Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

trial of Spanish civil guards

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

Gibraltarian, not 'Gibraltan'

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

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

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

Launches

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

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

Gibraltarian removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

heres a reason note on left red and orange flag, the frontier and the non-Spanish flags to the right South of the border. Thats the reality of the situation.GibNews 21:20UTC 10 Dec 2005.

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

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

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

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

Avoiding further edit wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My editing focus on the Spanish wikipedia has been somewhat limited, and as a result, I did not participate in that debate on es. I'm disappointed that a better solution was not found to address the situation, but I hope that we can work something out that will not involve indefinitely protecting these pages or blocking a range of IP addresses.

The blocking cannot be indefinite. It would be totally against the principles of wikipedia. But, as you can see by a quick inspection of Gibraltarian edits in es:, they mainly comprises a) violation of wikipetiquette with personal attacks and abuse to other wikipedists; b) vandalism (not in Gibraltar-related articles but in others such as the very article of Spain) and c) many attempts to impose such a "neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial" that unfortunatelly does not exist.

As it seems as if Gibraltarian hates Spain, it is therefore impossible to find any way to show both sides of the controversy (since Gibraltarian takes everything he does not like as part of a conspiracy or an attempt to insult?? Gibraltar). As after being blocked he began to access anonymously (and the configuration of the Gibnet making him come from different public IP addresses), with the same attitude and mixing it with mail abuse and threats, this was the last resort that should be revoked in some time in the future.

In a selfish way, I've brought this controversy here since it should be easier to accept a NPOV from the eldest, larger and most developed wikipedia (especially since people here should not be biased against anything) making it translated back to Spanish. In that very moment, I'd suggest the removal of the blocking (as a last opportunity to Gibraltarian). If the community accepts it and Gibraltarian behaves in a proper way, the blocking would be history. Otherwise, it should have to be renewed. I hope this explanation makes the whole matter a little bit clearer. --Ecemaml 16:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

ECEMAML, YOU ARE A LIAR AND A TROLL! It was YOUR attitude coupled with Dodo's that created the issue on the first place, by using (and allowing to be used) the Gibraltar article on .es for the spread of lies and propaganda against Gibraltar, in a gross violation of NPOV, and basic common decency. You then abused your posotion the block the whole of Gibraltar from accessing....which is still in place to date! I did not "vandalise" anything, you are a liar. Making NPOV edits, and removing lies is NOT vandalism. Adding arguments contrary to Dodo's & Ecemaml's version is NOT vandalism. I do not hate spain, but I do hate bigots & fascists like Dodo & Ecemaml, whose lives are clearly so empty they spend their time insulting and blackening the name of my homeland. Ecemaml's attitude is evident from the fact that he STILL has not removed the unjustifiable blockade against Gibraltar. While the Gibraltar "issue" may be contraversial per sae, Ecemaml has delighted in ensuring that it is more so. It is indeed possible to word many things in a neutral format, which avoids controversy.

I could write a perfectly factual rant against spain, denouncing her genocide in Central & South America several hundred years ago, the brutality of the inquisition, the murderous Franco Regime, the MANY spaniards (current politicians, fathers & grandfathers included) who supported that regime, the unlawful disgraceful treatment of Gibraltar, the treatment of Moroccans in spain, etc etc, BUT.....WP is NOT the place for this. A perfectly factual rant against a county is intrinsically POV. This is what Ecemaml wishes to do with the Gibraltar article. However if I wish to add something to the "Spain" article, which although neutral and factual, they are unhappy with, it's classed as "vandalism".

What cannot be right is dignifying lies with publicity. For example, Ecemaml has recently accepted that what he has been told all his life about Rooke's part in the taking of Gibraltar is not true. How many other matters has he been misinformed on? We are well aware that spanish history books have been "revised" particularly during the Franco era to reflect "official history", which may or many not reflect reality. We still have similar instances today. Only this week a senior spanish politician made accusations against Gibraltar in parliament which are wholly false. The spanish press often joins in this behaviour. Ecemaml, and his compatriots have been exposed to this Goebbels type "news" for any years, and appear unable to distinguish this from reality.

It would be unfair for me to write an article accusing someone of something by adding "Some people have said..." or "Some believe..." when the "facts" I am adding are entirely fabricated. To do so is to give credence to such lies, and this behaviour. --Gibraltarian 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can understand, I won't enter your game. You're lucky enough since it seems that in en: the acceptable threshold on personal attacks is notably higher that in es:. However, you edits are quite useful indeed, since nowadays, anyone can easily understand why you're been blocked in es:.

With regard to your allegations, it's quite funny that you talk about decency and especially since you claim that It would be unfair for me to write an article accusing someone of something by adding "Some people have said..." Do you have anything to add about your edit in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melilla_border_fence&diff=25546790&oldid=25061633? Or about your "neutral" edition in es:España (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Espa%C3%B1a&diff=prev&oldid=1456015).

