Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion

Apart from occasional mindless vandalism from both sides of the border, the pages on Gibraltar are both accurate and stable.--Gibnews 13:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if "accurate and stable" means Gibnews erasing all sources and info which he disaproves of (including United Nations website)- against the opinion of the vast majority of contributors to this site, then I agree with above statement.

Examples of Gibnews' dictatorial behaviour can be seen on the discussion page which he has so convenietly archived...--83.35.211.103 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

People who live in the past have no future. I was hoping for a new beginning and some respect for Gibraltar from Spanish users - wake up and smell the coffee, its a new day and whatever happens in and with Gibraltar is not your problem.--Gibnews 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that everyone is tired of your political speeches/statements, Gibnews. The question is why do you have to be from Gibraltar in order to contribute to this article? Why does information that Gibnews dislikes have to be eliminated from this article? Why do you equate wikipedia rules, debate and adequate sourcing of opinions with disrespect for Gibraltar?--Ismael76 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) --Ismael76 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That has the look and feel of a personal attack;

I don't understand why so many Spaniards who do not live in Gibraltar or have the slightest connection with the territory feel compelled to write about it.If you are 'tired' of things, go and improve the pages about Spain.

However you could answer one question;

why does the Spanish Government refuse to allow Gibraltar mobile phones to work in Spain ?

I have no answer to this, and was asked it last week by a senior person in the European Parliament so your answer would be most appreciated.--Gibnews 17:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to this article, you do not need to be from Gibraltar. But we need to ensure any additions to the article are both NPOV and relevant to the article. It is not fair to single out Gibnews in this way, as he has made good contributions to Wikipedia and this article in particular. Perhaps if you have concerns about the page, list points here at the talk page. But remember that this is not a forum for discussing Gibraltar and its political situation- rather the discussion of the Wikipedia page. Regards Astrotrain 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Astrotrain, having looked at past edits and the discussion page, it seems you are the only one to defend Gibnews' behaviour.

Gibnews seems to show a paranoid and dictatorial behaviour and his arguments are so poor that he is constantly cornered and forced to accuse everyone of being "Spanish" and part of a Spanish conspiracy against the city of Gibraltar( was the rule "assume good faith"?). An example of this is his nonsensical response in his latest edits. He is asked why he behaves in a way contrary to Wikipedia rules and his answer is a question on why the Spanish government does this or that... (Is he insane? I pass no judgement...)

An example of this behaviour is the recent discussion on whether Gibraltar should be classed as a tax-haven.Everyone pretty much agreed that it should be so. The reasons were obvious:

• a multitude of sources: (European Union, International organisations and private business websites) classed Gibraltar as a tax haven.
• In the articles on all other similar territories with similar economies and low corporate taxes for (cayman islands,Andorra, Monaco Luxembourg etc...) it was clearly stated that the were tax-havens. (apparently there are no Gibnews in these territories).
• The territory clearly fits the definition of Tax-haven offered in wikipedia article.(after looking at its tax law,a link to which was also erased by Gibnews, just in case).

Gibraltar decided that everyone was wrong and (worse still) part of an offensive by the Spanish government against him! Quite, ridiculous when many of the users were not Spanish.

All attempts to compromise or improve the article (users would offer more and more credible sources) were thwarted as Gibnews would promptly erase edits and, more importantly, links to sources which he did not like.

Overwhelmed by evidence against him, Gibnews dismissed it all and claimed that he would offer a "conclusive report" from an "expert" friend of his which (surprise surprise) never arrived....

Eventually, all users left the argument as they felt that Gibnews would not allow for any change from his version of reality. It seems that some left quite desillusioned with wikipedia itself, Gibnews being an example of its imperfections and lack of reliability. It shows that in some cases, articles end up being written by the most intransigent and obsessive wikipedians.

I for one have no interest in the future,past or present of Gibraltar, for all I care it can be handed over to the monkeys on the rock. It is Gibnews' behaviour which I believe calls for improvement.

And Gibnews: Yes this is a personal attack and yes I am an agent of the Spanish government...

--83.35.211.103 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, rima-tde.net is a Spanish IP block, in answer see This --Gibnews 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course anyone can contribute, and it is not necessary to be from Gibraltar. It IS necessary however to have some knowledge of the subject you are writing on. Unfortunately a large number of contributors, particularly but not exclusively from spain do not have any actual knowledge, but merely regurgitate the lies and propaganda that has been force fed to them for years.

Yes, one should assume good faith, but when the other party demonstrates that he has none, it is not possible to keep up the pretence.

Thats self-evident, however the point of the exercise is to produce quality articles. In order to succeed its necessary to act differently to the ruminants.--Gibnews 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Amusing

I the comment "Very loud scooters and motorbikes are popular and there is a good modern bus service which hardly fits around the corners." at least refect the views of someone who has at been here - At one point the way the #3 bus gets round a 90 degree corner is a small miracle, albeit repeated every 15mins. Although local motorbikes are subject to noise emission limits, those from a nearby country do not seem to be. A note to watch out for bikes overtaking from all angles might be appropriate.--Gibnews 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

IRA terrorists

Extract from the ECHR judgement

AS TO THE FACTS

12. The facts set out below, established by the Commission in its report of 4 March 1994 (see paragraphs 132 and 142 below), are drawn mainly from the transcript of evidence given at the Gibraltar inquest (see paragraph 103 below).

I. Particular circumstances of the case

13. Before 4 March 1988, and probably from at least the beginning of the year, the United Kingdom, Spanish and Gibraltar authorities were aware that the Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army - "IRA") were planning a terrorist attack on Gibraltar.

--Gibnews 17:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia likes to be more popeist than the Pope. You cannot call them terrorists. This is the same for ETA. Regards, Asterion 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NB: Before I get the finger pointed at me for racism or else, I need to clarify "More popeist than the Pope" is a direct translation of "Más papista que el Papa", a popular Andalusian saying, and it is NOT related in any case with Northern Ireland talk. And by the way, I am RC... --Asterion ^{talk to me} 10:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats certainly the way I understood it. The IRA were an equal opportunity terrorist, the bomb would have destroyed a middle School where 95% of the children were RC and a Jewish retirement home, and the bank where I was installing a Reuters terminal on the appointed morning.--Gibnews 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, it wasn't addressed to you. I just know how some people like to dig out dirt during Requests for Adminships, so I would rather explain this now than in four or five months time. Cheers, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You can refer to the 'banda terrorista ETA' however its unwise to blame them for everything. However I think there were a lot of other reasons for the change of Government. The PP was not so P--Gibnews 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I do not usually vote for Central Government elections anyway, and certainly not for PP. Regards and good night, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is another area where we can agree :) Perhaps they were 'freedom fighters' - fighting to free me from being above the earth. --Gibnews 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Population table

What are the percentages on it refering to? I assume it would be total population of Gibraltar but then why does the Gibraltar entry come 98%. josh (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The figure of 27,495 refers to the total population of Gibraltar (all nationalities) in the 2001 census. In the census its broken down into around 120 areas and someone has sumarised them into the larger groupings. I assume the 2% relates to areas not consolidated and is a sum of those listed.--Gibnews 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

‘No to Joint Sovereignty’

This section is important part of the article, but reads far too much like a news report and needs formating to read like it should.--TFoxton 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to an article to describe the tercentenery, because its too long for the main article, which should be digestible rather than a sprawl; Although the hand holding was a political act, it was not really about 'joint sovereignty' as the referendum had already seen that off. It was certainly about unity and who owns the place.

