm

Bad url

• www.gibnet.com/data/exec.htm

does not mention the capture, only the law.

• www.cichw.net/pmbatsb.html

Refers to ships and not the capture

--Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

tell me what you think.--English Bobby (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not common to call people from the british isles british even to this day it is very common to refer to them as English even when their celts. Also several of those sources say it was an English capture, your just being harsh because of your own POV. I beggining to think it won't matter which sources i get your just going to say their not reliable for the hell of it, in which case i won't even bother to count you opinion. English Bobby (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

None of your references refer to an English capture wheras the ones I have cites specifically say British capture. --Gibnews (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On www.gibnet.com below demography it say 'captured by the English' also the others as you said talk of ENGLISH ships and ENGLISH troops. Your just ignoring them. I know we don't like each other but if your going to start being biased then i won't listen to your opinion. These sources perfectly show an English conquest.--English Bobby (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet others say British, But I'll have a word with the editors of those sites and get them corrected as you have highlighted the erroneous references. Suggest you contact the Marines and Britanica and see what they say. --Gibnews (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean THE other source (encyclopedia brittanica) which also states i quote:

"Mentally the negro is inferior to the white... the arrest or even deterioration of mental development [after adolescence] is no doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thoughts."

Yeah really reliable. Mabye you should go on African related articles and show them that. Instead of telling these people their right go and learn some history. But then again you are Gibraltan so its not surprising you don't know anything about our ENGLISH history!--English Bobby (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Racist insults really don't help, You really don't grasp the difference between Britain, the British, Great Britain, and the UK. Its schoolkid stuff.

--Gibnews (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you reap what you sow, you've insulted me before so don't expect me not to do it back, though at least i didn't need to get my buddies to come and help me. Like i said before i've seen you all before trying to gang up on people to muscle them out of what you see as your articles. Well its not going to work and if you all keep trying i'll report you to the admins. Also i knew the difference between british and English when i was ten whereas you can't now (i reckon you way above my generation). Anyway i'm getting tired of arguing with you selfloathers.--English Bobby (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to refrain from commenting as I believe this is leading nowhere, I would like to kindly ask you to stop with the accusations. No "buddies" asked me to "help" them when I removed your previous post where you were personaly attacking a user.

Lets try improving the article together (which is what we should all be here for) rather than waste everyone's time, please. --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It's Gibraltarian, and something tells me you might have known that... --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Working together, that implies listening to everyone which doesn't seem to be gibnews way. And before you jump in defending him just bearin mind i know i'm not near the first person to have had issues with him and his attitude and i doubt i'll be the last. I've given sources which say it was an English Army/Navy and an English capture yet he just threw them right out , then somewhat snidely said he'd contact them and correct them, so do tell me what i'm supposed to do with someone like that? I'm new to this and yet i'm pretty sure no ones bothering with WP:DONTBITE.

As for the last thing you said, that sounded pretty snooty for someone lecturing me. English Bobby (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The only things I'm defending are Wikipedia's policies, nothing else. You haven't dealt with me before so I suggest you assume good faith and be civil, as I am doing/being with you.

In a way I see the point you're trying to make (but please moderate your attitude), Great Britain or the UK did not exist at the time of the capture. However, I also see the point Gibnews is trying to make. The vast majority of sources point out it was the "British" who captured Gibraltar. One source in particular shows how this term was used prior to the Acts of Union (1707). We just have to weigh it out now. --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a foreigner, unionist and labour supporter are somewhat uncivil and inaccurate. In respect of contacting webmasters to correct errors, its normal practice; the BBC respond favourably as has one of our netcops references. --Gibnews (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys? Don't feed the troll. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I could say i'll contact your sources and tell them their wrong, which i think is the flaw here. We all have differant opinions and sources to back them up and no side is going to budge.