You'd better stick to the questions, provide appropriate sources and let this story end. Finally, some of your statements seems quite surprising, such as For example, Ecemaml has recently accepted that what he has been told all his life about Rooke's part in the taking of Gibraltar is not true. First of all, I've not said anything about Gibraltar in my whole life. It's a matter that usually is not discussed neither is too much interesting (Franco died thirty years ago, you know). When I began to investigate about this issue I usually found such a statement. After your insistence, I began a proper investigation, bought a book and found out that it was in fact untrue. That's what I'm doing, contrasting sources. On the other hand, you don't seem to be interested in finding out how many propaganda the article has: mentions to the Treaty of Seville, to an unknown anti-nuclear policy.... That's the difference between you and me: you verbaly abuse, shout and believe that all Gibraltarians say is true while I'm open to verify everything. As you haven't provided any source or indication against, I'll upload all the contents to the relevant articles in some days-time. --Ecemaml 16:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As for NPOV, you are right in that wherever possible, neutral language should be used. For example, I would say, "The sky is blue" instead of "The sky is an ugly shade of blue". But if a number of people believe that the sky is green, however, then that should be mentioned in a manner like this: "While the majority of experts believe that the sky is blue, according to Dr. Smith, ^{source 1} experts Dr. Jones and Mr. Edwards claim that the sky is green".^{source 2}. The views that Ecemaml is writing may be 100% wrong. I don't know. But if people believe them, then they ought to be mentioned in a way that does not disparage them as incorrect nor elevates them above other opinions. Does that make sense? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not here to discuss administration topics of other wikipedias with you. As you seems a so good psycologist since you know beforehand which my purpose in wikipedia is, I'm not going to explain anything. Moreover, I'm a little fed up with your continious insults, your shouts and your violations of wikipetiquette (although it doesn't surprise me at all). From now on, I'll go on with my argumentations, providing appropriate sources and trying to get a NPOV (although I can be a little bit biased myself, I trust the wikipedia methods to get a suitable result). If you want to play that way, cheers. If you don't, it's up to you, but please, forget me. Stick to the procedure and try to provide proper sources. --Ecemaml 14:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian, there is no reason to personally attack Ecemaml. You can disagree with him without being impolite. Blocking all of Gibraltar from es may have been a mistake, but no such action is being attempted here. If you are truly interested in presenting Gibraltar's side of the story on Wikipedia, you should find some references that agree with what you are writing, and make good-faith edits. The same goes for Ecemaml—he must list references that support his claims. If either of you fail to do this, you may be blocked. It's that simple. Play by the rules, or quit playing. Wikipedia is governed by certain rules, and if they are not kept by a specific user, that user may lose the right to edit. If you come to my house, I would expect you to follow the rules of my house, and similarly, if you come to Wikipedia, you are expected to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Are you willing to do that? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, to both of you: I don't think Ecemaml's edit here was helpful. Apparently Gibraltarian believes that what Ecemaml wrote is not true. Assuming that he has a reference to back himself up, that information should not be presented as truth, but rather as one perspective out of several. A more NPOV version of the paragraph might be:

Those who left took with them the symbols and objects of Gibraltar's history, including the statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary and the documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502, granting Gibraltar's coat of arms. Spanish historians ^{insert source here} also claim that the archives of the city and the city's banner (also granted by the Catholic Monarchs) were removed as well, but Gibraltarian historians ^{insert source here} disagree. These objects remain nowadays in the nearby San Roque chapel, where the refugees settled down.

Is that text that you can both agree on? The idea here is to allow both of you to include your perspectives, but not to write as if one perspective is better than another. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Spangineer. The sources are provided in sections below (#The getaway of the inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704). So that I don't believe the edit you mention was not helpful at all (mind that what Gibraltarian insists on removing is not the mentions I included there to the archives and the banner; you can see in the history), since the problem is not actually in the number of items (all the items remain nowadays in San Roque), but in the whole story... (the problem seems to be that Gibraltarian thinks that this story is an accusation of ethnic cleansing ??)

With regard to such item, my edition would be the following:

According to Spanish sources ("Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 91, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, ISBN 84-206-4184-7; "Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar", by Máximo Cajal, Ed. Siglo XXI Editores, Madrid, 2003, ISBN 84-323-1138-3; "Atlas de Historia de España", pg. 341, by Fernando García de Cortázar, Ed. Planeta, Barcelona, 2005, ISBN 84-08-05752-9; all in Spanish) a large column of inhabitants of the city, led by the Spanish garrison and the members of the city council abandoned the city. Most of them took refuge in the proximity of the chapel of San Roque, where the council was reestablished founding a new town named San Roque (other settled down in what today is Los Barrios or even far away, in the ruins abbandoned city of Algeciras). Considering themselves the real Gibraltarians, those who left took with them the symbols and objects of Gibraltar's history: the council archives and the historical documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502, granting Gibraltar's coat of arms; also the statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the city's banner (also granted by the Catholic Monarchs). These objects remain nowadays in San Roque (therefore San Roque official motto is "The town of San Roque, where that of Gibraltar lives on", in Spanish: 'La Ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar'). Only seventy people remained in the city (most of them belonging to the Genovese trader colony). The traditions of the villages that received the refugees still talk of this fact as the Exodus of Gibraltar (Éxodo de Gibraltar)

* What the Spanish sources say (and could be maybe discussed): the number of people leaving and stating. BTW, same sources talks also about the outrage (even rapes) and loot by the occupying troops (English, Dutch and German), but I don't think it would be different from any other war action (for instance, see the outrage towards the holy estatues hosted in the shrine of Our Lady Of Europe Government of Giblartar Tourism site).

* What seems to be a fact: all the mentioned items are nowadays in San Roque; San Roque's coat of arms is the same as that of Gibraltar; the motto of San Roque is "The town of San Roque, where that of Gibraltar lives on"; in the whole Campo de Gibraltar (could be translated as Gibraltar County; it's the former countryside of the city of Gibraltar, nowadays split between La Línea, San Roque, Los Barrios and Algeciras) the tradition of the getaway of Gibraltar still lives and is named "Exodus of Gibraltar"; the archives of San Roque council reach XV century (since they include the archives carried from Gibraltar in 1704) and therefore San Roque considers itself as the legal heir to Gibraltar... The historians even account that Philip V sent a grateful letter to San Roque in 1706 praising their fidelity to his cause with the following header: "Mi ciudad de Gibraltar en ese Campo" (My city of Gibraltar in that County)

I hope this item is clearer now (I'll go on looking for sources for the rest of items). Please, change the order of the sentences or the phrasing, move the places where the sources should be inserted... but please, don't remove the information. It is sourced and verifiable --Ecemaml 07:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Gibraltarian is refusing to participate in this discussion, but until we get somewhere with this discussion I've protected this article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements

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

The term "restrictions"

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

• El País Book of Style. Entry: Gibraltar, item 6. El País is the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain with strategic agreements with other leading world newspapers such as La Reppublica, New York Times, Le Monde, The Independent...
• The Lisbon Agreement (10th April 1980): The Spanish Government has decided to suspend the application of the measures at present in force