The origins and copyright of the photos is not given.--Gibnews 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews hi i was born in Gibraltar and moved at 2 years of age. with the gib page do you think a page should be made with a hyperlink of the Treaty of Utrecht (With Gibs Brother Minorca)

Message back soon..

i have a mNS if you want it? (Miller 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)).

Too much is made of the ToU - its an interesting document in the context of its time, as it then had the same sort of significance as the the proposed European connstitution. Whether a document that carved up Europe and defined protocols for the slave trade has any application today is another matter.

Because its used in relation to the Spanish claim to Gibraltar I have gone into some detail about it on my website and recently added the detail about who negotiated it and signed it on behalf of Spain, which is not readily available on the Internet.

I hope this prevents the sort of edit seen claiming Spain never signed the document at all :)

I also have a copy of Article XI which is basically worded the same as X - when Minorca ceased to be British a number of its inhabitants moved to Gibraltar.

I take it you came over for the tercentenery, it was a good day.--Gibnews 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the people's wishes,be part of Spain, or the U.K. ? - unsigned by 70.66.4.102

If you read the article you would know the answer; however Gibraltar is not part of the UK and does not wish to form part of Spain.--Gibnews 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction you're making to call Gibraltar "not part of the UK" in this context. Gibraltar has voted consistently to remain an overseas territory of the UK, which pretty well makes it "part of the UK," just as the Arizona Territory was "part of the US" even before statehood. Gibraltar is not "part of the UK" in the same sense that Northern Ireland is "part of the UK," but it's not not part of the UK, either. Lincmad 22:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The United Kingdom has a precise legal meaning and Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK. As regards voting, please read this about the referendum. It is often missquoted. --Gibnews 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Telecom Issues

In addition to the problem of Gibraltar mobile phones not working in Spain, there are also serious issues relating to landlines. As noted in the main article, Gibraltar is reached from Spain as a domestic call to 9567xxxxx. Gibraltar has sought to expand the range of telephone numbers available, but Spain refuses to either route calls to country code 350 (as required by EU law and regulation) or to allocate an adequate domestic numbering space for Gibraltar. Thus Gibraltar must choose between staying within a cramped numbering space or allocating numbers that will be unreachable from Spain. I would like to see something about this issue added to the main entry, but I don't have sufficient primary sources. Lincmad 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do;

350 is allocated to Gibraltar by the ITU so its an international rather than an EU issue, although it does amount to an unfair practice for someone signed up to free movement of goods and services.

Gibtelecom already have had to issue numbers which cannot be reached from Spain, the home internet dialup numbers and the pay-as-you-go mobiles.

There was a proposal for a new Spanish area code for Gibraltar, which would give a number space of five digits, which is not enough and would involve regulation by Spain which is unacceptable.

The matter is currently in the EU court, being sat on.

The issue of mobile roaming is easier to explain and for people to grasp the insane stupidity involved.--Gibnews 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Gibraltarians

Since this seems to be a point of contention, is there any way of knowing which community (Spanish, Genoese or Maltese) constitutes the largest imput (Gibraltarians are all mixed I suppose) to the present day Gibraltarian population? I tried to look it up on Gibraltarian white pages but i couldnt find a whole list of Gibraltarians.--83.39.145.190 11:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a search option on the site so it can be estimated by looking up random common surnames of each origin:

http://www.infobel.com/teldir/result.asp?url=http://www.gibyellow.gi/

As for Genoese there are:

• 30 Chipolina (Im not sure about this one, I think its Italian)
• 11 Bossano
• 9 Bosano
• 16 Canessa
• 7 Imossi
• 7 Licudi
• 10 Masseti
• 40 Danino
• 37 Montegriffo

As for Spanish:

• 70 Gonzalez
• 99 Garcia
• 97 Gomez
• 38 Moreno
• 38 Reyes
• 36 Hernandez
• 39 Sanchez
• 38 Torres
• 55 Lopez
• 68 Perez
• 75 Rodriguez
• 115 Martinez
• 136 Martin (also a British surname)

As for Maltese surnames:

• 24 Caruana
• 38 Zammit
• 29 Borge
• 19 Buttigieg
• 5 Farrugia
• 21 Azzopardi
• 3 Xerri

Spanish is clearly the largest ethnic background of Gibraltarians. It does not reach 50%, in my opinion (we should add Sephardic/North African, Portuguese, German, British surnames). I dont know if this reflects whether the "ethnic cleansing" practised by British forces was not really such, or the large degree of intermarriage with Spaniards throughout British rule.

I have also looked up random British names (Johnson and Harris) and there is clearly a sizeable percentage of British surnames aswell, probably as large as the Genoese or Maltese. Or maybe these people are not Gibraltarians but "guiri" British who happen to work in Gibraltar.

--83.39.145.190 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As of 2001 there were 2600 "other British" or non-Gibraltarian British, residents in Gibraltar, who would account for many (but not all)of the British surnames on the Rock. The second largest foreign community is the Morrocan (with over 900) and the third the Spanish with around 300.--Mushobe10 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see quite where you are going with this. Spanish is not a 'community' its a nationality and the Gibraltarians are British. Although there is a distinct Moroccan community in Gibraltar, there is no corresponding Spanish one.

If you wanted to look at the mix of Gibraltarian surnames you need to look at the register of electors for the referendum rather than the telephone book. Many people, like me, are ex-directory.

Martin is also a common English name.

If you want to write an article about this, get your facts right and produce one, however listing names in the main article is quite inappropriate. --Gibnews 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gibnews:

• This discussion started from an anonymous user who claimed that a majority of Gibraltarians are of Genoese origin. I was simply trying to discover the truth in this edit.

• When I mean Spanish community I mean those who live in Gibraltar and are Spanish nationals. There are 350 according to 2001 census (look it up on google). I do not mean those Gibraltarians with Spanish ancestry/surnames.

• Yes Martin is a British surname but it is the 9th most common surname in Spain. 1.16% of Spaniards have Martín as their surname. I suspect most Gibraltarians with such a surname are of Spanish origin.

• By Gibraltarians we agree that it means those residents of Gibraltar which have a "Gibraltar"-British passport. British from the UK (or Morrocans, or Spaniards for that matter) residing in Gibraltar are not to be considered Gibraltarian or Yanito.

• Many people are ex-directory, like yourself, but we must agree that, since people with Genoese surnames are not more likely to be so than those with Jewish or Spanish surnames, the relative frequency of each surname can be calculated from the White Pages.

• I dont have the register for the elections. If you could produce it you could end the discussion.

• So far, it seems that the Spanish surnames are by far the most frequent in Gibraltar.

• I wanted to ask you if it has always been the case (since the conquest) or whether this is the result of intermarriage and immigration. I also wanted to know if my impression that Spanish surnames are relatively uncommon among public figures was incorrect. I thought that this may be because intermarriage with day-workers from Algeciras and SanRoque occured principally among the lower echelon of society, leading to Spanish names being more common at this level. I have also noticed that Spanish is more widely (or even only) used in the less "posh" parts of Gibraltar.

Cheers

Mushobe

Its all a lot more complicated than that; A lot of people have changed their names for various reasons, including employers not being able to spell them correctly.

