Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:19, 22 December 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gibraltar Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 2004 - Nov 2005 Archive 2 Nov 2005 - Dec 2005 Archive 3 Dec 2005 - Nov 2006 Archive 4 Dec 2006 - Apl 2008 Archive 5 Apl 2008 - Feb 2009

Conquered by England!

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

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

This is WP:LAME. What history books? When does it date from? Who was the author? Why does your interpretation of who the British are trump everyone elses? Was Scotland an ally of England in 1704? What Ireland an ally of England in 1704? What Irish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? What Scottish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? Does the raising of the Union flag mean that the Kingdom of Great Britain existed in 1704? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the Treaty of Utrecht say? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically it did not become British till the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which of course refers to the state formed by the Union of Scotland and England), the initial occupation included Dutch and British forces. Do you have a source for the edit you wish to make? And on a personal note the confrontational attitude you're adopting is counter productive, as is threatening admin action on a content dispute in which you are involved. Justin talk 09:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages, Queen Anne was Queen of of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1704. "Conquered by Britain" therefore seems appropriate. RedCoat10 • talk 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Then as it was (quickly) occupied in the name of Queen Anne, preceding the ToU, then I assume the long standing intro was in fact correct.

Jackson specifically refers to UNION flags being raised after the capture. Misplaced Pages says When the first flag was introduced in 1606, it became known simply as "the British flag" or "the flag of Britain". I am not using Misplaced Pages as a source, however it needs to be consistent and using a British flag suggests British activities. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson also refers to "The British units in the landing forces " (page 96). - RedCoat10 • talk 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove my compromise edit in favour of the previous consensus text. Justin talk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You could be right. Though he went about it the wrong way in edit warring. Would my compromise wording suffice? Justin talk 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Pfainuk talk 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gibraltar was conquered in the name of Charles III of Spain, but Rooke realising the advantages ordered the raising of the Union Flag Rather than being occupied in the name of a state, it was done in the name of Queen Anne, who became Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland on 8 March 1702. Under the ToU it was given to the Crown of Great Britain. So the issue is arguable. In 2004 we celebrated the tercentenary of British Gibraltar.

• Description of the tercentenary

The Siege of Gibraltar was a military action during the War of the Spanish Succession during which the fortress of Gibraltar was captured by allied British and Dutch forces after a three days’ siege, on August 4th, 1704. The attack was carried out by a brigade of Dutch and British Marines.

• The Official Royal Navy site says this

During the war with France and Spain, the British attacked the Rock of Gibraltar: 1,900 British and 400 Dutch marines prevented Spanish reinforcements reaching the fortress. Later, British ships bombarded the city while marines and seamen stormed the defences. These later withstood nine months of siege. Today the Royal Marines display only the battle honour "Gibraltar", and their close relationship with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps continues.

The only thing we can be sure of is it ceased to be Spanish in 1704. --Gibnews (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things, I would suggest that it is not uncommon for the authors of sources either to forget that 1704 was before the Union or to ignore what they perceive to be a relatively minor inaccuracy in order to make their points. But it is still inaccurate to suggest that there was a British state before 1707 and it would be better for us to be as accurate as is reasonably possible.

Justin's compromise - which is what is currently in the article - does not specifically name "Britain" as the captor, and as such I have no problem with it. It is clear from this compromise that Spanish control of Gibraltar ceased in 1704. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conquered by the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland would be most appropriate IJA (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK did not come around until 1707. Gibralta was conquered by ENGLAND. The Unionist fanatics will just have to live with that!--English Bobby (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just two things, Misplaced Pages relies on what others say and they say 'the British' as cited. Secondly Queen Anne was the monarch for England, Scotland and Wales. Apart from that, whats the problem ? --Gibnews (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No your wrong. Queen anne was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland all differant nations at the time. Also some sources say British others English. The British ones were most likly written after the union happened some years later, mistaking English for British happens alot particulary on wikipedia where the unionists are trying to brush out England and Scotlands exsistance. Your beloved Union will be dead soon so give up.--English Bobby (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

'British' refers to the people rather than a state, there are references to support that. As for the Union, I believe the next Conservative Government plans to abolish regional assemblies as a waste of money so its not dead yet. I have yet to see a reference saying conquered by England. Turning to allegations of agenda - I'm English AND understand the language including advanced features like the use of apostrophes. --Gibnews (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