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

The apocryphal story about George Rooke taking possesion of Gibraltar

Where? History of Gibraltar
My suggestion: leaving it as is now: The beginning of the English/British occupation of Gibraltar has been over the time imprecise. Sometimes, even the British or the Gibraltarians dates the begining of British sovereignty in 1704 (for instance, "History of the British Possessions in the Mediterranean: Comprising Gibraltar, Malta, Gozo,...", by Robert Montgomery Martin, Whittaker & co. 1837, state: ...the Prince of Hesse took possesion of the gates of Gibraltar... Gibraltar has ever since continued in the hands of the English...). On the other hand, even from the 18th century, Spanish sources stated that immediateley after the takeover of the city, sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession of the Rock in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation (the story is told by the Marquis of San Felipe in his book "Comentarios de la guerra de España e historia de su rey Phelipe V el animoso" (Genoa, 1725), quoted in "Historia de Algeciras. Moderna y Contemporánea", pg. 17, Mario Ocaña, Diputación de Cádiz, Cádiz, 2001. Such story is widely spread in Spanish propaganda. However, it is proved now that this version as apocryphal since no contemporary source accounts it. Furthermore, such a fact would have caused a big crisis in the alliance supporting the Archduke Charles (see "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 90, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, in Spanish).
Rationale: The story is widely spread in Spain (it is mentioned by Isidro Sepúlveda stating that it's a legend; on the other hand, other sources such as "History of the British Possessions in the Mediterranean: Comprising Gibraltar, Malta, Gozo,...", by Robert Montgomery Martin, Whittaker & co. 1837, state: ...the Prince of Hesse took possesion of the gates of Gibraltar... Gibraltar has ever since continued in the hands of the English... (which can be interpreted as if the British sovereignty dates back to 1704). I don't see any argument to deleting it. Furthermore, not explicitly talking about them would lead to further additions and new edit wars. Futhermore, articles such as Governor of Gibraltar dates the "British occupation" to the conquest date.
Furhter information about the first years of the ocuppied city are also welcome (when the Prince of Hesse left the city, when Dutch forces did the same...)
Sources:

• Those quoted in the text.
• "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 90, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, in Spanish. Isidro Sepúlveda Muñoz is a Contemporary History Professor in the UNED ("Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia"), the biggest Spanish university.

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

The getaway of the inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704

Where? History of Gibraltar
My suggestion: see above
Rationale: Spanish sources account the memories of what happened in Gibraltar between 1704 and 1714, by the priest Juan Romero de Figueroa (the priest in charge of the Cathedral). The narration of the large column of Gibraltarians getting out the city, the small number of inhabitants remaining in Gibraltar, the loot of the properties left by the refugees is his. Juan Romero was one of the ones who remained in Gibraltar, and the last Spanish to be buried in the Cathedral (1720).
Sources:

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

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

The status of the isthmus

Where? Disputed status of Gibraltar
My suggestion (containing the Spain's POV): Gibraltar nowadays contains a 800-metre section of the isthmus that links the Rock with mainland. Spain does not acknowledge British sovereignity over Gibraltar beyond what the Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht explicitly establishes, since it only ceded dominion over the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging (Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht). Therefore, as for the isthmus, Spain considers that such an area was occupied by force by the UK since the 19th century, and that mentioned occupation did not grant UK sovereignity over it, according to International Law. For the same reason, British sovereignity is not acknowledged by Spain, considering itself instead to be owner of the territory. Futhermore, on December 2, 1987, in a joint British-Spanish declaration about the use of the airport, as well as in several EU acts, the UK has admitted that a controversy exists with Spain over the sovereignity of the isthmus (The ... arrangements ... are understood to be without prejudice to the respective legal positions of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated. Joint Declaration on Airport (of 2 December 1987)).
Trying to translate, sorry for my English.... Cheers. es:usuario:OrlandoSM) Fixing translation a bit. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

(the Gibraltar/UK point of view):

Rationale: the Spanish POV is accurately described by the papers by the Spanish Foreign Office. Even the UK documentation admits that there is a controversy with Spain over the sovereignity of the isthmus.
Sources:

• El País Book of Style (http://www.estudiantes.elpais.es/LibroEstilo/dic_gi.asp). El País is the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain with strategic agreements with other newspapers such as La Reppublica, New York Times, Le Monde, The Independent...
• Image:Gibraltar Neutral Zone map.jpg. This image has been extracted from the book "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza". It will be removed once the discussion settles down.
• Note of the Spanish Foreign Office
• Report about Gibraltar (Spanish Foreign Office)

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

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

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

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

My suggestion:

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

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

• UN resolutions 2231 (XXI) ("Question of Gibraltar") and 2353 (XXII) ("Question of Gibraltar")

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

The disputed status of Gibraltar

Where?: Disputed status of Gibraltar
Current version: Similarly the UN Charter (which is Primary International Law) guarantees the right to self-determination of all peoples. The UK government and Gibraltarians point out that article 103 of the Charter overrules and anulls the "reversionary clause". However, the Spanish government claims that the right to self-determination does not apply due to the territorial integrity of nations. This controversy, they claim, applies to the territorial integrity of Spain, since Gibraltar is a Britain colony in Spain's soil. The UK & Gibraltar Governments point out that since the territory was ceded in 1713 it ceased to be Spanish territory and is in fact a British Colony on British soil.

My proposal: The UK government and Gibraltarians state that the Spanish reclamation has no base appealing to the right to self-determination of all peoples, guaranteed by the UN, according to the resolution 1514 (XV), of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and people. Especifically, section 2 (all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development). Furthermore, any additional right that Spain could claim by virtue of the "reversionary" clause contained in the Treaty of Utrecht, the UK government and Gibraltarians point out that article 103 of the UN Charter (In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail) overrules and anulls the "reversionary clause".

On the other hand, the traditional Spain position relies in the appeal to the territorial integrity. Such principle complements the right to self-determination stated by the UN resolution 1514 (XV). According to its section 6, Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. During the sixties, Spain obtained the support of the UN General Assembly in their UN resolutions 2231 (XXI) ("Question of Gibraltar") and 2353 (XXII) ("Question of Gibraltar"). Both are similar and state that Considering that any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly ... Invites the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume without delay the negotiations provided for in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI), with a view to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding the interests of the population upon termination of that situation. From such a point of view, Gibraltarians would be mere settlers from Britain and only their interest, not their wishes (as the right self-determination would involve), should be safeguarded.