Gibraltarian is a legal status - there is a register of Gibraltarians.

The 2001 census (I have a copy to hand) shows

22,882 Gibraltarian 2,627 Other British 961 Moroccan 326 Spanish, 275 other EU and 424 other

--Gibnews 08:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Can one apply for Gibraltarian "nationality"? Or does one have to apply for general British nationality? And can a British citizen apply to be Gibraltarian after, say, 20 years living on the rock?

Thanks.

Mushobe10

Its a status rather than a nationality, British citizens can apply after 25 years residence.--Gibnews 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is also an identity and maybe even an "ethnicity". I cant become Yanito simply by moving to the rock. I wonder who those 326 Spaniards are. I woudnt be surprised if that is not their real place of residence. A case similar to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario who supposedly lived in Andorra. Although Spain recently passed a law to combat these ficticious residencies.

Btw, is Chipolina Maltese or Italian? I saw on the Gibraltar government webpage that Miss Gibraltar 2005 is a Chipolina.

--Mushobe10 12:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is that ethnicity is not exactly a big deal here, like Spanish nationals resident do not have to wear patches to identify them :)

Given the suspicion of Gibraltar by Spain, were I a rich Spanish national, like for instance Sr Matutes, I'd hide my money in Panama and not here.

One of my friends stood for election, his mother was Spanish and his father German, he was very Gibraltarian. Given the procedures for the census, I would expect that there really were 326 Spanish nationals here that night. There were probably an equal number of Gibraltarians sleeping in Spain.

The EU is about doing that sort of thing transparently, I hope.

--Gibnews 20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You have listed some names as being of spanish origin, when in fact they are Portuguese. You are also wrong about the passport issue...I have a UK issued passport as does the rest of my family, yet we are Gibraltarians.

One of the great missconceptions is that where a passport is issued has importance, it does not - the status of the holder is what counts. Any British person can hold a passport issued in Gibraltar, and a Gibraltarian can hold one issued wherever - However, there is no requirement for us to have one at all and our ID card is now good for travel in the EU.

The origin of names, although interesting in its own right is not a guide to classifying people today.

As regards Martin Wikipedia notes its common use in the UK.--Gibnews 01:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no. All of those names are Spanish. I assure you. Are you from the UK originally? You seem much to "Anglo" to be a yanito!:-) --Mushobe10 08:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that Mr Martinez, Ms Smith, Mrs Hassan and most the rest all agree on one subject.--Gibnews 08:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mushobe, This article (in Spanish)partially explains why so many Gibraltarians (perhaps a majority) are of Spanish origin. Between 4000 and 10 000 took refuge here during the Civil War. http://www.diariodecadiz.com/diariodecadiz/articulo.asp?idart=2186167&idcat=821 --Ismael76 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet more Spanish views

Primer, lo siento - yo se que mi español no es perfecto. Estoy escribiendo aqui porque los articulos sobre Gibraltar en Wikipedia ingles necesitan otros puntos de vista. Ahora, solo representan la perspectiva britanica. Entonces, si alguien quiere participar alli, necesitamos mucho ayuda para realizar "NPOV"! See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar

Hi anonymous. If you have a user name in :en, I'll get in touch with you. I tried some time ago to neutralize the content of the Gibraltar-related articles. You can see a description in the history of en:History of Gibraltar. If you need specific help (references, for instance), just talk to me. --Ecemaml (discusión) 08:38 11 abr 2006 (CEST) I'm user:Gibolds on en Wikipedia. I've edited Wikipedia with another screen name, but never Gibraltarian. I'm just an American, not Spanish or British, and don't have any particular interest in Gibraltar - I just was browsing through and checked that article out in curiosity to see what the latest situation was there, and I was shocked to see how blatantly biased it was. Apparently it's the pet project now of user:Gibnews and a couple of his buddies. Just another example of how Wikipedia can get hijacked by interest groups, which is one reason I'm not a regular anymore... Obtenido de "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Gibraltar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.83.86 (talk • contribs)

Let us be clear, the current pages about Gibraltar represent a fair and accurate description of the territory, its people and those things which are of general interest to readers of Wikipedia.

The 'Spanish POV' is that the Gibraltarians are squatters and that the territory should be ethnically cleansed and integrated into Spain - which it has not formed part of for over 300 years. This policy was instituted by the fascist dictator Franco and has been followed by subsequent Governments. Therefore it is common when reading the frequent blatent lies and defamatory comments made by Spanish contributors to assume they are fascists.

A number drove the user [user:Gibraltarian | Gibraltarian] ballistic and managed to get him banned. That worked with him but will not work again. I live in Gibraltar, understand the issues and intend to keep the pages factual and free of abuse.

--Gibnews 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And clearly biased in your favour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.175.189 (talk • contribs)

There is no bias involved in telling the truth; It seems that many in Spain, like yourself, 179.Red-81-37-165.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net need to understand the reality of Gibraltar in order to learn respect for the rights of the Gibraltarians and treat them as equal Europeans, unlike the person who said, and I quote:

British? You make me laugh. Con ese asento inintelihible, no hablái bien ningún idioma. The British don´t give a damn about your magnificent rock. Nor does anyone, only you and your monkeys (which in fact cannot be distinguised clearly from the inhabitants of your tax haven). Please, remain as you´re now (away from the rest of the peninsula), but play by the rules of the EU if you want to be considered seriously. Gora tu sa bak! Txetxu.80.32.152.184 08:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My mirror does not show a monkey, nor is anyone making one of me --Gibnews 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anons, please provide specific suggestions on how to improve this article. Sources from both countries are acceptable, and all sources should be specifically cited. For issues like this, it's often difficult to restrict oneself to "facts" because facts are not self-evident. People's opinions, however, are, because they are printed in newspapers and books. If Spanish perspectives differ significantly on things here, it's good to include that viewpoint and specifically say who said it. That's good writing. Gibnews, would it be possible to begin adding references to support this article? The best way to stifle POV debates is to cite serious sources, like books written on the topic (Google books says there are alot of them). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is already NPOV. There is always room for improvement, but we don't need this constant debate and accusations from Spanish based users. Astrotrain 18:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer: facts about Gibraltar from ANY country are welcome. Gibraltar is not +just+ a matter for discussion with Spain.

The Spanish are our neigbours geographically and prior to 1704 Gibraltar was occupied by Spain (for 200 years). They have not yet grasped that period is history, and their opinions and perspectives are immaterial and largely based on propaganda. Good neigbourly relations and less abuse from .es would, however, be appreciated.--Gibnews 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "The British don´t give a damn about your magnificent rock" is clearly nonsense, as 30,000 Gibraltarians are British and clearly do give a damn. Also any consultation of UK public opinion will show overwhelming support for Gibraltar.

---

• "Prior to 1704 Gibraltar was occupied by Spain for 200 years"

• The 'Spanish POV' is that the Gibraltarians are squatters and that the territory should be ethnically cleansed and integrated into Spain - which it has not formed part of for over 300 years. This policy was instituted by the fascist dictator Franco and has been followed by subsequent Governments.

(both by Gibnews)

This is the kind of delirious garbage we have to hear from this Englishman currently residing in Gibraltar (apparently he is not even Gibraltarian). So Spain "occupied" Gibraltar in the past? Yes!!! And Spain is now currently occupying two thirds of the Iberian peninsula who's rightful ruler is Abdurahman II Caliph of Cordoba. Please!