British refers to people from the United Kingdom or the British ilses, though thats like calling the spanish 'Iberians'. The fact is Britain was not a political nation at the time, most people grasp this unlike you. As for the your little Union the conservatives are generally more simpathetic to the Anglo-Saxon cause than liberal parties and understand the feeling among English people. If you were a proper Englishman then you would understand this and would stop trying to rewrite history. But whatever makes you happy i guess!--English Bobby (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is neither a forum nor a soapbox, so please stop treating it as such. This talk page is here only to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss UK politics. If you do not have any changes to suggest, please end this discussion. Pfainuk talk 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All i was trying to do was stop people changing English history. As for the politics i was hardly saying anymore than gibnews.--English Bobby (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about the whys and wherefores. This discussion is not about improving the article, so it doesn't belong here. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well frankly i do care about this. The whole union thing maybe was of the track a little but the English/british point is relevant. Certain people are trying to airbrush Englands history out of existance which is very insulting to the growing number of us who are proud to be English! I can see your attemting to defend your chum. English Bobby (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The "English/British point", as you put it, is relevant, and I'm not objecting to further discussion on it, if you or others feel that the article as it is now requires further change (bearing in mind that it does not claim that Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704). What I object to is the argument on the future of the union, which is totally irrelevant to any changes proposed to this article and took up most of your discussion. I made this clear in my original comment.

It is also inappropriate to make accusations such as that of "trying to airbrush Englands history out of existance" or of being "Unionist fanatics" and such like - which are likely to cause unnecessary division. There's no evidence that any editors here have any intention other than to improve the encyclopædia. Pfainuk talk 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Gibnews was trying to change history by saying it was the BRITISH who captured Gibralta and secondly i spend half my time on this site correcting pages on events before 1707 where people have put British instead of the rightful ENGLISH. All you have to do is look because its everywhere. So there's the evidence! English Bobby (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And this discussion is going exactly the same way as the last one. We are not discussing the article, we are discussing who said what. So, I'll simply suggest you reread WP:AGF and note that unless you are actually proposing to make any change, I consider this discussion over. Pfainuk talk 13:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. I suggest you read WP:BITE. I did not ask to argue with you in the first place! English Bobby (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Gibraltar, its not spelt Gibralta - secondly Misplaced Pages relies on references and as far as I can see all the references refer to 'the British' I took a photo of the statue of Admiral Rook which refers to the tercentenary of British Gibraltar. I've given two references that support that point. I have no idea how the troops were referred to at the time, although can guess what the Spanish called them, however as wikipedia relies on references and not nationalist opinions, I maintain it was captured by the British - with Dutch assistance. --Gibnews (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite right on all counts - except for the conclusion. Misplaced Pages relies on references, and the only state that the references we've seen so far ascribe these soldiers to (aside the Netherlands) is the Kingdom of Great Britain. But the whole point in sources is to prove, to a reasonable standard, the facts. Where a source says something that is demonstrably inaccurate - such as when they ascribe a military action to a state three years before that state was created - it is surely within the spirit of the rule to ignore it.