Rationale: Both positions are shown.
Sources: UN docs mentioned in the text
Status: argumentation and sourcing finished --Ecemaml 19:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Palomos"

Where? History of Gibraltar
Current version: A small group of Gibraltarians, known as the palomos or 'doves', advocated a political settlement with Spain, and met with Spanish officials in secret to try and bring this about. This provoked widespread public hostility and civil unrest.
My suggestion: A small group of Gibraltarians, known as the palomos or 'doves', advocated a political settlement with Spain, and met with Spanish Foreign Office officials (a meeting was even held with the very Spanish Foreign Secretary) to try and bring this about ("Informe sobre Gibraltar. 1996", pg. 42, several authors, INCIPE). This provoked widespread public hostility in Gibraltar (with attacks to their homes and properties, Rock's voters signal rejection of Spanish deal, at The Guardian) and civil unrest. Even now, palomos has not been "forgiven" and are still called traitors.
Rationale:
Sources: those mentioned in the text
Status: argumentation and sourcing finished --Ecemaml 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mentions to the Treaty of Seville

Where? History of Gibraltar
Current version: 1729: At the end of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727-1729, the Treaty of Seville allowed Britain to keep Port Mahon and Gibraltar, and stipulated a strip of land of width "600 toises, being more than 2 cannon shots distance between the British guns and the Spanish guns" be considered "the neutral ground".
1908: The British constructed a fence to demarcate the border of the colony and did it at the neutral territory. According to the British government the neutral zone defined in the Treaty of Seville could be meant as having two halves, one belonging to Spain and other to the UK.
My suggestion: 1729: At the end of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727-1729, the Treaty of Seville confirming all previous treaties (including the Treaty of Utrecht) allowed Britain to keep Menorca and Gibraltar
1908: The British constructed a fence to demarcate the border of the colony and did it at the neutral territory. According to the British government the neutral zone left by the Spanish troops after the second siege of Gibraltar (1729) could be meant as having two halves, one belonging to Spain and other to the UK.
Rationale: The mention to the Treaty of Seville seems apocryphal. No sources are provided. The online sources I've found state that no explicit mention to Gibraltar was made in the treaty. Same for all my written Spanish sources. For example: in "The Speeches of the Right Honourable the Earl of Chatham in the Houses of Lords and Commons", by William Pitt (1848), it is said that ... all former treaties were confirmed... The treaty passed over in total silence the claim of Spain to Gibraltar... while in "Historia de Gibraltar y de su campo", by Francisco Maria Montero (1860), it is said that Nothing was said in the treaty about the city of Gibraltar, however confirming former treaties
Sources: those mentioned in the text
Status: developed and sourced --Ecemaml 14:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Tireless incident

Where?: History of Gibraltar - Disputed status of Gibraltar
Current version: 2000 May - 2001 May: the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, which claimed to have an anti-nuclear policy, albeit never having raised objections when nuclear propelled vessels enter Spanish ports.
Another issue of contention was the repair of the nuclear submarine, HMS Tireless. Spain claims to have a non-nuclear policy, however Nuclear powered vessels regularly enter Spanish ports (in particular Rota) without protest from the Spanish government. Despite many protests, the Gibraltar Government allowed the work to be done after employing its own experts to confirm it was safe. The submarine was in Gibraltar for a year before leaving, during which the repair was successfully completed without incident.

My suggestion: 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 -some 250,000 people (Press conference of the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pique in London, of 2001 January 24). The inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future repair operations in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar government has accussed Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on reclaiming the sovereignty over Gibraltar

Another issue of contention was the repair of the nuclear submarine, HMS Tireless. Spain has expressed its concern about the effective safety for the inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland -some 250,000 people (Press conference of the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pique in London, of 2001 January 24). The inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future repair operations in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar government has accussed Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on reclaiming the sovereignty over Gibraltar. Despite many protests, the Gibraltar Government allowed the work to be done after employing its own experts to confirm it was safe. The submarine was in Gibraltar for a year before leaving, during which the repair was successfully completed without incident.

Rationale: I don't have any source about Spain supporting its "concern" on an anti-nuclear policy but on the safety concerns (mainly driven by the inhabitants of the bay of Algeciras). Such an argumentation seems a piece of propaganda.
Sources: those mentioned in the text
Status: developed and sourced. --Ecemaml 10:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

I'm really expecting Gibraltarian to say wether he agrees or not to all these brilliant suggestions. It hass been a truly hard work, Ecemaml, congratulations! es:Usuario:OrlandoSM

Protection

If this article is protected, it should have the relevant tag placed on it. Also there is glaring error in the "See Also" section, the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is disputed by the UK and Argentina, not Spain! Astrotrain 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that; the template is now on the page. Once the page is unprotected the problem you mention can be fixed. (see Wikipedia:Protection policy) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why protect??

Why on earth has this been protected? The Ecemaml troll strikes again!!! I also notice that the troll was allowed to revert to HIS warped view, before the protection.

The spanish government has NO problem with the word "restriction" as they use it themselves frequently. This is merely a projection of Ecemaml's OWN sensitivities. If he is embarassed or ashamed at his government's behaviour (as well he should be) then that is his problem. But saying that "the spanish government rejects the use of the word "restriction"" when they themselves use it is clearly FALSE. His argument is pure semantics and sophistry. A restriction is a restriction is a restriction. While a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a rotton cabbage by any other name would still stink.

The Ecemaml troll put his arguments, I corrected spelling and grammar, and added the alternative POV. Apparently the troll objects to this. While he maintains his unjustifiable exclusion of the whole of Gibraltar on .es, he proves his malicious intent, so I really don't care two hoots what his position is. I am entitled to have mine too, AND to post it. This needs to be unblocked straight away. --Gibraltarian 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. You disagree with a statement that Ecemaml is trying to have included. It sounds like the dispute is semantics, but Ecemaml has provided two sources that suggest that the sentence, so far as what it says, is true. However, it may be that the Spanish government is hypocritical (officially rejecting the term but then using it anyway) or that they reject that word but then use equivalent words. If you'd like to provide sources that verify something along those lines, we might be able to work something out that both of you can agree on.

Regarding the POVs that you added, they were unsourced, and while it may have been hasty to remove them immediately, it would be much better to cite sources backing you up. In disputed articles like this one, references are absolutely necessary. Take a look at Terri Schiavo, for instance—that article was one of the most disputed articles on Wikipedia, and it has over 75 references. We need the same level of verifiability in this article.