Why has this person nominated himself as the owner of this article? What you have not understood is that the Spanish government and the Spanish people don't give a damn about Gibraltar. It is a non-issue for us. Sure, it is an anachronism from the past that the UK has not returned this last colony on Spanish soil. But we don't really care. We have many other issues to worry about. What really gets on the nerves of Spanish wikipedians is to hear pathetic slander, from this Englishman sitting in a colonised village in Cadiz, about Spain and the Spanish government. Gibnews tries to give the impression that Spain is some kind of ultra-nationalistic state, obsessed with irredentism, with a hysterical and slanted press. For some reason he feels the need to mantain the long forgotten image of Spain as a third-world tinpot dictatorship. He probably thinks this somehow justifies British presence in Gibraltar.

Furthermore, Gibnews will not even allow for the word "colony" to be used in the article -of course it is not the title used by her Majesty's Government, how silly of us!. He will not even allow for the NPOV tag to be included or the disputed tag to be used, when everyone agrees that his version is clearly disputed. He has the advantage of being the only person who checks this page daily reverting anything that contradicts his Pro-British position. In my opinion he should be banned and I think my view is shared by many. He should not be banned for his opinions, he is entitled to them, but for his agenda to supress the expression of other opinions (and well sourced facts) apart from his own.

Oh! Gibnews, in your reply, dont forget to explain how our Genocidal and Fascist sentiments are expressed by our refusal to allow Gibraltarian mobile phones to work in Spain.

--Ismael76 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your POV - I would indeed be interested in knowing why when my GSM phone which works in nearly every country in the world (it being a tri-band model) cannot operate in Spain.

As for the rest, please read

• This
• And this

And try and stick to facts.

As for the Spanish obsession with Gibraltar - which you describe and manifest so well - now read how Spain pulled its bowling team from a competition because Gibraltar competed.

• Gibraltar wins 'Fair Play' award in European bowling

Clearly not the sort of thing a tinpot nation obsessed with irredentism would get up to. An analysis of the soil in Gibraltar shows it, like me is 100% Gibraltarian.

Please get a life.

--Gibnews 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews please don't worry about me. Expressing my opinions does not take that much of my time so as not to have a life.

You accuse Spain of being Fascist? Yes maybe we should learn from a great Democracy like the UK which has not been able to overcome its glorious colonial past determined to hold on to the crumbs of its empire all over the world. In the Carribean, the Pacific, the South Atlantic... A nation ready to spill the blood of its young men for the sake of a few practically uninhabited islands off the Antartic peninsula. A nation content to invade, occupy and destroy a country in the Middle East under false pretences. At least, in Spain, when our government decided to give (only) moral and diplomatic support to this invasion, we promptly kicked them out of office. How Fascist of us! How unpatriotic! Now Tony Blair is under fire in the UK. Why? Because of the young Britons dying in Iraq? Because of the lie concerning WMDs? Nooo! of course not. Apparently its because there are too many Asylum Seekers in the UK!

But we Spaniards refuse to let Gibraltarian mobile phones work in Spain. Maybe Tony should bomb us as well. Damned Fascists, we deserve it anyways.

As for your frequent comparisons of Gibraltar with Ceuta and Melilla: France has a much more valid claim over the Jersey Islands than Morroco has over Ceuta or Melilla.

--Ismael76 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you this is NOT A FORUM. I have made no comment about Spanish occupied territories in Africa, Gibraltar is occupied by the Gibraltarians not foreigners. You seem unable to explain why Gibraltar phones are unilaterally blocked by Spain so I suggest you emulate the Spanish bowling team.--Gibnews 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish occupied territories in Africa? What are you talking about? Spain decolonised Western Sahara, the Rif and Ecuatorial Guinea decades ago. I hope for your sake that you are not referring to the two autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, it is not good to display such a level of ignorance in public. Maybe you should refer to the Sinai as Egyptian occupied territories in Asia? Or Istambul as Turkish occupied territories in Europe? Or how about Chiapas? Mexican occupied territories in Central America! Did you not know that when Spain decolonized the Rif, it did not include Ceuta and Melilla because these cities and its people are historically part of Spain. Its not me who is going to give you history lessons.

As for your question. Spain refuses to give international recognition to a foreign colony on its soil. Its a relatively common practice in international relations. I am sure that had Spain occupied Newcastle in the 18th century, kicked out its inhabitants, and kept hold of it to the present day, the UK would be doing more than walking out of bowling tournaments... --Ismael76 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah clearly you have missed this I really don't understand where you get these silly notions about 'soil' from - El Rey Católico, por si y por sus herederos y sucesores, cede por este Tratado a la Corona de la Gran Bretaña la plena y entera propiedad de la ciudad y castillo de Gibraltar, juntamente con su puerto, defensas y fortaleza que le pertenecen, dando la dicha propiedad absolutamente para que la tenga y goce con entero derecho y para siempre, sin excepción ni impedimento alguno.

Perhaps 'para siempre' means something else to you.

However, since then Spain has signed up to the EU which has a principle of equality of citizens of different member states and promotes free movement of goods and services, its sad to see one country so obsessive about the past. You really should follow the example of Sir francis Drake who took time to finish his game of bowls and did not run away in a huff. -- Gibnews.

You guys should stop arguing. There is no purpose in this debate. There is nothing terribly offensive to Spain in the article at this moment. Gibraltar is British and thats it. Although I think that everyone knows (including the British government and deep down also the Yanitos) that it will eventually return to Spain. And when it does, nothing will change since we are all in the EU and (hopefully) the UK will be in Schengen. Gibraltarians will go about their business as always only without the queues and without the claustrophobia of living in the smallest colony in the world.--Mushobe10 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There are smaller places, by the end of this year the status of Gibraltar will be modernised. There is no reason to be part of Spain and its considered most unlikely. The argument is indeed pointless and shows how obsessed some Spaniards are with something that is none of their business and which they know nothing about.--Gibnews 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't think of any territory smaller than Gibraltar... Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo, maybe...;-) --Mushobe10 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Yes maybe we should learn from a great Democracy like the UK which has not been able to overcome its glorious colonial past determined to hold on to the crumbs of its empire all over the world."

Feel free to point to any part of the former empire which remains a British dependancy (i.e. Gibralter or the Falklands) where the people living there are not overwhelmingly in favour of this status. The attitude and 'imperialist' accusations of Spain ( and their honourable cousins the Argentines ) against the UK with regard to Gibralter always crack me up. Gibralter is British, it has been British for longer than it was ever Spanish and and the overwhelming (in fact 'overwhelming' barely does justice to how unequivocal the population is) majority of the population want to remain British and want nothing more to do with Spain than is necessary. Either you accept the rights of people to self-determination or you should have the honesty to admit to being against this basic principle of democracy. The only behaviour reminescent of 'imperialism' is that of Spain in this context and as has pertinently been pointed out previously this antagonistic and ridiculous claim to Gibralter was raised only by the fascist government and it remains still an utterly fascist aim sadly espoused by a democratic state. siarach 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"A nation ready to spill the blood of its young men for the sake of a few practically uninhabited islands off the Antartic peninsula."