At the same time, we can't say they were English without sources to that effect (as that is original research by editors). So the current compromise - where we don't say who it was - is a good option. We can also, if you like, source "Anglo-Dutch" to The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945 by Clive Finlayson, page 24. Pfainuk talk 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain did not exist at the time so you are wrong. Everyone (well allmost) knows that the UK was formed in 1707 so your unionist opinion is wrong! English Bobby (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing the words 'Great Britain' or the 'UK' - however before getting steamed up please read union flag which itself predates the capture. Jackson in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians" refers to the flag on P99 and the territory having been transformed into 'British Gibraltar' by 1706. Again predating events in Queen Anne's Kingdom(s). --Gibnews (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was simply saying that the Union did not exist at the time and saying otherwise is wrong and fairly offensive English Bobby (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read This. --Gibnews (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he may have raised the old union flag (not the modern one) all i was complaining about was you saying Gibraltar was captured by the British rather than the English. That is wrong. Also bare in mind that at the time the scots had their own version of the flag (the st Andrews superinposed on the St George) so in many ways at the time it was an English flag. English Bobby (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point Gibnews was trying to make with that link is that the Monarch already referred to the Kingdoms of England and Scotland as the Britains 100 years prior to the union. In that case, there is nothing wrong with saying that Gibraltar was conquered by the British. --Gibmetal 77 11:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the flag Gibraltar was captured by an ENGLISH army acting on the orders of an sovereign ENGLISH government (not including allies). Scotland was not even in the war until the act of union. English Bobby (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion but its not what the references say. --Gibnews (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the references scotland was not in the war at the time so it can not have been a British conquest. Your just sticking your unionist opinion here! English Bobby (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, this is getting silly. It doesn't say "captured by the British", nor does it say "captured by the English" - so what's the problem? Mind you, it doesn't make much of a difference... Gibraltar was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain, is British, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. RedCoat10 • talk 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your right this is silly. Misplaced Pages is the only website i've ever been on where the English people have to compromise their existance and history because of certain peoples political views be they labours PC selfloathing unionist brigade (see above), celtic supremacists or general Anglophobes!--English Bobby (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We have no evidence beyond our own assumptions that it was the English armed forces, as opposed to the Scottish armed forces or a combination of the two, who took Gibraltar. It's true that it's much more likely it was England (given that Scotland did not fight the War of the Spanish Succession until the Union), but without a source to back it up that's original research. The closest our sources come is "Anglo-Dutch" - and that's hardly authoritative since the "Anglo-" prefix is also commonly used to denote the UK. Pfainuk talk 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it makes a change from being attacked by Spanish and Irish Nationalists, I think English Bobby needs to tone his abuse down and out. User:RedCoat10 is, I believe, a Gibraltarian and anyone accusing me of being PC a labour supporter or a unionist is out of order.

The principle as I understand it of Misplaced Pages is that if reliable references say Smurfs invaded Gib, then thats what we put. In this case they say 'The British'. A historian tells me that the act of Union merely rubber stamped the status quo, and Misplaced Pages itself shows that the inhabitants of the British Isles were commonly called 'British' before that date. --Gibnews (talk)

If a source - or many sources - say something that is demonstrably inaccurate then it would be strange to accept that as fact. We are not required to do this as it is plainly bad for the encyclopædia.

You suggest that the union did nothing but rubber stamp the status quo. It's arguable. Scotland and England acted independently until at least 1706, when the Treaty of Union was signed. See, for example, the Scottish Act of Security 1704, which provided Queen Anne would be the last monarch of both England and Scotland. Obviously that act was voided by the Act of Union - but not until the Act of Union. In 1705, England passed the Alien Act, which launched a trade embargo against Scotland and declared Scots to be aliens. In this context, I don't think we can reasonably imply that these were both parts of the same state.

The fact that is indisputable is that, formally speaking, England and Scotland did not unite to become a single state until 1707. That the troops capturing Gibraltar were English, Scottish, or a mix of English and Scottish. It is inaccurate to describe them as "British". Pfainuk talk 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If your going to say it was captured by the British purely on geographical grounds then you should say it was captured from the IBERIANS. The fact that the Union did not even exist at the time makes that unlikly. As for the smurf comment that just shows the serious flaw with wikipedia. Also your tone is no better than mine, though i'm not the one trying to rewrite history to satisfy your obvious political beliefs. English Bobby (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The references say it was captured by the British, with assistance from the Dutch. It was most certainly NOT captured in the name of England. --Gibnews (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well as everyone above agrees, that would be unlikly since there were no british or UK. If its so hard for you to grasp then why don't you find a reference that tell you when the union came about. Here's a clue (1st May 1707)--English Bobby (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing the discussion when you have no understanding of British history, and cannot even use the language correctly.