Another thing—I protected the page immediately after I saw that you two were reverting each other (see here and here). I'd like to avoid having you guys break the 3RR again and being blocked, so page protection seemed like the best alternative. Again, I have absolutely no interest in who is right in this situation—my emotional ties to England and Spain are equally minute, so accusing me of bias toward one side or the other is ridiculous.

Also, Gibraltarian, I'd like you to know that calling a wikipedia user who does not have a history of vandalism or spamming a "troll" does not reflect well on yourself. On the english wikipedia wikiquette is not often "enforced" by administrators, so don't take this as a threat in any way whatsoever, but rather as a reminder that calling people names does not benefit you.

As for the grammar, the word it's is only used as a conjunction for "it is". Its is a possessive, like his or her. So, "It's cold outside", but "I like that dog. Its fur is soft". Make sense? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml does indeed have such a record, AND a record of abuse of Admin powers on .es. If he behaves as a troll he can only be expected to be called one. His intent is purely malicious. The main reason he makes his edits is to portray Gibraltarians in general and me in particular as ogres, AND so that the page ends up being blocked (conveniently it always seems to be blocked after his revert....what a coincidence). Precisely the same happened in .es, but Dodo & Ecemaml have abused their positions and blocked the WHOLE of Gibraltar from editing.

His argument is pure semantics and sophistry, and merely reflects his own sensitivities. He has ascribed feelings & actions to the spanish government which are simply not true. It cannot be right to say that they "reject" a term which they happily use themselves.....Ecemaml himself may "reject" it, but that's his problem. This is getting ridiculous, and I am seriously fed up with Ecemaml's behaviour. What he wanted all along was to get the page blocked and create controversy. It looks like he acheived his aim.

P.S. By the way, was the lecture in the use of the apostrophe for my benefit or Ecemaml's? I do have 'A' Level English, so it clearly can't have been for mine. --Gibraltarian 09:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You always state but never provide sources. Have you heard of verifiability? You state they "reject" a term which they happily use themselves. Apart from stating that Spain is an evil being and going on with your track of verbal abuse, can you please provide a source that prove that the Spanish government uses oficially the term "restrictions"? --Ecemaml 10:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I am not here to jump through hoops for your benefit. Your purpose here is purely to create discord. Can YOU provide sources of the spanish govt "rejecting" the word 'restriction'. A restriction is a restriction is a restriction. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a rotten cabbage by any other name will still stink. Your arguments are pure semantics and sophistry, and are mischievous in intent.--Gibraltarian 12:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're here is for playing by the rules. You're the only one that doesn't provide sources (if fact you haven't provided any). I'm supporting all my statements with sources, labelling all of them. Try to do the same... --Ecemaml 13:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The grammar "lecture" was in response to this edit, in which you (Gibraltarian) twice converted its to it's incorrectly. It's not a big deal; I didn't understand the difference until high school, and I'm a native speaker with a good education. Also, you (Gibraltarian) said to Ecemaml, "I am not here to jump through hoops for your benefit". That's not the point. All articles should be verifiable, not just ones that Ecemaml has an opinion on. Even if Ecemaml was not around to disagree, you would be required by Wikipedia policy to cite your sources. I've written long articles on topics that are not debatable, but even so, I found numerous sources to back myself up. Here, Ecemaml cites El País, which says "Este término nunca fue aceptado por España por la carga condenatoria que implica". With a source, it would be easy to add a clause that says something along the lines of "The government of Gibraltar rejects this stance as hypocritical, claiming that regardless of name, restrictions were in place". But without a source, that can't be added. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I don't mind if Gibraltarian add such a statement (since I'm sure that's the common understanding in Gibraltar). What seems not acceptable is removing statements that do provide a source. --Ecemaml 07:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Since when has a single article written by God knows who, appearing in a right wing Spanish newspaper been a credible "source" of anything? It is merely the opinion of ONE journalist, not the opinion of the whole of spain, nor it's Government. On that basis I could write practically anything. To state "nunca fue acceptada por españa" is one mega assumption, unverified by the writer. HE may have problems with the word "restriction" and Ecemaml may agree with him, but to suddenly adopt this as the national sentiment on the basis of one journalist's opinion is ridiculous in the extreme. What is not acceptable is making statements and merely adding a semblance of verifiablitity, which in fact collapses at the slightest scrutiny, AND more importantly when your original motive was solely to create discord.

A Restriction is a restriction. No amount of arguments by anyone can alter that fact. --Gibraltarian 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What a funny piece of fanaticism!!! "El País" a right-wing paper! The opinion of one journalism! El País is the most-widely circulated newspaper in Spain. It is usually defined as a moderate left-wing paper. It keeps strategic links with other dangerous right-wing papers such as The Independent, Le Monde, New York Times or La Republica. It's not the opinion of one journalism, but its Book of Style, an institution in the Spanish-speaking journalism and the first established Book of Style in Spain. What seems more serious is that Gibraltarian, quite fluent in Spanish, knows all these facts. Therefore, this is just another display of bad faith, I'm afraid. --Ecemaml 12:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fanaticism? Moi? You have a darn cheek Ecemaml to talk about fanaticism & bad faith. Mucha cara. Pero cara! The opinion of ONE journalist, is NOT a "source".--Gibraltarian 17:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Shut up and read: [1]. Aproximate translation: "The Book of Style of El Pais is comprised by mandatory policies for all the paper journalists, staff and other collaborators...". ONE journalism? So shut up your big mouth, stop lying and provide your sources. I'm playing by the rules and providing the requested sources. You aren't. Mind that I won't give up so you'd better provide any source, if you have. --Ecemaml 07:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what goes into the book of style of El Pais, but my impression has been that it is a well-respected source for proper grammar and usage. The primary Spanish grammar reference work that I use, A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish by Butt and Benjamin, frequently quotes from the libro de estilo de El Pais as an example of how the language is used in Spain. As such, I doubt that it reflects the opinion of only one journalist, and that while perhaps not as good as quoting an official Spanish government document, quoting from it here seems acceptable, and is at least better than nothing. Does Gibraltar have a newspaper with a style guide that might similarly reflect common usage within Gibraltar? Or are there government documents that might say something similar? --Spangineer 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar, unlike other territories I could mention (one in particular springs to mind) has a free press. I am uninterested in how "respected" El Pais may be, the fact remains that it was ONE journalist who wrote "Este término nunca fue aceptado por España por la carga condenatoria que implica", and therefore it cannot be adopted as a global sentiment. HE may not like the use of the word, but since it is in common usage by all, including the spanish govt, it is a mute point. This is semantics & sophistry.