Well what can be said - the UK is willing to defend the rights of people to self-determination and to defend them from foreign conquest (and considering the history of the 20th century its a damn good thing for the world that this is the case). The people of the Falkland Isles want nothing to do with Argentina and when they suffered imperialist aggression from that nation the UK defended them - try as you might there isnt any area there for ambiguity in the slightest, its a clear division betwen a side utterly in the wrong which should be condemned (Argentina) and the side which had been wronged and which reacted in a manner totally appropriate (The Falkland Isles/UK). For people living in democratic nations the Spanish/Argentines seem remarkably comfortable with the idea of forcing themselves on other people such as the falkland islanders and the gibraltarians. siarach 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats Right! And the same goes for the Settlers of the West Bank. They have the right to self-determination as well, don't they? Those Palestinians want their land back??? Im very sorry, but an overwhelming majority of Settlers says "Screw you, Arabs. Its ours now!" Thats Democracy isnt it? --Ismael76 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a totally appropriate and relevant comparison *rolls eyes*. Of course Spain is absolutely packed with poor dispossesed Spanish Gibraltarians who were violently dispossed by the wicked British within easy living memory isnt it? . You can refer to all the distasteful occupations or annexations you want in an attempt to somehow add legitimacy to Spains attempts at taking the right of Gibralter and its inhabitants to choose their own sovereignty but it wont for a second work. siarach 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you want to be a good Briton and defend the Gibraltarians from our hispanic imperialist aggression you can start by spelling the territory's name properly.--Ismael76 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yawn, if youve nothing to say beyond childish pedantry then best remain silent. siarach 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will. If ever I feel like Gibraltar-bashing, Gibnews is always there for me to pick a fight with. You do not know or care much about Gibraltar. By the way the 28,000 inhabitants of Gibraltar have no right to self-determination according to International Law and to the British government. That is why the UK did not recognize their referendum. I apologize for my gratuitous attack on your country. You study at SOAS? I studied Arabic there during my time in London. Has a good bar eh?--Ismael76 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the bit on the referendum by mentioning its non recognition by the two sovereign states involved.

Yeah studying history at SOAS - bar is good though i cant say i frequent it too often ( theyve sadly banned all smoking in recent months ). Were you taking a degree or just a year abroad in London? siarach 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I did my degree in London. Well things must have changed since I was there. Probably cleaned the place up, a pity, it was a really popular bar before. Does the SOAS Colombian cleaning-service still mantain its coke-dealing business?--Ismael76 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you admit that your purpose is 'Gib Bashing' and its clear you have little to add apart from abuse. My rights are something you are particularly ill informed about and something that will be defended robustly. The purpose of this page is to discuss material for inclusion on the Gibraltar pages. As you admit to knowing nothing about Gibraltar, and are only here to insult Gibraltar and the British can I politely suggest that you desist as thats not what Wikipedia is for. --Gibnews 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, spain cannot complain about "having a British colony on spanish soil" as there isn't one. The Overseas territory of Gibraltar is in fact on British soil....it is merely next to spain". Your understanding of International Law is clearly flawed.......if you read the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN Resolution 1514(XV) you will see that you are clearly wrong. Yanito

Referendum Result

It is simply not true to say that the Referendum was ignored by the United Kingdom Government, despite comments that may have been in the press at the time. HMG has repeatedly stated that there will be no change in the status of Gibraltar contrary to the democratically expressed wishes of its people. The wishes not to engage in a process of shared sovereignty with Spain were expressed in the referendum. A panel of international observers, led by Gerald Kaufman confirmed this. Subsequently joint sovereignty has been abandoned as UK Government policy.

In respect of the Government of Spain, their views are IMMATERIAL as they have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in what happens in Gibraltar.

I trust this explains why this has been removed.

--Gibnews 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's true that "The question of Gibraltar continues to dominate Anglo-Spanish relations", why not include the fact that Spain didn't recognize it? It's true, and actually probably makes them look bad anyway. It's a significant dispute, so why isn't passing mention of their objection to the referendum worth including? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer, I don'think the criterion, for what is and is not to be included in this article, should be making Spain look bad. Gibnews: you never produced a source for your assertions. I did not revert them because I found a source more or less supporting your claim at the end of the Politics section. Please try to be a little bit less dictatorial. Gibraltar may well be yours but articles on wikipedia belong to everyone. They get better through dialogue not through confrontation. Don't apply the Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti mentality to this article.--Burgas00 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'm just wondering why Gibnews is so opposed to including it—if it's because it makes Spain look good, I don't understand that at all. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In relation to 'spain rejecting the referendum' this is simply nonsense. The Government of Spain is not sufficiently foolish to do such a thing. It might not be happy with the referenendum and the result, which sends a clear signal - and Jack Straw was also not happy with the result. He has gone and his policy failed. BUT there is no basis to say anthing else. Inclusion of that wording makes Spain look bad and undemocratic anyway. - Gibnews

But Gibnews, Spain TOTALLY rejected the referendum. It deemed it illegal. So did the UK initially, and Peter Caruana went ballistic remember?! I think that you are going abit over the top in your intransigence and I am going to revert your "clean up".

I really don't see the point in including a reference to Spain in that section, suggesting that The Government of Spain wishes to interfere with the exercise of the democratic process in other territories is hardly flattering. However, if you insist on including that, please cite an official Spanish source and not a Scottish newspaper. Most reports in the UK press about the referendum say we 'voted to remain a UK colony' that is also false.

• The Referendum motion
• Observers report

Although the Government of Spain can have an opinion what it is is quite immaterial, as is that of that of the UK Government in relation to a referendum organised by the Government of Gibraltar. I see on this occasion they did not try and pass a motion in the UN condemning democracy.

However, for a country who block GSM phones out of spite and instruct their sporting teams to withdraw from contests where we participate its not a surprise. They are still complaining we vote in EU elections and wasting your tax money on this nonsense.--Gibnews 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

spain did NOT "declare the referendum illegal" as it has standing to do such thing. The Deputy Prime Minister at the time Mariano Rajoy made a daft comment to the news stating "es un referendum ilegal" (It's an illegal referendum), but this does not make it official spanish govt policy. What the spanish govt DID say was that the referendum was not legally binding, which is not the same as being illegal. They were wrong on this anyway, as the rights to self-determination are enshrined in the UN Charter, which is Primary International Law. The UK have never declared the referendum "illegal" but it was dismissed by Jack Straw as being "eccentric".

This last comment is wrong. Gibraltar has no more right to self determination than Liverpool, Malaga or any other territory of any sovereign state. Gibraltar is not a "people" but a disputed territory. Its population has no say regarding sovereignty according to the UN charter or to International Law. On the other hand, the UK has the right to pay attention to the wishes of its citizens in Gibraltar. This is a political decision and has nothing to do with International Law. --Burgas00 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00, you clearly have no knowledge on International Law. It is YOUR comment that is wrong. Gibraltar is a colony.....a non-self governing territory.....and therefore by definition NOT an integral part of any state. The territory of Gibraltar is not in fact disputed......even the Govt of spain recognises the cession under Utrecht.....but requests it's return. The UN Charter clearly and specifically grants the right of self-determination of ALL peoples. We are in fact people, not cattle. The UN has also repeatedly stated that "in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination".