But in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Sir George Rooke captured Gibraltar for the British. ... Encyclopedia Britanica

--Gibnews (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good get lost then! My understanding of British history is alot better than yours.--English Bobby (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So you say. I expect you were taught it in school more recently. --Gibnews (talk)

Mabye you should stop watching american TV, since their the only people i've ever met (other than you) who can't tell the difference between British and English. Then again your not English so i understand that you know nothing of our history.--English Bobby (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:npa and also learn to write English properly, its regrettable that kids today cannot capitalised correctly. --Gibnews (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You tell me not to make personal attacks and then attack my spelling. For all you know i could have writing and spelling problems. Its regrettable old people can go senile.--English Bobby (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Personal attacks calling other editors "senile" cross a line, as you've reverted, I've raised it at the admin noticeboard here. Justin talk 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research

The introduction of this material by 81.33.53.43 (talk · contribs) violates Misplaced Pages's policy on original research. The source in question is being used to defend Spain's position, not cite it. RedCoat10 • talk 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

reasons to vote no for spain

I think it should be included the main reasons why gibraltarians want to remain british: they are almost tax free, including some unfair taxations (I think the unfair taxations will be removed soon), they receive almost 6 million tourists, mostly from spain, most due to this special taxation in alcohol and tobacco (spanish citizens in Linea de la Concepcion are very happy with this). Lots of businesses are settled each year in gibraltar, due to important tax reductions (the unfair taxation that will be removed). In conclusion, I think that the economical privileges of being british territory have a major influence in gibraltarians decision, even though culturaly, they feel like 50% andalusian and 50% british, and almost everyone speaks andalusian spanish. Spanish territories surrounding gibraltar feel very comfortable with this status too. If I don't receive a denial, I will try to state this facts in the article in the most neutral way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your original research, so no, because it would violate a fundamental policy of wikipedia. Justin talk 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah I agree that is original research that their main reasons are economical. Even though, it would be an improvement of the article trying to explain to an uninformed reader their reason for the overwhelming 99% that vote no for Spain. Gibraltarians state that Franco policies of blocking Gibraltar were counterproductive, this was said by Gibraltars' prime minister. To talk about their cultural proximity to andalusia is not original research, 99% of them are bilingual spanish-english. An uninformed reader who sees a 99% victory of "no" can be lead to think that Gibraltarians are as british as the people in London. It is more complex than that and the article doesnt make an attemp to explain gibraltarian feelings about britain and about spain, and about their own identity, which could just be defined as "gibraltarian" Enriquegoni (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The first referendum occurred before Franco closed the border, the result was equally emphatic. If you wish to discuss the reason for such an emphatic vote, then as the Spanish minister recently acknowledged the policy of overt pressure has been counter productive; particularly denying their identity. Gibraltarians expressed the desire to maintain the status quo long before there was any economic incentive to do so. Anyway, as I said this is OR and doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages.

Also you fall into the common trap of equating British and English, to be British is to have a duality of identity, because being British includes Gibraltarians, Falklanders, St Helenans, Bermudans, Scots, Welsh, Irish and lastly the Sassenachs to name but a few. As I don't see the need for yet another nationalist argument so I'll draw this to a conclusion with the note that I am both half-Spanish and Catholic. I happen to be descended from the Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain. So now we can offset the accusations of anti-Spanish bias. Justin talk 11:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion, however, lets just make some points:

• Taxation in Gibraltar is quite high, The perception of 'tax free' is used as marketing by the shops as there is no VAT/IVA but PERSONAL taxation is another thing - but we feel we get value for money, with daily rubbish collections rather than every two weeks in the UK and a good health service.
• Gibraltarians are more British than most people in London, having just been there very few speak English correctly. As many as 80% of Londoners are foreign
• Enriquegoni as a Spaniard has no clue what Gibraltarians think.

But the real question is why would anyone in Gibraltar want to be Spanish?, particularly when we look across the frontier and see 10,000 workers unemployed, and the mayor in jail and the council workers protesting they have not been paid. What surprises me is that the Spanish there don't want to be annexed by Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews mate, assume good faith, we haven't seen what this guy is proposing yet. He may well be speaking from an ignorance of the views of Gibraltarians but that could be down to what he has been fed in the media. Lets give him a chance eh? Justin talk 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin. I want to put this phrase, maybe in the section about the point of view of gibraltarians. "People like Dominique Searle (director of Gibraltar Chronicle) or Peter Montegriffo (former Gibraltar minister) have the opinion that spanish policies in Gibraltar during the last 30 years have contributed to weaken the gibraltarian mediterranean identity and to create a very strong british identity" please note that mediterranean identity is not the same as spanish identity, and that stronger british identity does not mean that Gibraltar had'nt got an own british identity before, only that they were more mediterranean. I don't know if any of you speak spanish, but this two gibraltarians state it on this video (in spanish though) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VydLsrJg1I the quote is almost exact. What I have to say about the economic claims. I think that if you write about spanish unbased claims about legality, you'll have to put also the spanish claims which were found correct by EU. The EU considered that some of Gibraltar taxes were unfair and has stated that Gibraltar has to abolish the reduced taxation to business that are not stablished directly inside Gibraltar by 2010. You can find the complete article here (BBC news): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4195531.stm Its ok to say that Gibraltar taxes and economy is legal, which is correct. But some spanish claims about this subject were indeed found correct by EU (that doesnt mean you are not legal or not ethically correct). On the recent tensions part, there have been new and sometimes big tensions between spanish guardia civil and british royal navy, which have almost broken apart the talks that 3 governments had about the issue. I think they would be 3 nice contributions. Gibnews, only 1 point, i'm sure that if Linea de la concepcion received 6 million tourists instead of 6 million illegal inmigrants there would be no unemployement there :) Enriquegoni (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real issue with your first point.