By the way, the only LIAR here is YOU Ecemaml....be aware that I certainly will not give in to your pathetic lies and intimidation....Franco's fascist policies should have died along with him....why are YOU trying to keep them alive?--Gibraltarian 08:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from telling I'm a troll, a liar, a fascist, the re-animated Franco's corpse.... have you got any source to show? Or is everything plain propaganda? --Ecemaml 10:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

YOU are the expert on propaganda, you should know. I need no source to show that your "source" collapses at the slightest examination.--Gibraltarian 10:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I'm still waiting your apologies. I remember that your said Allegations against Sir George Rooke are untrue and unfounded or Rv......I could invent any story I wished then add (but it isnt true)......we could go on forever when it seems that even the Gibraltarian government spreads such lies. But as my sources "collapse".... I haven't seen yet any of your pretended sources. --Ecemaml 10:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) PS: you're certainly lucky; this wikipedia seems quite lazy in enforcing its own rules (Wikipetiquette, 3RR...)

The longer these insults go back and forth, the longer it's going to be until we can actually make progress. I personally have no problem with protecting every page related to Gibraltar for months on end if that's what it takes to get you guys to settle down and start arguing rationally, on the basis of sources. Alternatively, if you just want to verbally abuse each other, I suggest you exchange email addresses and go at it.

Gibraltarian, if the Spanish government commonly uses the word "restricción", it shouldn't be too hard for you to find a webpage that uses it, right? If you feel that the article in its current state unfairly represents your position, you have the option of finding sources that defend your position or finding sources that demonstrate that the style guide for El Pais is wrong. Calling people trolls, whether they are or not, doesn't help one bit.

Ecemaml, could you point out how the second reference you list under the use of the term "restriction" defends your position? I read through it quickly, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.

I fail to understand Gibraltarian's argument about the inadequacy of El Pais -- would you similarly reject a statement by the government of Spain because only one administrative clerk wrote it? A statement can only be written by one person, but it can be reviewed by many. I see no basis for assuming that the statement in El Pais was not reviewed, because, as I've said, that guide is used around the world as a standard of how to write in Spanish, and normally such status is not attained by being careless. --Spangineer 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Spangineer. Sorry to say that, but I don't think you're being fair. Insults do not go back and forth. Verbal abuse by Gibraltarian is wide: troll, fascist, bigot, cheeky ... My only "insult" has been liar. Why? Because Gibraltarian is perfectly fluent in Spanish. Because he can read the same source I've posted ([2]) and still says that the Book of Style is the oppinion of one journalism. Because he says that El País is a right-wing paper... I've got to recognize that it's difficult to get tempered with this type of guys. Guys that break the 3RR just for fun (see the history in History of Gibraltar; all my statements provide a source, all of them are deleted: troll edits are labeled) without providing any source (I begun this talk page more that one week ago and Gibraltarian hasn't provided any source), because, they claim, they cannot abase themselves to follow the rules (they supposedly are right and the rest of the people wrong).

With regard to my second source is just an example of what I've saying. That section, agreed on by both parties, reflect the position of the Spain's government. He does not talk about suspendin "the application of the measures at present in force" and not about restrictions. No official document of the Spanish government admits that there are restrictions. Hypocritical? Possibly (IMHO not more than the one of the Gibraltarian government about money laundering), but I'm just pointing out the position of the government. The reader will be possibly intelligent enough to make his/her own decisions. --Ecemaml 20--Ecemaml 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC):16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, calling you a troll is not an insult, it is a staement of fact. Your intent has been malicious from the beginning, your purpose to create dispute. This is the definition of a troll. If you do not wish to be labelled as such, you should stop behaving like one. It is up to YOU to show that "spain rejects", as you are attributing such rejection on the entire nation on the basis of ONE jouranlists opinion. Your argument is hypocritical semantics and sophistry. --Gibraltarian 08:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're the one that judges who a troll a who a legitimate user is. Cheers. I didn't know it. As you go on saying things that are not true, I'll say them again. I'm not talking about an entire nation but about the government position. I'm showing a source that is not the opinion of one journalist but mandatory policies for all the paper journalists, staff and other collaborators (but in spite of it, you say that it's one journalist opinion; it's your option). Besides, I'm showing documents that do not show the word restriction but measures (since no official Spanish document talk about that). So if you want to go no denying such fact, OK, that's your way, but now we all know who a troll is. Best regards --Ecemaml 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute but I can across this on the page protection page. Just to make it clear, when a page is protected, no judgement is being made on the version being protected. Admins do not "allow" people to revert things before a page is protected. Gibraltarian, when an admin goes to protect a page, they often do not even look to see which "version" they are protecting. The reason for that is that they are impartial. They have no say in the dispute. They are just protecting the page so that a discussion can begin which will resolve the edit war. Admins only protect when they read the talk page and see that a dispute exists or they see multiple edits and reverts over the same topic on the page's history. They don't do it based on which view they want to favor. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The people of Gibraltar voted 'No' to any dual-sovereignty agreement.