As for the idiot above me, i'm not a troll and just when things are calming down thats a pretty stupid thing to say.--English Bobby (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough several times I felt like pointing out the same thing as above. See WP:DUCK. Justin talk 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Gibmetal these two idiots are an good reason why things are not civil and a good reason why i'm not going to bother trying. As for you Justin, you were pretty aggrissive to me the moment i typed something (which wasn't insulting or attacking anyone) so why don't you read WP:DONTBITE.--English Bobby (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

George Hills

I see that Ecmaml is back removing the reference to Hills being a close friend of Franco - close enough to have writen his biography. Hills was also half Spanish, however his obituary seems to have vanished, so before describing his credentials we need a reference for that. --Gibnews (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For Hills obituary see [19], copied from the way back machine. Don't know if it supports the assertion he was a close friend of Franco but certainly he had priveliged access. Justin talk 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better know biographer of Franco than Hills? Curious why this was removed? Justin talk 20:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Franco considered him a friend and as such he got unique access, I expect his book is sympathetic. Haven't bothered to read it though. However on the subject of Gibraltar he is not neutral or a truely British source. He did maintain an interest vin the subject as I attended a FCO meeting at which he was a guest, he died shortly afterwards. --Gibnews (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

I've shown the source that say's George Rooke was English, its just i don't really know how to put it in the article. Like i've said before i'm new to wikipedia and aren't to sure how things work. Instead of threatening me just explain to how to do it.--English Bobby (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So when someone links you to WP:CITE, which explains how to do it, twice, before templating you with a [[WP:3RR] warning, you might like to read the link first. To then complain no one explained how to do it, after being told THREE times (and this makes 4!). Well.

Technically, you've now breached 3RR, please format the link properly and place it inline. Justin talk 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was actually talking about formating the link properly not the rest. I don't care if you are trying to use your admin powers to POV push and if you start to try and abuse them (not saying you have.... yet) then i'll report you! For someone previously lecturing me about being civil you've got a serious attitude problem.--English Bobby (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider.

1) I'm not an admin and have no desire to be one.

2) I also provided a constructive edit summary, nicely formatted to give you a direct link. 4 times now.

3) If you wish to report me, go for it. I've done nothing to violate wikipedia polices, wheres you've breached WP:3RR and now both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

4) If you can't be arsed to learn how wikipedia works, don't be upset if half-arsed contributions are reverted.

5) POV push? What are you doing exactly?

6) I have no agenda, only that the quality of the article is maintained. Which requires that references are properly formatted. That is all.

7) You are perfectly entitled to remove a warning having read it, whereas if you'd left it, you might not have got the second one from another editor.

8) At no point have I been uncivil.

You have a nice day. Justin talk 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

1) i'm being as civil as you are (not much as we hate eachother)! Your tirade above is perfect proof of you being uncivil as are your comments several sections above as another user pointed out.

2) half-arsed? just because some of us aren't sad enough to spend our entire lives here (unlike some) doesn't make it half-arsed! If somethings wrong i'm within my rights to change it, particulary when i have a source!

3)POV-yours is that you think you own this site!

4)I'm trying to make this article historicly accurate in which terms like British and Britain are not used before the union, and am getting sick and tired of arguing with people who feel they own article's (thats just you and gibnews at the moment).

So you have a damn nice day kuntz!--English Bobby (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to point 4 - this is an outright lie. --Gibnews (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I am utterly ambivalent. If you "hate" me, then that is your problem not mine. Justin talk 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You would think its a lie gibnews since you have no knowlage of history other than your little unionist world. Unfortunatly for you the wiki articles for the Union, Kingdom of Great Britain and Queen Anne seem to share my view!

As for you kuntz i'm terribly sorry for assuming you didn't like me, i just failed to notice your general warm and friendly attitude, though it seem many others fail to see it aswell!--English Bobby (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with 'unionists' but this is Wikipedia, we attempt to be nice to each other - try reading British people and get some perspective about your nationality. --Gibnews (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Justin talk 09:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow you two are joint at the hip!, where there's one there's the other. You don't like being called a unionist, then i would ask why someone writes "rule brittania" in the history page to somebody who's actually a British national? As far as i'm concerned you are ethnically foreign to me, but we are the same nationality (thats the differance between English and british). Would seem our very differant politics was the reason!

As for being nice, looking through your histories your both pretty rude and aggressive to anyone who dares to edit "your" articles.

And lastly British people. Perhaps you should reread it gibnews, as it state where it does state that before the union there were some rare references to "british" it wasn't really untill many years AFTER the union that british really started being used. The pages i gave above still support what i've said!--English Bobby (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5