The second point I think you're confusing two issues.

First of all the Spanish Government made a series of unfounded allegations that Gibraltar was a centre for money laundering. That was investigated by an independent body and found to be false.

Secondly, the taxes were considered against competition rules not illegal. Its an old article and we'd probably need to clarify the current situation.

I sense that we may be struggling with a language issue here.

Your final point, the current problems should be mentioned I believe. However, it will need to be carefully crafted given the sensitivities on both sides. Justin talk 00:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although its an interesting discussion, its not really appropriate here; I note the riot in Spain as predicted happened. Gibraltarians have an identity, and its not for sale or transfer. The suggestion its only about money is unflattering. I know the people in the video. --Gibnews (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny POV

With regard to this, I have no more to say what I said in my edit summary: "Wow, the reference explicitly mentions 11 out of 16 non self-governing territories, lists them (Gibraltar is not in the list), and there's a text on it in the Gibraltar article ??".

And I add, in fact, such a mention, if necessary, should be in the section "Spanish position" since it explicitly excludes "self-determination" in the Gibraltar case :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Except the amendment passed, which removed 'And where there is no dispute over sovereignty' so the amendment meant it applied to 16 of 16. The original proposal only would have given it to 11 of 16. UK tabled an amendment to remove the condition, this passed 61 to 40. I think it would be best if we could get a clearer secondary report on it, as it is easy to make the mistake and read it as Ecemaml has (That is, read the introduction of the bill at the top as the result) --Narson ~ Talk • 17:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is that the text only applies to 11 territories. --Ecemaml (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) PS: furthermore, such a mention should be in an inexistent paragraph on the conflict in the UN

No, it originally only applied to 11. Then the ammendment passed. However, this was a motion of re-affirmation (re-affirming a pre-existing ideal) that applied to all Non-Self-Governing Territories. The committee put forward the motion to re-affirm the right of self-detirmination for all NSGT for which there is not a dispute over sovereignty, this would have affected the 11 listed. They put this to the general assembly, however the UK tabled an amendment which passed removing that phrase, meaning the UN re-affirmed the right of all non-self-governing territories to self-detirmination. It is all there in the source. Also, if you are going to tag things, please use the correct tag. That is the article POV tag, not the section. Also if you could please stop marking your edits a minor, that would be good, thanks. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson, I see your point (I haven't read carefully the link and missed the ammendment passed by the UK). However, it does not change the fact that the sentence, as it's phrased, is a clear POV edition. I'll explain:

• You mention that "this was a motion of re-affirmation that applied to all Non-Self-Governing Territories". That's an interpretation (valid in this talk page, but arguable when it comes to the article). Moreover, throughout the whole reference, it's crystal clear that it refers to specific 11 territories (American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands). That is, the text does not refer to Gibraltar.
• Of course that I agree with you (it couldn't be otherwise) that the fourth committee text (even explicitly not referring to Gibraltar) highlights the "self-determination" as paramount principle. Also that there was an ammendment by the UK in the sense you mention (also that it was opposed by Spain).
• However, as you know, "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth" (see WP:NPOV). You're presenting your oppinion abouth this fourth committee text as it applied to Gibraltar when it does not apply. However, if the Goverment of Gibraltar (or any other significant Gibraltarian or British group) has greeted this text as applicable to Gibraltar, it must be included, but always attributed.