The people of Gibraltar voted 'No' in a referendum a few years ago to any dual-sovereignty agreement.Both the Governments of Great Britain & Spain have an obligation to respect the referendum result, which is the will of the Gibraltarian people. - (Aidan Work 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Unprotection

Going to unprotect the article. It's been a week and it looks like some progress has been made. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Progress? Um, where? --Spangineer 12:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It took both parties less than 2 hours to start reverting each other, so I'm re-protecting. --Spangineer 12:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidence, the Ecemaml troll was allowed to make his revert just before the protection.....how nice for him. HASN'T IT SUNK IN YET?? THAT WAS HIS INTENTION ALL ALONG, AND YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO HIS TRAP! He is a troll! He has not provided ANY credible source for his ridiculous hypocritical statement that "spain rejects the word restriction" but apparently I am expected to jump through hoops for his benefit! He has wanted the page blocked all along....and has now acheived it. How about reverting to my accurate and NPOV edit BEFORE the protection? This is ridiculous....the troll strikes again! --Gibraltarian 12:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather strange. I provide sources, but you say that they're not credible. You don't provide any, but you're right. I've asked for your sources. You don't provide them. I add sources and links, such as [3], [4] and [5], Global Geografia or Map of Gibraltar and the isthmus according to the Spanish government. But you think that you have the right to delete them without providing any justification, only an alleged NPOV that, obviously, is defined by you. I've asked for sources showing that the Treaty of Seville justify the British sovereignty of the isthmus, but of course you don't provide them (don't worry, I'll go next Monday to the Spanish National Library to try and find the source of the Treaty). I've removed mentions to Torre del Tuerto (since it's in the southwest part of the town and it's not relevant to the discussion)... But of course, you're the one that decide who a troll is. You'd better learn something about NPOV and Verifiability. --Ecemaml 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally, if I'm requested to provide a source for any addition, it is also valid for you. If you like to add The Spanish Government has recently recognised (in the tripartite forum) that the reality of Gibraltar must be accepted as a single entity, and that there will be no gain from attempting to seperate their claims into 2 distinct areas. provide a source. It's as simple as that. --Ecemaml 13:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidence, that I protected the page as soon as I woke up this morning without caring who was the last to edit? I honestly do not care who is right in this debate, because before last week, I had never even heard of Gibraltar. Page protection policy stipulates that this page is not changed until progress in this discussion is made, so Gibraltarian, you now have a choice. You can provide sources which defend your view over the weekend and when I return on Monday, we'll unprotect the page and source your statements. Or, we can leave this as protected for at least another week and Ecemaml's "POV" version will remain. If you truly want to fix the article, provide sources. I don't care if they're newspaper articles or whatever—I just want the smallest resemblence of a signal that you are remotely interested in following Wikipedia policy (i.e. WP:CITE). Have a good weekend guys. --Spangineer 18:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian. You're kindly invited to go on with the editions in Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp. I've phrased the sentence you don't like in the following matter: (the Spanish government never uses the term "restriction" in its official statements, and use "measures" instead; Spanish sources explain that it does so since it considers that such a word involves a sense of condemnation [6]).

I've removed the following sentence from the British/Gib statement on sovereignty: This is also enshrined in the UN Charter. I've done so since it's an appreciation that, though true, does not add anything to the paragraph. Especially since the same statement can be also referred to territorial integrity. If I added the same sentence to the Spanish statement, the result would be rather strange.

I'm adding information regarding the isthmus question (and a timeline). Please, point out which Spanish-side claims you don't agree with and why. Of course that I'll show both POVs as in:

• 1815 April 20 - An isolation camp to prevent the spread of the epidemic outside the fortress walls ([7]) is set up in the neutral ground. This fact can be tracked as the beginning of the present-day dispute with Spain over the isthmus sovereignty (see Disputed status of Gibraltar#The isthmus). A communication from the British Governor to the Spanish authorites was held. While Spanish sources account that it was a request for permission, modern-day Gibraltarian and UK sources account this as a mere information for reasons of public health and courtesy, since, according to them, the area is British territory so no permission was required.

Finally, as I don't definitely trust your interpretations, show the source of The Spanish Government has recently recognised (in the tripartite forum) that the reality of Gibraltar must be accepted as a single entity, and that there will be no gain from attempting to seperate their claims into 2 distinct areas.

You're requested to add your own sources and justify them the way you want. But remember, you don't have the right to also tell how I should put my own sources or statements.

It's up to you to sort out the problem. --Ecemaml 11:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"It's up to you to sort out the problem" ?!?!? YOU ARE THE PROBLEM ECEMAML. You are an obsessed troll!

Me? You're the one that only "contributes" to Gibraltar-related items, not me.

The Spanish Government has recently recognised (in the tripartite forum) that the reality of Gibraltar must be accepted as a single entity, and that there will be no gain from attempting to seperate their claims into 2 distinct areas. This was stated by Jose Pons, Head of the Spanish delegation at the tripartite talks.....and you know it!

At the beginning, you said it was the Minister Moratinos, now it's José Pons... who'll be the next one? If you seems to quote something, can you please provide a source?

You also claim that the fact that our rights are enshrined in the UN Charter adds nothing??? What you really mean is that you are uncomfortable with that fact. I will NOT play your games. I will not be jumping through hoops for the benefit of a malicious troll! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM ECEMAML. Your whole intention all along is to create argument and discord, and get the pages blocked. --Gibraltarian 15:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Gibraltarian. You're the problem. You know that Gibraltar-related topics are controversial. That there is argument around them. But you want to solve them by imposing your POV. At the beginning, I thought that you simply didn't want to understand how wikipedia works (NPOV, verifiability, citations...), but now I'm afraid that you can't understand it. "our rights are enshrined by the UN Charter". Well, the territorial integrity is also "enshrined" by the Charter. Isn't it? So we could continue endlessly adding appreciations to each side. But you simply can't understand. That's the real problem. --Ecemaml 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC) PS: BTW, can you explain us why removing the mentions to the Byzantium rule in the South of the Iberian Peninsula or the mentions to the Gibraltar free port are "true, genuine neutralisation"?