Liverpool and Malaga are integral parts of the UK and spain respectively. Gibraltar is part of neither, but is under the sovereignty of UK as Administering Power. spain knows this which is why they continually refuse to have the matter referred to the ICJ.

And why is Gibraltar not part of the UK? Should it be?

Thats right gibraltarian. The 20,000 people of Gibraltar are a sovereign nation. Maybe they should declare independence.

I always thought that the reason that Gibraltar is in the UN decolonisation list was because it was a UK colony in Spain, since it has been conquered from the sovereign state of Spain and then populated with foreigners from Italy, Malta etc.. I don't think the UN was thinking of a Gibraltarian "people" when they called for the decolonisation of Gibraltar. And if they were, the only Gibraltarians who were "colonized" were those who are today in San Roque. Gibraltar was already British before your grandparents were allowed to move there. What right do you have over the territory?

Maybe Britain should have handed its colonies in Africa to the Whites when it decolonised. Or the French should have simply handed over power to the Pieds Noirs in Algiers (after kicking out all the Algerians from the city ofcourse!)

Well it worked with the Brits in Gibraltar. They kicked out all the Gibraltarians and filled the place with the escoria of the mediterranean.

"Gibraltarian" please leave my country and go back to whatever part of the world you come from. Or atleast stay in Gibraltar until it returns to the sovereign people of Spain and we can send illegal immigrants like yourself back to Africa (on a cayuco);-).

--Ismael76 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ismael it just goes to show how wrong you can be. Gibraltar is on the UN list of non-self governing territories because that is precisely what it is.....and it was placed there by the UK at the UN's inception. It is not by any means a colony "in spain" as you put it, merely NEXT TO spain, in the same way that Poland is next to Germany and Kuwait next to Iraq. Proximity did not justify those annexations either.

How far back do we go? Do we expel everyone from the American continents (north & south) who are not descended from the Native Americans, Incas, Mayans etc? Do we expel all Aussies other than the Aboriginies? My right over the territory extends nealt 300 years.....it was in fact in 1713 that your King's predecessor CEDED the territory to UK. No-one was kicked out of anywhere.....that is historical FACT.

I cannot therefore leave "your" country, as I am not in it. I am in MINE........the homeland of the Gibraltarians......100% British territory exclusively and in perpetuity. Yanito.

Well Gibraltarian, I dont know why its you who is banned from wikipedia, you seem to me, (dento de lo que cabe), more reasonable than Gibnews who wont even admit that the place is a colony. Dont worry one day we will return to Gibraltar and send you all back to Morroco where you belong...--Ismael76 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Ismael its time you and your friends understood that Gibraltar is not 'in Spain' and you learnt some respect for Gibraltarians - Gibraltar is ours and its future belongs to us, not you, and whatever you do or say will not change that.

Ismael, maybe one day you will return when Spain returns Melilla and Ceuta to Morocco.

Residency, permits etc...

Its sad that considering the forward looking nature of Spain that your head is still burried in the past in relation to a friendly neigbour. -- Gibnews

Ok i have spent 99% of my negative energy and animosity towards the llanitos. One last question. Whats up with the long queues? Why do you have to check everyone's passport in order to get into Gibraltar? Last summer my girlfriend asked me to drive her to visit Gibraltar and they didnt let her in because she is not from the EU. Why cant Gibraltar be part of Schengen and make life easier for everyone? Why do you need a UK visa which costs 300 pounds just to get into a 6km2 rock thousands of km from England. Cant they have day visas? Its not like thousands of people are swimming across the bay of Algeciras to immigrate into the colony. By the way the weather is really shit in Gibraltar comparing to neighbouring areas. Its always raining.... It is the rock which attracts the cloud?

--Ismael76 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, be under no illusions.......spain will NOT "return to Gibraltar"....ever. spain is now and will only ever be a neighbour. I am already where I belong.....in Gibraltar, my homeland. I certainly have no connections with Morocco, nor do any of my ancestors.

You are certainly misinformed regarding the frontier queues. They are the result of unacceptably and deliberately slow passport checks by the spanish Policia Nacional. There is no actual reason for these checks, as the norm is to check those entering a country, not those leaving. If your girlfriend is not from the EU, then she cannot travel anywhere in the EU without her passport. It has nothing to do with Schengen. Some nationalities are required to have a Visa to enter EU territories, others are not. No-one is forced to come here, and certainly if her nationality nessecitates a Visa, and she does not think Gibraltar worthwhile, then she is under no obligation to do so.

We actually have very little rainfall, no more then surrounding areas. We do have the "Levanter" cloud, which is indeed caused by high humidity easterly winds hitting the vertical east side of the rock and being forced up over 400m, and condensing into a cloud. If you think so little of Gibraltar, it's people, it's weather and/or other attractions, one is forced to wonder why the obsession with annexation? Yanito.

Actually Ismael is right on this -I am also from outside the EU and I know about this. I imagine his girlfriend is resident in an EU Schengen country, be it Spain, Germany, Italy etc... When you are resident in an X schengen country you can travel freely in any other schengen country without the need for a visa. Since Gibraltar belongs to the UK and the UK has not joined Schengen, a foreign resident in Spain would need a UK visa to go to Gibraltar but would not need one to go to Portugal or France.--Burgas00 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As usual you are badly informed; A UK visa is valid for the United Kingdom, in order nto enter Gibraltar a non EU resident would require a visa issued by the Government of Gibraltar. The people who are most dissadvantaged are the Moroccan residents of Gibraltar who wish to enter Spain for shopping and to get the ferry service. There is a case for Gibraltar to be part of Schengen - However the .

• Nationals needing a visa for Gibraltar

--Gibnews 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way am I badly informed? You have only confirmed what I have just said, Gibnews.:) I also think it would benefit Gibraltar to join Schengen, but I dont see how this could be done without the UK joining as well.--Burgas00 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Any EU national may enter Gibraltar with their passport or National I.D. card. Non-EU nationals do not generally require Visas, but some do. It is true that Visas to enter Schengen countries are not valid to enter non-Schengen EU territories, such as U.K., Gibraltar and others. A UK Visa is not valid for entry to Gibraltar either, only a Gibraltar visa would be accepted. I hope this makes things clearer. ;o)

All overseas territories of the UK have their own immigration policies that apply to all non territory residents, including UK citizens. Thus for example a UK citizen cannot settle in Gibraltar, unless approved by the Government of Gibraltar. The opposite is not true, since 2002 all overseas territory citzens have the right to British citizenship and as such, full residency rights. Astrotrain 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain, I don't know where you get your information from but I assure you it is wrong. ANY EU citizen has the right to settle, live and work in ANY other part of the EU. Gibraltar is no exception. There are many EU citizens who have taken advantage of that right. Yanito

Yes I agree with Yanito. I think Astrotrain hasnt realized his country has joined the EU.:-)--Burgas00 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify another issue. In the UK, there are two types of UK nationalities: "Metropolitan" UK nationality and overseas nationalities. I think that those with overseas passports have limited citizen rights and the UK decided not to grant them European citizenship. Maybe this is what Astrotrain was referring to. Is Gibraltarian British nationality part of the "British" group or of the overseas group? --Burgas00 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EU citizens cannot settle in Gibraltar, as although Gibraltar is a part of the EU, not all provisions in EU law are part of the territory. If any EU citizen could settle in Gibraltar, I am quite sure it would be swamped by the Spanish- and so there is no way the UK or Gibraltar governments would agree to that. Gibraltar, like all uk overseas territories, maintains its own immigration policy seperate from the UK. A UK citizen has no right to abode in any of the overseas territories, including Gibraltar, without the permission of the territory government. The nationality rights of citizens of Gibraltar is different, as they are British citizens under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (although Gibraltar citizens always had this right). I think you need to remember that Gibraltar is not part of the UK, and its own set of laws. Have a look at Special_member_state_territories_and_their_relations_with_the_EU to see Gibraltar's relations with the EU. Astrotrain 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain......your post is far removed from reality. Your information is incorrect. EU citizens CAN settle in Gibraltar and indeed many have done so. The reason we are not "swamped" as you put it, is the limited housing available, and the high cost of such. UK Citizens may not have right of abode in other British Overseas Territories, but in Gibraltar (as an EU territory) they do, in common with ALL other EU citizens. Gibraltarians are British Citizens automatically as of right. They are thus regarded as EU nationals with all comensurate rights. Yanito.