To sum up, considering your remark, I understand that, although explicitly not related to Gibraltar (not because I say it, but because the text says so), it would be relevant if considered relevant by involved parties (Spain, Gibraltar, UK). If you have a source on that from, for instance, the GoG, it would be fair to include it, provided that a factual phrasing is provided.

For instance, something like:

The Government of Gibraltar greeted the text approved by the 4C UN on . Although it applied to non self-governing territories other that Gibraltar, the fact that it reaffirmed that, in the process of decolonization, "there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination"; and that the UK passed an ammendment that removed the mention to "dispute over sovereignty", was considered as a support for the Gibraltarian stance .

Such a phrasing would be factually right and perfectly NPOV. However, if there is no reaction to the text by any involved party, and given that the text is not referred to Gibraltar, it's inclusion is just cherry-picking. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you will excuse me, I will answer your bullet points one by one (It may seem blunt but I think clarity is important at the moment, as there seems to be a degree of confusion)

1: It is not an interpretation. It is taken from the text. I do not say that this will have an effect or that it matters or that it is good or bad or see anything into it,simply that is what it is.

2: Good, glad to see that we are in agreement as to what is in the text (namely a press release on the proposal, amending and voting of a motion before a Committee of the UN General Assembly)

3: Quoting policy can be a little aggressive when presented like that, you should make sure you are utilising it correctly (You arn't).

All this being said, I believe this is in the wrong place. I'd move it down into the spanish view personally, as it then provides context for spain's comment on self-detirmination. The whole section badly needs a re-write, as it looks more like notes jotted down at the moment. It is also worth saying that, as it isn't clear, when it says Fourth Committee, that committee is formed by every single member state, so all 192 member states are party of every main committee. The point being that it isn't an unelected quango. Not that I would suggest we remove mention of it being the fourth committee (it is a relevent fact, as differing committees are going to get differing participation due to certain countries not having an interest or having more of an interest in certain areas). I merely add that point to aid understanding. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Narson, I wouldn't mean to be aggresive. Really.

Focusing on the issue, the key point seems to be (as far as I understand) in your statement "It is not an interpretation. It is taken from the text". However, I'm not able to find it. I read the following:

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of 11 of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination by an “omnibus” draft resolution it approved today.

It's explicitly said that the draft was approved and that it applied to the 11 NSGT that are mentioned in the text. Moreover:

The omnibus text -- on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands and included as the sixth draft resolution in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23) -- achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions.

Again, the resolution approved (with amendment) talks about those 11 territories. And more:

The amendment, which struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph, had been tabled by the United Kingdom, which argued today, as it had last week, that, not only was the new language inapplicable to the 11 Territories targeted in the resolution, but that it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications.

Again, the same 11 territories "targeted in the resolution". I think it's pretty clear. On the other hand, regardless of that, is there any official reaction in Gibraltar? --Ecemaml (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the name of the motion that you quoted. The name very rarely defines the scope of a bill, usually just the problem the drafters intended to address. Yes, there were 11 explicitly targetted by the submitted draft proposal. This was altered. What the UK chap was saying (And you quote him there out of context) was that the resolution was acctually targetting the NSGT not mentioned rather than the ones done so, so the ammendment was to have the amendment return the situation to status quo. As I said, we need a better source for this. However, it is not a POV issue. It is a sourcing issue. We are using a UN press release rather than a piece written using that press release. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's go on:

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on the draft resolution on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64) (underscored in the text)

The Committee then took up the omnibus draft resolution VI on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands', which is contained in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64), along with the amendment to part A of operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6). Mind "that text".

So the question remains. As told previously, I think the UK amendment is important, but again, the text it does not include the Question of Gibraltar. The press release talks about 11 territories (Gibraltar not being among them). The Gibraltar Government hasn't reacted to this, but we wikipedists feel it's important (and that's primary research). I mention again my proposal:

The Government of Gibraltar greeted the text approved by the 4C UN on 20 October 2008. Although it applied to non self-governing territories other than Gibraltar, the fact that it reaffirmed that, in the process of decolonization, "there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination"; and that the UK passed an ammendment that removed the mention to "dispute over sovereignty" in the decolonization process, was considered as a support for the Gibraltarian stance .