BTW, as Gibraltarian seems to have real problems to look for a source, I'm trying to to that. It seems that José Pons wrote an article in the Gibraltar Chronicle (2004, August 4th) under the headline "A year of hope". According to infuriated right-wing papers in Spain [8], he said something like this: "los españoles debemos aceptar que hoy en día Gibraltar no es español, salvo el istmo, que quizá lo sea algún día, y ninguna aproximación será posible si los gibraltareños no nos quieren" (aproximate translation: "The Spaniards must nowadays accept that Gibraltar is not Spanish, but the isthmus, which maybe will some day, and that no approach will be possible if the Gibraltarian people does not want us"). A more neutral explaination on the article, unfortunately in Spanish, can be seen here. It's easy to look for a source, Gibraltarian, isn't it? --Ecemaml 10:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC) PS: the Gibraltarian friends labeled the Pons' article as "the usual crap" [9] PS2: I recommend the reading of this article. I think it shows quite clearly the current Spanish government positions [10]

--

Undoubtedly the 'Pons Article' IS the same old crap, and its in Spanish. If you want to translate it into English I'll add it to my website along with an explanation of WHY its nonsense. Ill informed nonsense like that certainly does not belong here. - GibNews 20.16UTC 10 DEC 2005

Disputed article

Gibraltarian pretends that the current version of the article is neutral and accurate. You can see an edition that introduces the Spanish POV in Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp, according to the information provided in the section #Disagreements. Please note that as Gibraltarian has not provided any verifiable source, the accuracy of his statements, event when merely supporting British/Gibraltarian POV is doubtful. --Ecemaml 09:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a downright cheek Ecemaml. You are a troll. Nothing more. The version as I wrote it was NEUTRAL and accurate. You only insist in writing things from a warped perspective, when it is perfectly possible to write them in neutral language. Your sole intent is to create dispute & discord.--Gibraltarian 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what NPOV is at all. I quote again: "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased." (from WP:NPOV). As long as you remove again and again perfectly sourced statements, how can you say that your version (the only allowed, it seems) is neutral and accurate. It isn't by definition, since you remove one side and pretend to make yours "objective". I don't want to remove it, but showing all sides. And that's what you don't want. Who's the troll then? --Ecemaml 12:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It is you who clearly fails to understand anything. Your statements are as far from "perfectly sourced" as possible. The rants and ramblings of random fascist inspired politicians is hardly a credible reliable source. The opinion of ONE journalist is hardly a source for the sentiments of an entire nation. With regards the UN Charter, I suggest you have a good read.....it does NOT mention "territorial integrity" anywhere. It DOES however clearly state that ALL persons have the right to self-determintation.

Yes, Wikipedians SHOULD work together, however your conduct (particualarly in the STILL continuing blockade of Gibraltar participation in .es) proves that you are not a "wikipedian", merely a troll with a destructive agenda. It is not possible to work with anyone on that basis. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder (an entire potato plantation more like) about the fact that the people of Gibraltar have successfully resisted your country's attempts to annex ours. Live with it. Do not come here under the guise of "neutrality" in order to spread your lies and propaganda. It is perfectly possible (and IMHO) preferable for something to be worded in neutral language, reflecting the facts, but not favouring any opinion. You clearly have no concept of neutrality.....merely a warped mind inspired by Franco.--Gibraltarian 14:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of ONE journalist is hardly a source for the sentiments of an entire nation.

If you are still referring to the Book of Style of El País, it is a book written by a committee, it has had at least 11 editions, and El País expects its redactors to follow the book's recommendations (on neologisms, terminology, and how to deal with uncertain issues like this of Gibraltar). As the prologue mentions, the redactors often don't respect the rules, prompting complaints from the readers to the Reader's Ombudsman.

As Ecemaml has already said, El País is the best sold general newspaper in Spain, and its book of style is consulted by many outside the paper as a more agile guide on Spanish usage than the efforts of RAE.

So it is clearly an important reference.

On this particular issue, the book explicitely says:

Las recomendaciones que siguen, y que EL PAÍS hace suyas, han sido extraídas del glosario de términos sobre Gibraltar hecho por el diplomático Jaime Rodríguez-Ponga.

"The following recommendations, taken by EL PAÍS as their own, have been extracted from the glossary of terms about Gibraltar compiled by the diplomat Jaime Rodríguez-Ponga".

So, in this issue, that vocabulary is the desired one for the direction of the best sold newspaper in Spain and is based on the work of a Spanish diplomat.

--Error 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

ONE diplomat! WOW! Look up "semantics" & "sophistry" --Gibraltarian 08:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

UN Charter

Charter of the United Nations:

Some of Gibraltarian's assertions on the UN Charter can be misleading:

With regards the UN Charter, I suggest you have a good read.....it does NOT mention "territorial integrity" anywhere.

2.4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It DOES however clearly state that ALL persons have the right to self-determintation.

There is no mention of personal self-determination, every mention is qualified as "of peoples".

--Error 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If we are not "people" what are we? Cattle?--Gibraltarian 08:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. The mention that I introduced about how "enshrined" the territorial integrity was just a parody of the Gibraltarian insistence on adding such appreciation to the text. Traditional Spanish arguments has relayed in the "territorial integrity". Gibraltarian arguments talks about "self-determination". Both concepts appear in the UN Charter and are further developed in 1514 (if I don't badly remember the number of the resolution). That's all that has to be mentioned, without any appreciation. We're not here to demostrate who is right or wrong (not me, at least), but to show the argumentations of each side --Ecemaml 09:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What you cannot do is pretend that the UN itself favours territorial integrity over self-determination, when the exact opposite is the case. The right to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter, but there is no right of annexation to add to the territorial integrity of a state, which is what spain relies on. As you are well aware, Gibraltar, as a colony is not a part of ANY other state, therefore cannot affect the territorial integrity of a state of which it does not form part. The UN itself descibes the right to self-determination as a "fundamental human right", and both the UN and ICJ have repeatedly stated "in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination". It is like comparing chalk with cheese.It is not me who favours the right to self-determination, the UN does.--Gibraltarian 13:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As usual you don't understand anything about wikipedia. You sustain that wikipedia must prove your point, when it can't.

The article should say something like this:

The traditional Spanish position has relyed in the appeal to the territorial integrity (UN Charter, article 2; resolution 1514, paragraph six) (full stop) The Gibraltarian in the right to self-determination (UN Charter, article 1; resolution 1514, paragraph 2) (full stop) Gibraltar also points out that the right to territorial integrity does not apply since Gibraltar is not part of other state (full stop).

Your remaining appreciations and small talk may be interesting for a Gib propaganda brochure or any of the fora you participate, but not for wikipedia. --Ecemaml 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you apply the UN principle of 'Territorial Integrity' it means

that there is no difference between the Isthmus and remaining

parts of Gibraltar, so if indeed Spain has given up on the claim

to the rest of the territory (ceeded in perpetuity) any attempt

to annex part of the existing state, which has never been

occupied peacefully by Spain, has no validity - GibNews 20:06UTC 10 Dec 2005