[1] -"European Union (EU) nationals are entitled to enter Gibraltar and seek employment or establish a business. Initially they may stay in Gibraltar for six months after which time they will be granted a residence permit valid for five years which is renewable, on condition that they have found suitable employment or established a business. People in this category are entitled to bring their immediate family (normally the spouse and children) with them. Exceptions to the above, however, are the following". EU citizens still need to apply for permission from the government. Astrotrain 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well apparently we were wrong and Astrotrain was right. I find this system very surprising, and contrary to the basic principles of the EU. It is also unneccesary, As yanito said, there is no danger of Spaniards swamping Gibraltar... There is no space, no reason to do so and I imagine that in one of the most crowdest places in the world, the cost of housing must be even higher than in Spain - if that is possible.--Burgas00 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Gibraltar could not join Schengen or for that matter use the Euro without the UK opting for these things as Gibraltar has its own legal system seperate from the UK. However one of our neigbours would be sure to try and block it as they did with giving the disabled rights under EU directives etc. Not sure what the cost of a visa is these days, it used to be inexpensive and the UK cost will be higher than Gib as per the passport. The cost of housing is indeed higher than Spain.--Gibnews 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems The Spanish Government agrees with me about Schengen Sr Pons statement --Gibnews

Astrotrain, your information comes from the "Unofficial Gibraltar Website" which is even more inaccurate than many WP articles. It is WRONG. EU law obliges ALL EU territories, including Gibraltar to allow EU nationals to reside or work throughout the EU. Many have done so. You information is incorrect. Yanito

Nonsense although its 100% unofficial the information on that site is correct. I suggest you check the situation. Non Gibraltarian British nationals require a residence permit as do other EU nationals to reside in Gibraltar.--Gibnews

But maybe EU law doesnt apply to Gibraltar on the issue of Free Movement of Workers... This is true for certain EU countries such as France who will demand work permits for citizens of new Eastern EU member states. This is supposed to be temporary though. Yanito if you are 100% sure of this please provide us a proper source. --Burgas00 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am 101% sure. EU law as regards freedom of movement is fully applicable in Gibraltar. This applies to visitors and workers alike. You can check the Gibraltar Govt website which links to the Laws of Gibraltar. There are many EU nationals resident and/or working in Gibraltar. Surely Astrotrain cannot be suggesting that we have thousands of illegal workers here? Yanito

They may be there, but they have residence permits. --Gibnews

Well needing residence permits is understandable (for some) but not being in Schengen benefits nobody and harms all... With Schengen there would be NO queues whatsoever which I am sure all Gibraltarians are sick of. In this case, as Gibnews has pointed out, its not Spain which is responsible for this problem...--Burgas00 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated, there is no reason why Gibraltar should not be part of Schengen and it seems the Spanish foreign minister agrees - one would normally expect him to block anything favourable for Gibraltar so perhaps this is a positive change;

In relation to border queues, there still remains the issue of the customs union, so there would be an excuse - however the queues are a simple expression of spanish angst against Gibraltar and their length varies from a few minutes to several hours according to instructions from Madrid. --Gibnews

Islamic Period

It is not clear from the article which kingdoms Gibraltar belonged to between 711 and 1309.--Mushobe10 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it belonged to the caliphate of Damascus, then to Cordoba and later to one of the Taifa kingdoms (probably Granada or Elvira as it was then called) I am not sure actually...

Sources on Exodus of Gibraltar (and Gibnews' attitude)

• http://www.el-mundo.es/cronica/2002/366/1035193806.html

De aquellos episodios tiene la niña Beatriz, que ahora cumple cinco meses, el nombre que tiene. Su padre, el abogado Jaime Castro, lo rescató de un viejo archivo empolvado. Beatriz, por Beatriz de Mairena (Gibraltar 1698-Ciudad de Gibraltar de San Roque, 1756), su antepasada llanita, una de los más de 4.000 españoles que lo perdieron todo tras el asalto de la flota anglo-holandesa capitaneada por el almirante George Rooke el 4 de agosto de 1704.

Como el resto de su familia, Beatriz de Mairena abandonó para siempre su casa y su ciudad, siendo una niña de cinco años, una mañana incierta entre los días 4 y 6 de agosto de hace ya 298 años. Marcharon con lo puesto, lo que les cabía en un carro (las familias que lo tuvieran) y rancho para seis días de camino.Lo decían las capitulaciones negociadas: «Que se hará la provisión de pan, carne y vino para seis días de marcha», con especial consideración hacia «oficiales, regidores y demás caballeros».Podían salir con caballo, si lo tenían, y nadie les registraría «los bagages que conduxeren ropa en arcas y cofres».

El éxodo quedó narrado en las memorias manuscritas del cura Juan Romero Figueroa, quien contuvo sus deseos de marcharse para así atender a la treintena escasa de parroquianos que optaron por quedarse bajo el mando británico. «Fue tanto el horror que habían causado las bombas y valas que de mil vecinos [se refiere al número de casas] que tenía esta ciudad quedaron tan solamente hasta doce, abandonando su patria, sus casas y vienes y frutos; fue ese día un miserable espectáculo de llantos y lágrimas de mugeres y criaturas viendose salir perdidos por esos campos en el rigor de la canícula este día así que salió la gente robaron los ingleses todas las casas y no se escapó la mía y de mi compañero, porque mientras estábamos en la iglesia las asaltaron los más de ellos, y robaron». El cura Romero siguió con sus memorias y terminó sus días en Gibraltar. En uno de sus escritos explicaba el porqué de su empecinado trabajo notarial: «Esto he escrito para que quede memoria para los siglos venideros».

• I think an English language source is needed for the English wikipedia. Astrotrain 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will translate this if you do not speak Spanish, Gibnews. Father Romero Figueroa's account of the horror faced by Gibraltarians is the only eye witness account presented so far. Perhaps it should be included in the article. What do you think?

I try to be neutral but in the face of your MPOV behaviour it is easy to counter your one-sided arguments. I keep hoping that you are a reasonable individual with whom one can discuss things normally and in a cordial manner. However, your aggressive reaction to non-political and non-controversial proposals such as that of the Jewish Community and your constant edits and POV pushing on historical debates make me lose that hope. You have decided that this article belongs to you and to you only, as many wiki editors have claimed over the last months. You should seriously consider changing your attitude.

--Burgas00 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the sentence from "left" to "decided to leave" is another example of your silly POV pushing which is worthy of banned user Gibraltarian. You want to change language to make it sound like the Exodus of Gibraltar to refugee camps was a placid and premeditated affair which was not done out of fear.

Maybe they only left as part of a Spanish campaign to discredit Gibraltar???? That seems to be your answer to everything. --Burgas00 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a pity you have a problem with Assume good faith perhaps you could translate your following comment into English too:

19:05, 14 June 2006 Burgas00 (¡Viva San Roque! ¡Nunca se rendirá ante el imperialismo anglo-llanito! ¡Guiris a Gibraltar!, con los monos que son los únicos que los comprenden...)

Firstly the people in Gibraltar in 1704 were Spanish and other nationalities and not Gibraltarian, that term only has any meaning under the Gibraltarian Status Ordinance (1962). Please do not use it where its not appropriate.

Secondly as a FAIR AND REASONABLE peace treaty was made that they left was a decision made by the people and they were not OBLIGATED to leave. Some remained.

Given that Gibraltar was likely to be subject to further military action, including bombardments by Spain which subsequently destroyed most of the housing in Main Street, was rife with disease because the limited fresh water supply drained through the burial ground in Red Sands road, and there was scope for agriculture in the areas they moved to it was a sensible choice. Indeed there was difficulty in getting people to move to Gibraltar prior to this and some were forced to go and no doubt wished to leave.

Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left , bodies of murdered Englishment and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared remain.... Jackson P 101

The only thing they had to fear was punishment for their crimes, however the march out was orderly and without incident.

Trouble is Spain lost and three hundred years later you are still complaining about it. By far worse things happened in your more recent civil war. Franco did not act alone, but there is no Truth and reconciliation inquiry in Spain.

My interest is in keeping the Gibraltar pages factual and free of Spanish propaganda. You could help by doing the same and refraining from Personal attacks--Gibnews 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Surley there isn't much difference between the two statements "left", "decided to leave" ? Astrotrain 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The British honoured their word and allowed the Spanish to leave peacefully, and even taking cannon, they also had the choice to remain in Gibraltar, this is spelt out clearly :

Articles of the Surrender of Gibraltar, 1704

Article I: The officers and soldiers shall be allowed to march out with their baggage, and soldiers may takewhat they can carry with them: The officers, the magistrates, and gentlemen are allowed to take their horses: and for those without baggage who choose to depart by water vessels shall be provided.

Article II: Three pieces of brass cannon of different sizes may be carried away, together with twelve rounds of ammunition for each gun.

Article III: A supply of bread, meat, and wine for six days march shall be provided.

Article IV: The trunks containing the baggage of officers, magistrates, and gentlemen, shall not be examined. The garrison shall march out within three days: the effects that cannot in that time be removed shall remain in the place to be sent for when convenient, and no obstruction shall be given to carts conveying them.

Article V: To the inhabitants, soldiers, and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar, shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Charles II; the religion and all tribunals shall remain intact and without alteration, it being understood that the oath of fidelity to HM Charles III as legitimate Lord and King, is to be taken.

Article VI: All magazines of powder and of implements of war are to be pointed out- all useless arms, and all provisions that exist in the city.

Article VII: From this capitulation the French and all subjects of His Catholic Majesty are excluded. They shall remain prisoners of war, and all their property will be at the disposal of the conquerors.

'George' Landgrave of Hesse

--Gibnews 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am not Spanish, although I have lived in Spain for many years. Do not accuse me of complaining about a war that Spain lost. I do not care for the status of Gibraltar, whether it is Spanish, English or French. The only thing that I complain about is about political agendas on wikipedia and attempts to distort historical fact.

• "Gibraltarian" means some one who is from Gibraltar. It is not restricted to any 20th century British legal definition.

• Accusing 4000 Gibraltarians (including women and children) of being "criminals affraid of being punished from their crimes" is offensive and silly, albeit, typical of you.

• People do not leave their town ,houses, property and belongings out of free will. They leave everything in the face of war, plunder and aggression as is described in the eyewitness account I have offered. The Articles of surrender were a later attempt to legalise this aggression. The houses and propery of those expelled from Gibraltar had already been given away by the British army when this document was written.

• The correct expression is, in my opinion, that these 4000 Gibraltarians, i.e. the vast majority of Gibraltarians, were expelled or fled at the time. This is just my opinion which, contrary to you, I do not wish to impose on anyone else nor on this article. For this reason the term left is the most neutral and appropriate one.

• You accuse me of "personally attacking you" as you have accused many people who have complained about your unacceptable behaviour over the past months. Perhaps you should read some more on the rules of wikipedia.

I will continue reverting your edits as long as they remain part of an agenda to distort historical fact or present it in a particular light. I will not revert them to my position or opinion on the subject but to a wording which remains as NPOV as possible until a consensus between you and other users can be found. I think this is the best procedure for dealing with controversial topics in Wikipedia. I am sure that if you change your attitude you will succeed in finding this consensus which will satisfy all sides who are acting in goodfaith.--Burgas00 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not 'accusing' the Spaniards who left Gibraltar of murdering British servicemen, the reference previously cited does exactly that using the wording quoted.

I'm sorry you find 'my behaviour' unacceptable, let me restate - My interest is in keeping the Gibraltar pages factual and free of Spanish propaganda. You could help by doing the same and refrain from Personal attacks like the above rant. The Spaniards and other nationals in Gibraltar were that, and not Gibraltarians, its absurd to claim otherwise. They considered themselves Spanish and are referred to as such in Jackson 'Rock of the Gibraltarians' Page 101 which is used as a reference on the matter.

If you wish to be part of the problem and continue reverting sourced factual information with your opinion, then you are going down the same road as the banned user, particularly if you continue to post offensive racist comments in Spanish as quoted previously.

Why you wish to argue at length about something which happened three hundred years ago and is well documented, instead of dealing with reality and things today remains a mystery to me.--Gibnews 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to argue. I just want controversial articles like this one to remain NPOV and the product of consensus building. It is normal that Gibraltarians at the time considered themselves Spanish as well as Gibraltarian since Gibraltar was in Spain. Gibraltar now belongs to the UK so Gibraltarians view themselves as British. Being British does not make them less Gibraltarian. Can you see the flaw in your own logic or shall I explain further?--Burgas00 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are applying the word retrospectivly to people who considered themselves Spanish residents of Gibraltar. There is no evidence that the word was in use at the time. It is not that todays Gibraltarians consider themselves anything, we are legally both Gibraltarian and British Citizens.

Examine your motives for wishing to impose these ideas on a place you do not live in and have no real understanding of.--Gibnews 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are being silly. It is self evident that those who were born and bred in Gibraltar considered themselves Gibraltareños or Gibraltarian as those who were born and bred in Seville considered themselves Sevillanos. There is no need for evidence although there no doubt is such evidence in historical documents. Or do you think the word was invented by the British in the 60s? I have told you my motives. They are to mantain neutrality on this article in the face of your blatant political agenda. What version do you prefer? The one with left or the one with fled? I am leaving the choice to you. I hope you have noticed that I have mantained the source you have included with the terms of surrender. I am working all day untill 21:00 today. Why dont we attempt to reach a consensus rather than revert warring?--Burgas00 10:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)