Anyway, if you want to raise an RfC on this issue, I wouldn't object to it. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) BTW: being dated in 2008, where the hell is the text in itself? It would save a lot of time.

Here it is: UN General Assembly, Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 18 December 2008, A/RES/63/108 A–B --Ecemaml (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The item you refer to is This one news of it may not been publicised in Spain. I listened to a debate in the Spanish Parliament in September where Senator Jose Ignacio Landaluce (Cadiz) stated the previous position to be the case.

However

"By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right." ... "The Committee then approved the draft resolution by consensus." --Gibnews (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it further, the link is in place on the page, the significance of this in relation to The Falklands and Gibraltar is that the usual suspects tried to change the policy of the UN to exclude territories where there was a sovereignty dispute from the universal right to self-determination. The initial success in voting that in has been reversed. As regards the comment the fact remains that the text is not related to Gibraltar oh yes it is. I still do not understand the reason for a POV tag.--Gibnews (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, the POV tag is explained above (on the other hand the UN does have a explicit policy on Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands... of course that no reader could be able to know it by reading this awful article). On the other hand, provided that you've a specialist in finding references, did the Government of Gibraltar make any statement on the UN text? It would justify the insertion of your sentence in the article. Otherwise, no way. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might share what you think is the UN policy on Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands on this talk page? If its right, we can include it otherwise the POV tag goes.

The point of including that reference is that the UN affirms that ALL territories have the right to self determination, which is the keystone to the Gibraltar position rejecting the Spanish irredentist claim. --Gibnews (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if that's the case, why Gibraltar is not mentioned? Why anybody has noticed that the Question of Gibraltar is over in the United Nations? Other issue is that Gibraltar considers that the approved draft, although not being targetted to Gibraltar, supports its possition. If so, that's the way it must be worded. On the other hand, the last decision on Gibraltar by the United Nations is here. BTW 27 November 1984 is the date when the Brussels Process was signed. BTW also, some people thinks that the UN consensus is bad for Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you fail to realise the sheer malice we perceive that the Government of Spain has towards Gibraltar, and those sneaky things it gets up to to try and disadvantage Gibraltrians. The scale of the enterprise and cost (to you) is significant. For instance Spain attempted to change the ITU rules so that only sovereign states had a right to licence geostationary satellites. This was spotted and stopped. Creating a business which now provides employment for highly trained Gibraltarian satellite controllers. The UEFA fiasco, where Gibraltar has a court ruling that we MUST be admitted, but the Spanish sporting association on instructions from its Government has stopped this happening by screaming and stamping its feet - is another example. In the UN, Argentina and Spain lobbied to change the wording so that territories 'where there was a sovereignty dispute' the people involved were excluded from having the right of self-determination. Of course, Gibraltar was not named, its just an underhand way of attempting to disadvantage us. It was revoked. Why is Gibraltar not a member of the ISSF - the International Shooting Sport Federation Monaco and San Marino, with similar populations are. Its an individual sport where we have world class competitors. I am told our membership was again blocked by Spain. Indeed the Spanish Government does not like referring to Gibraltar, we are "La provincia de Cádiz, al territorio no autónomo de Gibraltar, cuyas relaciones exteriores asume el Reino Unido."

The Question of Gibraltar will not be over until Spain stops asking for its return. What you refer to is the UN consensus resolution, which derives from resolution 2231 (1966). The Brussels Agreement was an attempt to comply with this, however it contained the caveat that The British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble of the 1969 constitution. And you know what those wishes are from the 2002 referendum. The 'Brussels Process' which derives from the agreement is dead because the British Government have extended their commitment to the people of Gibraltar not to enter into bilateral talks, even though Sovereignty itself is a bilateral matter. So every year we have the fiasco of the consensus resolution which has become empty of any promise. I hope that makes the nonsense clearer. --Gibnews (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting speech. However, which is its purpose? --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, soapboxing about the situation is not helpful. It is important to put aside the view that you are in somewhere embodied by the article, as a Gibraltarian (I seem to recall that is the correct term). Making it an 'us' or a 'we' versus a 'you' or 'them' situation is not going to ratchet down tensions. Arguments should appeal to reason, even if it is course, rather than being emotive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless its institutional malice. --Gibnews (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, this is becoming to seem group therapy. But that's not the place. Really. If your WP:COI is so big than prevents you from engaging in constructive discussions, maybe you'd better have a rest. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but there is an old saying about glass houses and throwing stones. And ganders and geese. To assume that anyone's behaviour here is perfect is to make a very bad assumption. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW breach

Well, I won't revert this anymore. It simply stress the POV wording of the sentence. However, it's interesting to note that Misplaced Pages policies are suspended when it comes to Gibraltar articles (or better to Gibnews editions) and that, for instance, WP:CITEHOW does not apply any more. Instead of the title of the reference, it must be replaced by the text Gibnews picks. Interesting. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started on RFC on these articles here . Justin talk 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Edit War

Ecemaml will you just quit with the edit warring, removing cites is not acceptable - even by your own standards. Justin talk 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the text again I really can see no reason for its removal, the arguments on the talk page certainly do not justify it. Justin talk 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to keep it on the right track, I've notified Atama here . Justin talk 11:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml changed the title of the ref in the last edit, which has been reverted by Gibnews. I don't see the harm in Ecemaml's edit, I don't see the point either, but I see no reason for the effort and bad feeling of a revert to be necessary. Really chaps, come on. Ecemaml has been gracious enough to admit the point, I believe, there is little reason to rub it in with the revert of the rename. Also, it is rather clear we will have to look for a better source anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (EC)

Ah I see, I guess I misunderstood, in which case I'll remove my comment from Atama's page. Justin talk 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, it would also be helpful if he ceased the badger baiting of Gibnews as well . Justin talk 11:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the title and added a quote, which will hopefully satisfy everyone. If its accepted, the POV tag can go as well. Justin talk 12:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see that gesture was not appreciated, oh well. Justin talk 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

People do seem to like to assume the worst and misrepresent (I'm thinking there of the use of the term 'Gibnews' mates', when I'm fairly sure I have had very little to do with Gibnews and have criticised his style of contribution on various occasions, as well as removal when what was urged by at least me was transfer to a more appropriate page. Ah well). I do wish some editors wouldn't make things about sides. Us vs Them. I don't see Justin or myself as holding identical views, though perhaps our views and interests intersect more often than mine and Gibnews'. I have told Justin to calm down on various occasions over the years and argued for him and against him. I also note that I often agree with Imalbornoz on many of his sentiments and ideals, there are some times I disagree with execution but I can usually understand where he comes from, and I view his approach differently to say Ecemaml or Cremella. We are all individuals with differing viewpoints and thought processes and I really do wish everything didn't have to be a points scoring game. Politics is for the real world, not for wikipedia. A little more understanding and a little less arguing would be divine. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium to clear the air

Guys, it is rather clear that the atmosphere here is not condusive to editing at the moment, with various editors feeling attacked or frustrated. It is also coming up to Christmas (or whatever other holiday one likes to celebrate that involves family and good food). I propose that (And this is in no order) Justin, Cremallera, Ecemaml, Gibnews, Imalbornoz, myself and anyone else who feels they are involved sign up to a moratorium on these pages to last until 00:01 GMT on the 27th of December (so after Boxing Day). This will give everyone a chance to simmer down. On the 27th, I will try to post up a neutral summation of the issues brought forward and we can then move on from there, with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the edits.

This moratorium on editing would cover both the article and the talk page of: Gibraltar, Disputed Status of Gibraltar, Self-governing colony and History of Gibraltar. It would also cover any other article directly related to Gibraltar. This may freeze the articles (barring new editors) on what any editor might view as a 'wrong version', this is perfectly fine. For a few days the universe can take this. The long term interests of these artiles will be served. So, there would be no editing on those pages or talk pages during that time. If there is blatant and obvious vandalism, obviously that would be acceptable to revert.

After the moratorium, I am proposing a tabula rasa approach. That is, we approach the issues as if from new. We also try to forget any past perceptions or views on other editors. For those Babylon 5 fans out there, this will be our last, best hope for peace. I hope you will all join me in signing below, so that we can work together to build a better encyclopedia tomorrow by agreeing to step away for today, at least from this area of the wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreement

1. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2. --Cremallera (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Gibraltar articles
• Top-importance Gibraltar articles
• All WikiProject Gibraltar pages
• C-Class Spain articles
• High-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles