Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Use of Ulster Banner as the Flag of Northern Ireland

In the twin town section the Ulster Banner is being used to represent the national flag of Northern Ireland which it isnt, this is fully outlined on the Northern Ireland article page and its talk page as well of the Northern Ireland flags issue article and the Flag of Northern Ireland article. I feel it is unecessary to create another page where there will be an edit war over over this issue when it has already be sorted (with a result not to his liking) on the above pages.--Vintagekits 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"with a result not to his liking" makes no sense, SqueakBox 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced it with the Union Flag again as this is the official flag of Northern Ireland. Gibmetal 77^talk 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats incorrect Gibmetal, its not the official flag of NI its the flag of the UK of which NI is a constituant. I dont think any of us have the time of energy to go through the detail of this again so if you would read the talk pages of each of the pages outlined above that would be great. cheers!--Vintagekits 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm not getting my facts right but the Flag of Northern Ireland article states: The Union Flag is the flag officially used by the British government for Northern Ireland. So why is the use of this flag seen as "wrong" for this section? Gibmetal 77^talk 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gibmetal, please read all the talk pages provided - that will provide you with an indepth and detailed explaination why the Union Jack shouldnt be used. regards--Vintagekits 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The town forms part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its national flag is the Union flag. Please do not vandalise this page further. I'll check which flag the Ballemena contingent flew when they were in Gibraltar, and thats the one that is appropriate. If it was the Ulster flag then thats appropriate for this page. --Gibnews 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So Ballymena Council ditacte what flag we use for Northern Ireland on wikipedia?--Vintagekits 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good old petty Wikipedia debates! Don't you just love 'em. Perhaps this particular one could be resolved by putting the Union flag for both twinned towns? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as you are prepared to do the same on every other single page on wiki!--Vintagekits 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned the reason that Ballymena is twinned with Gibraltar, which is because a large number of Gibraltarians were evacuated there during WW2 because it is, and remains, like Gibraltar a British territory rather than part of a state which sent a telegram of condolence to Germany on Hitlers death. Neither the people of Gibraltar nor Ballymena have any problem with the British flag and others should not dictate what national emblems we use. --Gibnews 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Touching story, maybe you should include that in the article. However like I said the people of Ballymena (a strongly Unionist town) does not dictate what the flag of Northern Ireland is - as outlined extensively on the pages outlined above.--Vintagekits 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The flag shown on this article represents the people of Ballymena, I fail to understand your arguments and objections to what emblems other people chose to identify with. On the page about the Flag of Norther Ireland it says All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Those with an anti-British agenda should to realise that Gibraltar and Ballemana are both British and proud to be so - we will show those emblems we like, and dispose of those we disagree with. --Gibnews 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The information on why Ballymena is twinned with Gibraltar could be added here, interesting to know that. Agree that we should use the more appropiate symbol, the actual flag icon, especially if this is a Unionist area. According to flags.net, the Flag of Northern Ireland is used by unionists. Astrotrain 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm banging my head against a brick wall with ye two. "we will show those emblems we like, and dispose of those we disagree with" - you might do when you are in yer own home but you wont when you are on wiki - you will abide by wiki rules. You are using that flag as a representation of Northern Ireland - its is not the flag of northern ireland and therefore should not be used as so. We have been through this a 1,000 times and you are editing against the consensus and therefore edit warring. Either remove the Ulster Banner or I am going to call in the admin. p.s. Astrotrain I am geting pretty sick of you moving from page to page and reigniting this issue on every individual page when it has been settled on the main Northern Ireland article.--Vintagekits 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why there should be an objection to that particular emblem, the Scots, Welsh and English all use national flags on wikipedia. The union flag which you also seem to object to would also be appropriate but does not identify that the town is in Northern Ireland. If you look at the pictures on the Gibraltar page you will see both Gibraltar flags and Union flags flown and no doubt the people of Ballymena do the same, but perhaps instead of trying to enforce YOUR minority POV, we should ask the people in Ballymena what symbol represents them best.

Finally, if you are not as you originally said 'you have not got the time and energy' then let it go, and stop ranting and threatening people. It is used in the correct context. --Gibnews 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I come from Northern Ireland and that flag dosen't represent me or the country I was born in, in fact it never represented Northern Ireland as it was the banner of the old Stormont government between 1953-72, and since the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 it dosen't officaily exist anymore.--padraig3uk 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I will continue arguing as long as you are ingoring the concensus on the Northern Ireland page shows that the Ulster banner nor the Union Flag should be used to represent Northern Ireland. You know this, you were involved in the discussion, as was Astrotrain. If you can show me that I am wrong then I will be happy to accept that - just please for the love of god stop banging on about what flag the twin town committee of Ballymena wanted as a flag has any baring on this discussion whatsoever.--Vintagekits 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The flag is fine, SqueakBox 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would expect little else for you!--Vintagekits 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What? you mean other than a respect for the people of Northern Ireland, or perhaps to reframe a sympathy for loyalists, SqueakBox 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with "respect for the people of Northern Ireland" or "sympathy for loyalists" this is about the agreement not to use the Ulster Banner or the Union Flag to represent Northern Ireland except in a sporting manner for organisations that use that flag - you three (shock horror) are ignoring this to push your own POV and it is very poor form - especially as you were trying to have a go at my on ANI and then you come along and act like this.--Vintagekits 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong at all with the use of this flag. --Counter-revolutionary 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The above counts as one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard here. I have removed the flags as there is no need for them in the article. They carry no information and we don't use them as decoration. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. --John 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• exaclty, this is the lamest thing I have ever come across - but this is what happens everytime that I ever try and discuss a topic - the same editors ignore wiki rules, policy and argeement and come up with the likes of "we should ask the people in Ballymena what symbol represents them best", "respect for the people of Northern Ireland" or "sympathy for loyalists" - and you wonder why I lose the rag!--Vintagekits 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its use is consistent with WP:FLAGCRUFT. What I see here is another example of Vintagekits trying to push an Irish republican POV down everyones throat. No consultation with the people involved because they simply don't count, neither the people of Ballymena, nor those in Gibraltar. I hope wikipeduia has more perspective than the narrow objectives of supporters of terrorists, with an anti-British agenda. --Gibnews 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It adds no information to the article; it is merely a decoration. As such it should be removed, quite apart from the doubts about the status of the flag. --John 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that little flags should be removed from all articles? Is this a new convention? Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the point here that the flag in question simply ISN'T the flag of Northern Ireland. It was abolished in 1973 when the UK government took on direct rule and, because it is not considered inclusive of all Northern Irish people, has deliberately not been readopted when the devolved administrations were set up in the 90's/2000's. It's not a political statement, just accuracy. Northern Ireland has no flag of its own other than the British national flag which covers the whole UK. Esquimo 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why at one point I changed it to the Union Jack, but someone still saw this as being inappropriate for some reason... Gibmetal 77^talk 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag does not have to represent everyone in Northern Ireland, just the people of Ballymena. However, there is no reason to remove the English flag from Goole. --Gibnews 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you use the Ballymena Council coat of Arms to represent the people of Ballymena, instead of the flag of a defunct government that represents nobody.--padraig 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we feel about a St Patrick's cross? Failing that, Union flag or nothing, it's still a bit divisive but at least it's actually correct. Esquimo 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of reading, I come across this which states that the official flag of Northern Ireland is the Union flag, and it is required that it and basically no other excepting royal standards and the EU flag is flown from public building. Thus as the Union flag IS the official flag of Northern Ireland and other pages show flags in this manner, I believe the discussion is at a logical end. --Gibnews 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No flag is necessary here. What sense does it make to use the Union Jack for Ballymena and the England flag for Poole? --John 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Both are the official flags which represent the countries involved, and every other entry on wikipedia shows flag icons. --Gibnews 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the England flag is in no way an official one. Not every other article shows flag icons, and there is no policy or common sense reason why having these adds anything to the article. On the downside we have the constant bickering about which flag to use. It seems like a no-brainer to me. --John 17:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced this discussion at the central one I initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Flag icons in twin towns sections. --John 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The only bickering is from Irish republicans who don't accept the reality that NI is part of the United Kingdom. By way of contrast we are stuck with a Spanish flag on this page, and Gibraltar is NOT Spain. --Gibnews 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What gets me is the sheer needlessness of this dispute. We do not need to show any flags at all in that section, they add nothing. I am seriously thinking of adding this to WP:LAME. --John 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then why do we have to suffer a Spanish flag on this page ? AND if Ballymena cannot use their official flag, remove all flag icons from wikipeadia. --Gibnews 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason whatsoever. The flag of Northern Ireland is no less official than the flag of England.

This issue will hopefully soon be part of an attempt at mediation of some sort, though I won't hold my breath that either there will be a result, or if there is that it will be respected. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain better. I do not care who thinks certain flags are or aren't "official". Neither do I care about the Spanish flag on this article talk page which only editors will see. I want to see an encyclopedic reason why having these flags benefits this encyclopedia article. In the absence of such I propose to remove them. --John 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no problem showing the flag of other places in relation to twin towns on other Wikipedia pages, just that you want to apply a different policy in one particular case.

The Spanish flag used in connection with Gibraltar is inappropriate. Its not the flag that was prior to 1704 and its one that does not fly in the territory because it stands as much chance of survival as the Ulster banner in The Bogside. Nor do there seem to have been any benefits to the content as a result of 'project spain'. --Gibnews 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gibraltar article." The Spain project is a separate issue. There is no consensus (as far as I know) for having these stupid flags. If other articles have them that is their problem. They add nothing and contribute to ridiculous edit wars. I am taking them down. Do not replace them without a far better reason than "other articles have them". --John 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If other pages have them, then that is reason enough for them to be here, otherwise you are engaging in discrimination. Unless there is a policy for everyone on the matter, I see no reason why your POV ahould be imposed unilaterally. The Ulster banner may be disputed, however the flag of England is not and the official flag of NI is the union jack. --Gibnews 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bands

Glibnews: show that these bands are notable, using a source outside of WP. The presence of a WP article on them is evidence for nothing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In .07 seconds Google can find about 415,000 pages for 'melon diesel'

Melon Diesel Online- Incluye historia, discografía, letras de canciones, fotos y vídeos de la banda gibraltareña. usuarios.lycos.es/webmelones/

Melon Diesel LYRICSMelon Diesel LYRICS,Melon Diesel,Melon Diesel Lyrics, Melon Diesel Song Lyrics. www.lyricsdownload.com/melon-diesel-lyrics.html

Brussels talks see summer 2002 deadline setWith this latest CD, Melon Diesel, feel they have won a lot of battles. ... Melon Diesel wanted to break this "monotony and structure". ... www.chronicle.gi/Features/melon%20diesel%2017.1.2003.htm

Melon Diesel: Biografia, letras, discos, enlaces y fotos- [ Translate this page ]Melon Dieles: Biografia, letras, discos, enlaces y fotos de este grupo de Gibraltar. www.todomusica.org/melon_diesel/

Melon Diesel - Contracorriente – Music at Last.fmContracorriente by Melon Diesel has 120 listeners at Last.fm. Contracorriente appears on the album La Cuesta de Mister Bond. People who like Melon Diesel ... www.last.fm/music/Melon+Diesel/_/Contracorriente

Melon Diesel – Music at Last.fmThere are 991 Melon Diesel listeners on Last.fm. Tagged as: indie, pop, alternative rock. People who like Melon Diesel also like Los Piratas, Dikers, ... www.last.fm/music/Melon+Diesel

Amazon.com: La Cuesta de Mister Bond: Music: Melon DieselAmazon.com: La Cuesta de Mister Bond: Music: Melon Diesel by Melon Diesel. www.amazon.com/Cuesta-Mister-Bond-Melon-Diesel/dp/B00004S9Q8

Melon Diesel lyrics collectionBrowse Melon Diesel lyrics collection. ... Browse Melon Diesel songs. Alguein Especial · Alguien Especial · Contracorriente · Déjalo Y Vive · Desaparecida ... www.bluelyrics.net/m/melon_diesel_lyrics.html

Come back when you have read them all, in the meantime please do not revert my edits out of malice and desist from trying to be humourous with usernames. --Gibnews 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the old Glibnews hypocrisy strikes again. ("Red Herring") [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think reverting Gibnews' edits like that was very ill-mannered of you Red Hat. That was not vandalism. Simply because you are unacquainted of the bands is no reason why you should remove them. Melon Diesel who have now split up achieved a lot in the music sphere. Another group Taxi achieved even more and reached a remarkably high position on the Spanish charts. Chris Buttigieg^talk 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me Red Hat, 48,100 Google search results for "Melon Diesel' is non-notable? Chris Buttigieg^talk 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Superwookie (500 hits), No Direction (can't find em in Google) are not notable. And FYI, reverting someone does not mean you are accusing them of vandalism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find 'No direction' on Google you simply lack the ability to construct an effective search considering that their name is made up of two common words which are used together. Nevertheless, they are notable, if you disagree, I suggest you start an AfD on their entry in Wikipedia as whilst that is there, it seems logical to include a mention on the Gibraltar page. --Gibnews 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SuperWookie offical website, and no, No Direction are not some illusory, make-believe band, I am afraid they exist. See their website.

FYI, I would read WP:UNDO:

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. Chris Buttigieg^talk 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying the bands' existence, my dear boy, I am denying their notability. As for undoing edits - I'm sorry but you have a very bizarre interpretation of how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly, judging from your edits it appears that you are denying more than that. Chris Buttigieg^talk 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we have sources that establish the notability of the bands please? That is, sources outside Wikipedia and not under the control of the bands themselves. I'm sure they both exist - your sources have shown that - but there is obviously a difference between existence and notability. And you can't establish notability based solely on Myspace pages and official sites. I could make an official site and a Myspace page for a band that I'd just made up - but that band would not merit immediate inclusion on Wikipedia.

FWIW the article No Direction seems to have been written in no small part by User:Nodirection, who has few edits outside that page - and similarly appears to fail to establish notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. As does Superwookie. Pfainuk 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impresssion that Taxi (band) was the new name of Melon Diesel. Those two groups I'd say that are notable at least at the level of a group you could find on any Spanish radio formula station. They are no Mecano but they would not be out of place in this page or Culture of Gibraltar. The other bands, I never heard about them. --Error 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No Taxi simply contain some ex-members of Melon Diesel. No direction seems to be getting publicity see: http://www.no-direction.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39 --Gibnews 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't currently any wikipedia article for Taxi but you can see their website here and the 12,000 Google results here. When Melon Diesel split up, Taxi was one of the new bands. Chris Buttigieg^talk 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You and Glibnews may wish to peruse the criteria at WP:MUSIC which states what is notable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid The Red Hat is correct. Simply existing or having a website is not enough notability for Wikipedia's purposes. WP:MUSIC is indeed well worth a read. --John 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MUSIC

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: <snip>

  2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

<snip> Someone mentioned they have been in the spanish charts, which makes them notable as per the advice.Alexander-Scott 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's a matter of interpretation what constitutes a "hit". I would certainly consider them notable if it could be verifiably shown that they had (for example) Number 5 in Spain. --John 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if music 'charts' have any validity these days, however Melon Diesel "LA CUESTA DE MISTER BOND" released by Sony/Epic sold over 150,000 copies in Spain and I think certainly merits one miserable line on the Gibraltar page. --Gibnews 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Bands

For the avoidance of doubt, whilst there are Wikipedia articles describing prominent Gibraltar bands, it seems sensible to include a mention of their existence in the section on Bands on the Gibraltar article. Continually removing this could be seen as vandalism and will be reverted by myself and others.

In the event that any bands are considered insufficiently notable for an entry in Wikipedia they should not be included on the Gibraltar page.

I see john states that reaching the top sector of a national chart qualifies as notability. These days 'singles charts' are less important as a measure of success, you can no longer go to a shop tender 3/6d and get a round bit of plastic in return. Bands are more focussed on selling CD compilations, and music downloads. However, the local media produce lists of best selling Gibraltar CD's which feature the groups described. In the case of Melon Diesel They had considerable international success, including a number one single in Spain.

For more information and a current chart see

http://www.gibraltarlivemusic.com/charts.php

For a small place, Gibraltar has a lot of very talented musicians, and indeed many of you will have heard their material without realisising where they are originally from, which is all the more reason they should be in Wikipedia.

--Gibnews 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Noone is deleting Melon Diesel. The issue is with Superwookie and No Direction. I'm sure Gibraltar has a lot of talented inhabitants, but just because they are talented doesn't make them notable. Could you please explain how "No Direction" is notable when the only hit in Google is the Wikipedia page someone from their band wrote? http://www.google.com/search?q=no+direction Or how Superwookie is notable with 573 hits, a "did you mean super wookie?" link (so unnotable that Google thinks you've made a mistake), most of the top hits are things the band could have uploaded themselves? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah ignorance is bliss isn't it. Try this search, it's more specific, and will not lead you to overlook any websites. Chris Buttigieg^talk 12:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the top ten hits returned by your search, the third is about Bob Dylan, the sixth is a mirror site of the Gibraltar article, the seventh merely uses the words "no direction" in the sense of not having any direction rather than the non-notable band you seem to so love, the eighth is about the similarly named band from Finland. 40% of the top ten hits aren't even about this band. And that's before we get into whether any of the hits that do refer to the band indicate notability. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many relevant links relating to No Direction, but due to the nature of the name, it is inevitable that it will be the only one to appear. The thing is, I do not understand why the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC to determine the notability of a band etc isn't acceptable. It clearly states that a musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any of the criteria. To give you an example, one of the criteria is: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. That is quite straightforward, no doubts there. If you have a look here, I shall quote: No Direction - Hottest Band to Hit Gibraltar in 2005. Fronted by Lo, and with original material that has already hit the Gib charts hard, with 2 songs going into the number one. Why is this not acceptable? I still don't understand. Please note, it is self-evident that that website was not authored by the band in question. Chris Buttigieg^talk 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you did delete Melon Diesel at one stage, whether it was by accident or you simply have not heard of them is another matter. However in relation to 'No Direction' they have a track in a national chart and you really need to learn how to use google properly;

www.myspace.com/nodirectiongibMySpace Profile - No Direction, Gibraltar, , GI, No Direction - This is our world... ... Suffice to say, we're the only Indie band in Gibraltar. www.myspace.com/nodirectiongib - 153k

NO DIRECTION - Popworld PromotesNo-Direction formed around the end of Summer 2004, formed by Lo on Vocals and ... I saw this band play live in Gibraltar Spain once,,, and let me say they ... www.popworldpromotes.com/pages/artist?A8E59D82-BD2A-48C4-AAE5-A782894DAC0F - 23k

[PDF] May 2007File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The Lochgelly High School Pipe Band. & The Gibraltar Sea Scouts Pipe Band. 12.30pm ... No Direction. No Man’s Land. Giles Ramirez. Breaking the Silence ... www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/Culture/spring_festival_2007.pdf

No Direction - Alt RockNow, the band room, having lost it with the departure of Chris, .... No Direction are ready to open up the Gibraltar Fair rock concert this wednesday. ... www.no-direction.com/main.php - 55k

No Direction : Web - HomeNo Direction - Rock Band from Gibraltar. ... as part of the Gibraltar Spring Festival we're taking part in an Acousitc gig alongside other bands such as ... www.no-direction.com/web/index.php - 28k

Gibraltarlivemusic.com - Gibraltar Live MusicNew MP3 Releases; Breed 77 Nominated for Best UK Band Award; No Man's Land Reunite ... Re: No Direction & Neuman live at ROTR - Fri 15th June! ... whois.domaintools.com/gibraltarlivemusic.com - 91k

www.gibfocus.gi - Gibraltar newsGibraltar - Second in a series of acoustic concerts. ... No Man's Land Adrian Pisarello and the E/C Band, The Spoons, Mellow Mind, No Direction and others. ... www.gibfocus.gi/details_todaysnews.php?id=2436 - 35k

PDF] OCR DocumentFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML National Week and National Day that the whole of Gibraltar deserves.” ... No Direction, Restless, 7 Sins, Breaking the Silence. and Murder of Crows ... www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2005/190.pdf

Rock BandsNo Direction. Hottest Band to Hit Gibraltar in 2005. Fronted by Lo, and with original material that has already hit the Gib charts hard, with 2 songs going ... www.mygibraltardirectory.com/html/Entertainment/Music/Rock_Bands/ - 25k

Iberianews - Charlie Moore InterviewThe Barn has become the benchmark for recording studios in Gibraltar. ... Craig MacDonald, No Direction and Milbajac have recorded there. ... www.iberianews.gi/Charlie_Moore_Interview.html - 12k

Plus a bunch more, excluding their entries on Wikipedia.

--Gibnews 13:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Highly dubious. Do you really think that a band's own My Space page or their own website (just to repeat that: their own website) can count as a hit to determine notability? And as for the other websites, I've never heard of them myself. Hardly reputable and notable music sites. Sure, this band exists, and so it would be unsurprising if there was no trace of it on the internets, but it strikes me as no more famous than a town's local Sainsbury's is to its own residents - sure, some locals know of it, but hardly worthy of mention in WP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we having this argument ? This is about the GIBRALTAR page and whilst wikipedia has articles about these bands, then its reasonable to have a link to those articles PERIOD.

The search above demonstrates there are more references on Google that the two claimed. popworldpromotes.com, gibfocus.gi, mygibraltardirectory.com, iberianews.gi, gibraltar.gov.gi are hardly sites controlled by the band.

The argument 'you have never heard of them' is a pretty weak. --Gibnews 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) This is an encylopaedia. It's not a all-things-Gibraltar fan club page. If you want that, start up your own website or blog. (2) It is equally reasonable to NOT link to those articles whilst their status is in doubt. (3) If you're wondering why we are having this argument, you obviously have a very short memory because it was you that started off this debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I started the discussion because someone removed sourced content from the Gibraltar page. Yes its an encyclopedia and if it is to be of any value it needs to describe those things that are important in relation to the topic, which is Gibraltar. As there are more that the usual number of people with musical ability its reasonable to describe those that are prominent. Those who do not live here have not got a clue what actually goes on, and for them, like yourself, its useful to read articles that describe those things. Simply because these bands have never played your town is no reason to erase any mention of them on the Gibraltar page. Websites about Gibraltar? been there done that and have a T-shirt. How about desisting from arguing picking faults in others work and creating some meaningful content. --Gibnews 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. Many other city and nation articles have some mention of the music native to it, including notable bands and musicians. Compare with Portland, Oregon#Popular culture (a plug of my home town), Cyprus#Music, or Isle_of_Man#Famous_residents. I haven't heard of the Gibraltarian bands in question, but at a glance they seem notable enough. I have little opinion either way, though. Just thought I would note that including a few notable bands in the article about their homeland isn't out of line at all. -kotra 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like that, you should make some noise about it here and on the Afd pages for Gibraltar bands because there seem to be those around who think that Gibraltar is too small to have musicians, and its not the 'usual suspects'.

Take a look at http://www.gibraltarlivemusic.com where there are (legal) downloads of a number of Gibraltar bands. Most of it is not to my taste, but the music scene is alive and well. --Gibnews 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Superwookie

Can someone explain why the article about them has vanished without a trace? --Gibnews 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the result of the AfD was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superwookie. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was only in place for a couple of days. --Gibnews 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it went the full five days. --John 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From when RH posted the header incorrectly or from when you fixed it ? --Gibnews 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Notes

I removed a statement added by Gibnews about the words "Pound sterling" being on the bank notes, on the basis that it is relevant at Gibraltar Pound but not on a general article on Gibraltar. (He then reverted, with the comment "if it's not important why is it there?" - it's there because you added it just now, Gibnews, not because of any inherent importance). I suspect that Gibnews is carrying on his private little war of "if Red Hat changes something I edit, obstinately revert it immediately" and isn't going to let it rest at this, but anyway, that is my reason for removing it... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence does not support that. You never add anything about Gibraltar you simply delete things and try and supress things that are true,

as in the example above. --Gibnews 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gibnews there, I have never seen Red Hat adding anything to the Gibraltar related articles to help improve them. Gibmetal 77^talk 10:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't rise to either of those posts - neither deserve a reply. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do see the point that the last line about "bear the words Pound Sterling" is abit awkward in the main Gibraltar article, since it is of little importance. But its certainly not worth getting worked up about it. I personally now accept a degree of authority by Gibnews over this article since he lives there and has done the most to improve it. I only reverse this presumption when he crosses certain boundaries in his edits allowing his political views to be discerned from his edits. In this case, whether the line is there or not is not really going to affect the quality of the article and you guys should not be bothering arguing over it. Better go down to the beach and have a beer. --Burgas00 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was taking the very reasonable line that it should appear on the Gibraltar Pound page, rather than here, a general article about Gibraltar. I was not claiming it is untrue, and I was not claiming it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Could someone post another country article where it mentions the wording on the banknotes? United_kingdom#Currency and USA do not, but Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Bank_of_England_notes and Federal Reserve Note do. Why should the Gibraltar article be any different? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its important and it seems two other editors here agree, so I guess there is a consensus that you should leave it be. --Gibnews 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you feel it is so important to have on the Gibraltar page and not just the Gibraltar Pound page? Perhaps you could also explain why Gibraltar has to be the odd man out amongst the rest of Wikipedia's country articles? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it is important to include the wording on the currency in the article either. --John 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is confusion on what the currency actually is, thats why its important to mention that it says its 'Pounds Sterling' on the paper and not 'Gibraltar Pounds' which some mistakenly assert that it is. Copyright reasons prevent the inclusion of a picture, however you can find examples on Google images. The actual wording is important as Gibraltar is unique in being the only non-UK entity to issue notes denominated in Pounds Sterling, the notes issued by the Government of the Falkland Islands do not say this. --Gibnews 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And what verifiable source says this is of any importance, the wording on the notes? --John 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are scraping the argument barrel here, you can only legitimately argue whether the inclusion is true or not. Like any other Gibraltarian, I can consult my wallet and look at the currency - however a quick search of Google will show pictures of current Gibraltar notes, eg:

http://www.atsnotes.com/gallery/gibraltar-28.JPG

Its not required that every sentence in Wilipedia cites a source stating its important because if it did the project would be either very small or quite unmanagable. In this case its importance is self evident. --Gibnews 10:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not self evident. To me it only became apparent when you explained your reasoning on this talk page. And without references, your explanation was pure original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Gibnews is trying to re-add to the article his strange original research. You can read the history of the discussion (the result of which did not go his way) here [2] 'If' what Gibnews says is true, then a source should be provided and a full explanation added to the text (instead of just stating what the notes say, leaving the reader to deduce its supposed importance). If what Gibnews says is not true (or he cannot provide evidence), then it is merely an oddity of the GIP banknote and as such can quite happily live on the Gibraltar Pound page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to chip in here. As I understand it, the point Gibnews is trying to make is that 'Pound Sterling' does not refer only to the notes which circulate on the United Kingdom. Gibraltar issues its own Pounds Sterling. I think this is quite an important distintiction and should be included on the article. I certainly cannot see any reason why it shouldn't be. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And "The unit of currency in use is the Gibraltar pound issued by the Government of Gibraltar at parity with the UK pound sterling." does not make that point? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Red Hat here. The info is very relevant for the Gibraltar pound article; I have so far seen no convincing argument why it is important in this one. --John 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, you are missing the point which others see. However the article is now in exactly the same format as used in the article about the United Kingdom, with two lines, and references describing the actual currency in circulation.

It is important to show this because some people mistakenly think that another currency is in use, indeed I found a reference that we 'use the Euro'.

This section now follows the model used elsewhere, it has references and it is concise. Further removal for the purposes of vanity, would amount to vandalism, so please follow the rules. Money talks, read what it says. --Gibnews 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You still have failed to explain why this information can't live at Gibraltar Pound and has to live here. I know you have a very high opinion of yourself, but taking the opposite view to you is not vandalism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. --Gibnews 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not following the format at the UK article either. Both of you, be nice. This is an utterly trivial issue. Gibnews, please express in terms of policy why this should remain in the article. --John 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The format is the same as the page on the UK with an article about the economy and a subsection on the currency. The currency used is vital and I see from having no references, I am now critisised for having 'too many' and all of them removed SIMPLY to support a particular editors POV.

• A current 5 pound note
• Ten pound note
• A twenty pound note
• A current 50 pound note
• Fifty pound note

Money talks, listen to what it says. --Gibnews 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, I have attempted a compromise version. It contains your beloved words, but I also added back that GIP and GBP are issued at parity (wording which you removed last night for some reason). Instead of simply reverting to your latest version again, could you please read it and see if you are happy with it. The wording I'm not willing to compromise on is that (1) the currency is the Gibraltar Pound (2) it is issued at parity with the GBP, because both are verifiable at the Government of Gibraltar website alonside many other websites, [3] "Gibraltar's currency is the Gibraltar pound. The sterling pound is also accepted in Gibraltar on a one to one basis with the Gibraltar pound." Note (for whatever reason, despite the wording on the bank notes) they distinguish the sterling pound and the Gibraltar pound. Money may talk (whatever that means), but your interpretation of its wording is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ps I also added that the Euro is unofficially accepted. (This seems to me to be far more "important" information to someone reading up on Gibraltar than the wording on its banknotes...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that British pound notes do not actually bear the words "Pound Sterling", even though that's the name of the currency. (See e.g. [4]). A banknote is not, by itself, a definitive source. The issuer of the banknote, on the other hand, is a definitive source. So if the Gib government distinguishes the GIP and the GBP, we should do the same, rather than relying on our own inadmissible original research about what the words on the front of a banknote mean. -- ChrisO 12:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Government website on a more recently updated page it says:

Gibraltar’s currency is the pound sterling although the Government issues its own currency notes and coins.

As that wording describes what the actual situation is, and is consistent with the wording on the notes, perhaps we can adopt that. --Gibnews 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I am assuming it should like that. Changing it otherwise would be directly contradicting the Government of Gibraltar, and needless to say, the notes themselves. Chris Buttigieg^talk 15:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no update time on the GoG page I provided, and neither of you are in any position to say which page on the Gibraltar Government website is "more correct", regardless of update time. The fact is that the GoG website has both statements. So, I have reworded so the text is consistent with both references: "The official currency of Gibraltar is the Gibraltar pound, denominated in Pound sterling and issued by the Government of Gibraltar at parity with the UK pound sterling". Is that OK for everyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much point in that, we will just end up with a sort of 'portmanteau word' with a term made up to two different facts, distorting a piece of information. This should make it clearer; quoted from the Official Government of Gibraltar London website:

The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling. Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Ordinance did not create a separate currency but conferred on the Government of Gibraltar to print currency notes, which were legal currency in Gibraltar. Sterling Currency Notes issued by the Bank of England have therefore been legal tender and in circulation in Gibraltar alongside the local note issues, since these early days. I hope you don't mind but I am going to change it to this version, it is a little more explanatory anyhow. Chris Buttigieg^talk 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done Chris for getting to the bottom of this issue; I would advise other contributors NOT to rely on the obsolete wording on the .gi website as you will find that it will be changed to reflect the above. It has not been updated since 18 Feb 2004. --Gibnews 17:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good job Chris. BTW Gibnews - the Gib govt now passes Acts rather than Ordinances (since the creation of the Parliament), but can you provide a source that says all Ordinances in the past are now renamed Acts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I most certainly can 27-02-2007 Statement in the Gibraltar Parliament by Peter Caruana The Government will also publish this week a Bill for an Act which will replace with appropriate references, all those references in our existing legislation to the words “Ordinances”, “House of Assembly”, “Financial & Development Secretary”, “Deputy Governor”, “Gibraltar Council” and some of the references to “Attorney General” and “Governor” which, by virtue of the New Constitution require such amendments. --Gibnews 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK (where did you get that from, by the way?), but a bill is proposed legislature - ie it has not become law yet. If it has become law, then there should be an Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of Gibraltar laws is here - can you point to the Act? [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK - I found it - [6] - "all Acts and other statutory instruments in which the word “Ordinance” appears shall be amended by substituting for the word “Ordinance” the word “Act”." - came into force June 14th. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good because I charge GBP 120 per hour for unqualified legal work. --Gibnews

God help your clients, is all I can say. As for your latest revert of my edit, please do not do this again. There was no reason to do this. It would be farcical to have no link to Gibraltar pound in the text, and the rest was me removing duplication of information, and improving the flow of the language.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the reference ? The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling. Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Ordinance did not create a separate currency but conferred on the Government of Gibraltar to print currency notes, which were legal currency in Gibraltar. Put it back the way it was and lets move on. --Gibnews 22:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are arguing about here. Are you arguing that the Gibraltar pound does not exist and that therefore any mention of it in Wikipedia should be removed? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference states the situation clearly, you should not rewrite what it says to claim something else. --Gibnews 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory Sources on the "Definitive" Source Found By Chris B

Hold on. I've found something contradictory ON THE SAME WEBSITE AND WITH THE SAME UPDATE TIME.

• [7] : "What is Gibraltar’s currency? The monetary unit is the Gibraltar pound, on a par with Sterling." Copyright (C) by Gibraltar Government 2005
• [8] : "The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling" Copyright (C) by Gibraltar Government 2005

It seems to me that this argument is not over yet. One thing is for sure - the reference to the Gibraltar Pound is staying. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another note - here IS the Currency Notes Act [9]. Section 6 is interesting -"Conversion between currency notes and sterling. 6. The Commissioner shall issue on demand to any person desiring to receive currency notes in Gibraltar, currency notes to the equivalent value (at the rate of one pound for one pound sterling) of sums in sterling lodged with either the Commissioner in Gibraltar or the Crown Agents in London by such person, and shall pay on demand either in Gibraltar or through the Crown Agents to any person desiring to receive sterling in London the equivalent value so calculated of currency notes lodged with him in Gibraltar by such person". The Act itself distinguishes between sterling and the Gibraltar currency! Explain that one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to believe the other reference says the GoG issue notes that are Pounds Sterling. Although it becomes tedious to say look at the notes do so, and admit you are wrong. You won the point on 'Overseas Territory' as the FCO changed their wording. On this the line you are pushing is simply not supported by reality.

The missleading OBSOLETE wording on the GoG websites will change in the near future.

--Gibnews 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And that was exactly your argument in the Overseas Territory debate: you explained away any references that disagreed with your version as being out of date. Can you see that it is not a very convincing argument? What would be convincing is a source that explains why there is all this confusion. Can you find one? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When it does, let us know and we can reflect that in the article. Meantime I think we should reflect the status quo. --John 00:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference cited does, and it does not support anything else. --Gibnews 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose the references that support your argument, Gibnews. (It is the mark of a very bad scientist that discards the observations that contradict his theory, instead of discarding the theory itself.) Let's try and work through this together and don't just revert my attempt to improve the situation out of dislike for me. It seems to me that

• • • • the Currency Notes Act never refers to a "currency" per se, but it does refer to "currency notes"
      • the Currency Notes Act does not refer to the "Gibraltar pound" per se
      • the Currency Notes Act does distinguish between the "pound" currency note and the pound sterling
      • the Government of Gibraltar does refer to the "Gibraltar pound", as does the FCO, the CIA, travel guides and as do FX dealers and banks
      • therefore by widespread convention (if not by law) the "currency notes" issued by the GoG are referred to as "Gibraltar pounds"
      • one cannot argue that the currency of Gibraltar is the pound sterling, when Gib law clearly states that the currency notes of Gibraltar are exchangeable into pound sterling and vice versa "at a rate of one pound for one pound sterling"

Therefore I'd suggest that the right wording is to say that the Government of Gibraltar issues currency notes - known as the Gibraltar pound - which are exchangeable into pound sterling. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t

Why not write to thema and tell them what you think - in the meantime, what they do say is appropriate for Wikipedia. Please desist from making offensive personal comments and trying to provoke. --Gibnews 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not improving wikipedia by rewriting the wording in the reference cited to support your personal view of what my currency is, getting it wrong missleads people who do not know better. Leave it alone, at least for a week and stand back from the edit war. You will find it looks different then. --Gibnews 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Gibnews, but the reference cited is contradicted by another reference FROM THE SAME SOURCE. You can't choose one over the other, and you haven't offered a satisfactory explanation why we should do so. I have reworded it based on the Currency Notes Act itself, the reference for which I provided. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you find the latest version more even handed, Gibnews. Every sentence is verifiable, via the references provided (that we have all uncovered), and the apparently contradictory statements about what the currency of Gibraltar is are both mentioned. Note that nowhere does it state that "the currency of Gibraltar is the Gibraltar Pound". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) Thats better, although the original quote from the gov.uk site is more recent and closer to the way we see things locally, gov.gi site was designed by the UK Government computer agency with some of the wording is taken from the seventies and things have changed. The UK site is a more modern design, and expensive. --Gibnews 07:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we have found a compromise wording, Gibnews. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The GoG confirm that the older reference is wrong and it is being updated, in the meantime your wording describes what is presented well. Although they are accepted interchangably with Gibraltar notes, which do state they are legal tender in Gibraltar, I'm not sure exactly where (a reliable source) actually says that English notes are, Scottish and CI ones are not accepted. --Gibnews 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall Chris added that. You are right - if it's not verifiable, we should reword it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New Legislation

And from June 2007 there is new legislation that removes the phrases 'the Colony' and 'UK possession' from Gibraltar's laws.

"As we now consider ourselves neither a colony nor a UK possession, those references are deleted," said Chief Minister Peter Caruana as he talked MPs though the legislation. The change stemmed from amendments to the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, a technical document that provides a glossary of terms and definitions for local law.

So any references to 'The colony of Gibraltar' are now limited to being in a historical context. --Gibnews 18:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reading which I think clears up the whole issue of the Gibraltar pound

I found this PDF [10] which to me clears up all the confusion. (Search for "Gibraltar"; although the paper is on "HISTORY OF THE MONETARY SYSTEMS AND THE PUBLIC FINANCES IN THE BAHAMAS, 1946-2003", it discusses currency boards in general and discusses the British territories case).

• "A currency board is a monetary institution that issues local bank notes and coins....A cardinal principle is that all locally issued currency board notes and coins must be fully backed by a foreign reserve currency. For example, The Bahamas currency board was required to hold £1 in sterling assets for every £1 Bahamian bank note it placed in circulation...Another key principle of a currency board is that its locally issued notes and coins are fully convertible, on demand, into the reserve currency at a fixed exchange rate....sterling still backs locally issued notes in Gibraltar, St. Helena, and several other small British dependent territories. As reserves—as backing for the local issue of bank notes and coins—a currency board holds low-risk, interest-earning securities and other assets, including demand deposits, payable in the reserve currency. The value of these securities and assets, by law, must be equal to 100 percent or more of the value of the currency board’s notes and coins in circulation. There are several very important features of currency boards, which differentiate them from central banks. First, a currency board does not have discretionary control over the quantity of notes and coins it supplies to individuals and firms. Rather, a board simply responds, in a matter-of-fact manner, to the demand for notes and coins from members of the public as they engage in normal banking and commercial activities...Commercial banks do not hold deposits with the currency board. Instead, commercial banks hold reserve-currency assets as their main form of reserves. In the case of a British colonial currency board, commercial banks hold sterling reserves, which they can exchange with the currency board for local notes and coins to serve their clients (Gibnews - this explains why you can't open a "Gibraltar Pound bank account"). Banks try to estimate how much local money they need to hold in their vaults at any one time to satisfy their depositors’ requests to convert demand or savings deposits into notes and coins, or to fill cash needs for Christmas gifts. A standard currency board maintains a rigid, fixed exchange rate with the reserve currency, which can only be altered in emergencies. The exchange rate is written into the constitution or law that describes the establishment and obligations of the currency board. Almost all British colonies matched domestic sterling notes of 10/- and higher with British sterling notes. A typical currency board holds foreign reserves of 100 percent or more of its note and coin liabilities, as set by law. Many boards have held up to 110 percent foreign reserves. A currency board maintains full convertibility of its currency. Anyone with reserve currency can exchange it for local notes at the fixed rate and vice-versa. However, a currency board does not guarantee that demand or fixed deposits at commercial banks are convertible into currency board notes and coins. The total money supply is not backed by a reserve currency; only its monetary base is backed by, and convertible into, the reserve currency." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is an interesting source, albeit its talking about a colonial situation which no longer applies to Gibraltar.

Also the GoG the notes currently issued are called 'pounds sterling' and not 'Gibraltar Pounds'. The UK website has been updated, the Gibraltar one will be 'real soon'. They are busy trying to do pages about the new tax structure.

I am assured that the GoG could issue notes in dollars or yen although nobody outside the territory need accept them, it might be amusing to issue euros, and indeed we did have an ecu coin before it was renamed. No doubt the Spanish would go ballistic at the thought :) --Gibnews 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the GoG could - Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands switched from the pound to the dollar as their reserve currency. However, note that they aren't actually issuing US dollars, they're printing their own dollars that they are guaranteeing with a peg to the US dollar, and by having in reserve a US dollar for every Bermudan (or whatever) dollar they print. If they could print US dollars at will, then they could cause massive inflation in the United States. It's the same with the Gibraltar case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush can ruin the currency without any assistance. I see its gone through the psycological 2 to the pound level. The ecu coins are really collectors items, although some did circulate. However, the Pound re-inforces Gibraltar's 'Britishness' which appeals to the tourist trade, there are a new generation of red telephone boxes going up, and it just needs an imaginative brewer to re-invent double diamond and red barrel for all the cliche's to be in place. --Gibnews 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar History

Gibraltar has a long history and the failed Spanish attempt to 'reclaim' the territory forms a small part of its modern history. Anyone who doubts that the Gibraltarians reject the claim or any proposal of joint sovereignty should read the section on the 2002 referendum.

As regards claims that terrorists were 'murdered' here, the Gibraltar constitution defines what murder is, and the inquiry held in Gibraltar determined that it was lawful killing. Visitors intending travelling with bombs should note that part of the constitution is still in place.

--Gibnews 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, the disputed status of Gibraltar forms part of its history, yet so does the Great Siege of Gibraltar, Military history of Gibraltar during World War II, the Explosion of the RFA Bedenham to name a few. The main article is History of Gibraltar, therewith you will find the other elements which form part of Gibraltar's history, one such being the disputed status. Chris Buttigieg 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to work fine now and I moved the image to the right which makes things look better at 600 x 800 perhaps it might be an idea to include links to other articles about the history of Gibraltar to the top of that article, what do you think? We are certainly not short of history. --Gibnews 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done just that. Chris Buttigieg 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schools comparison UK vs Gibraltar.png

There are a couple of errors in this which make it less useful than it could be. The main one is the mention of the "UK education system", something which does not and has never existed. I suggest removing it until it can be fixed. --John 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented it out until these concerns can be addressed. --John 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I fail to understand what you mean and would be grateful if you could enlighten me. You say that the mention of the 'UK education system' is an inaccuracy, but I only found this reference in the article itself and not in the image. And what do you mean by 'it has never existed'? Are you referring to the Education in the United Kingdom or the term itself? I have probably misinterpreted your concern but nevertheless, would be grateful if you could clarify. Chris Buttigieg 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture says "Usual range of schools in the UK". Such a thing does not exist, as the UK has several separate education systems. I'm not very familiar with the difference, but according to the relevant articles, the Scottish system is markedly different from that used elsewhere in the UK, and there are smaller differences between systems in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

At least in England there is the added complication that some areas have a three-school system up to 16 - as in Gibraltar - while most have only two schools. The image shown is such a broad generalisation of the schooling systems in the UK that it could be quite misleading. Pfainuk 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention public vs private differences... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Chris Buttigieg 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

National athem(s)?

Does Gibraltar not retain 'God save the Queen' at least as its Royal anthem? Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the circumstances, if someone won a gold medal at a competition the Gibraltar anthem would be appropriate, rather than 'God save the Queen' --Gibnews 20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. With Gibraltar being an 'overseas territory' and the Queen being Head of State I think I'll stick my neck out and add it as a National anthem. According to Gibraltar Anthem God save the Queen is official, though it wrongly cites Gibraltar as a United Kingdom Dependency. Tsk! Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue with that, and although its played on official occasions, we no longer play it when TV closes down :) I have some footage of the Queens Birthday parade and it is heard there a number of times. --Gibnews 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also Rock of Ages and Llévame donde nací - both anthems I would say. Although the latter is probably less common now. Chris Buttigieg 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Llévame donde nací is sung at national day. I wonder what was played when Gibraltar was awarded the gold medal for football in the Small Island games, beating the home team 4-0 - no wonder they are scared of us in UEFA :) --Gibnews 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And tennis and shooting. :)

If I remember correctly, back when I went to see the Island Games in Guernsey they played Llévame donde nací, just the melody that is to say. Chris Buttigieg 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, had Gibraltar not its own unique "official" anthem, then I would say add it. But as it does, I don't really think there's a place for unofficial ones. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And I see The Red Hat has picked up on 'dependency' on the Gibraltar Anthem article. That made me chuckle! Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're easily amused, then.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "God Save the Queen" is an entirely "unofficial" anthem for the UK too. --John 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The Union Flag has no official status either, I believe. But trying to say that on Wikipedia. No thanks. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If Gibraltar is not a dependency of the UK then what is it? Personally I believe decolonization of Gibraltar can only be achieved by its devolved integration into the UK and the sooner this happens the better. Gibraltar SHOULD be part of the United Kingdom and I think if it wasn't for the dispute with the Spanish it would have been integrated long ago. Is the national anthem situation similar to say Wales? Wales has both a local national anthem and also the UK one and I presume Gibraltar is the same? YourPTR! 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation is similar. All UK territory has God Save the Queen as an anthem (I'm currently trying to persuade its use on Scotland), and may also have its own national song. In Gibraltar's case it legislated its own anthem, so it has two. As for Gibraltar determination, well that's for Gibraltar to decide. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition Commonwealth Realms have God Save the Queen as their Royal Anthem. Yes it is for the people of Gibraltar alone to decide to integrate into the United Kingdom and for the government of the United Kingdom then to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar by granting their request and not stuff it up like they did with Malta. Britons are still in mourning at our government's mishandling of Malta's constitutional affairs. Perhaps after Gibraltar has been been succesfully integrated into the union, another referendum can be put to the Maltese people on whether they would like to do the same as it would be absolutely devistating if the island was lost to the nation forever. :( YourPTR! 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was upset when my Dad told me about Malta. They've gone over to the EU now too (boo!). Still, they gave our rubbish song 12 points at eurovision. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Town

The term 'Gibraltar Town' is not in common usage, what is is the phrase 'town area' which refrs to part of the West side of the rock surrounding Main Street and upwards between landport and referendum gate. The Westside reclamation and the Glacis/Laguna estates which house the largest number of people and the South district are not considered part of the 'town area'. --Gibnews 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From this talk posting I infer that the use or non use of 'Gibraltar Town' may be an interesting and contentious point. I made the minor change as a result of linking in from another page, and 'corrected' it to the usage with which I am long familiar as a regular and longtime visitor, yet the previous poster's username implies they may be a local who deprecates the term. This may be one of those issues where differing communities of interest use different terms (c.f. "town and gown" terminology conflicts in the old university towns). The usage of the term 'Gibraltar Town' is supported by the BBC News Profile, who are normally widely accepted as an authoritative source, and indeed by historical evidence such as World War 2 memories, again coincidentally from the BBC. My tentative conclusion is that locals use 'town area' and non locals (e.g. the BBC, and generations of British military personnel) use 'Gibraltar Town'. I think it would be helpful to reflect this dichotomy on the article page, but will leave any textual changes until this talk page has had a chance to elicit other thoughts.Bill Martin 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The usage in Gibraltar is as I noted. It may been used in the past by Military personnel, however they have mostly gone. On occasion one hears military visitors looking for long renamed bars in Irish town. The BBC, there are one or two errors on their profile which has not been updated for a while and the BBC on occasion refer to Gibraltar as an island. Its about time they updated their map showing FHQ and the 'neutral zone' as neither are correct.

As we now have a number of Gibraltarian editors around it would be interesting to see what they think.

Personally I'd say Gibraltar is a city rather than a town as that could describe a larger area, and that usage is more common. --Gibnews 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have never before heard the term Gibraltar town but town area is widely used in Gib (i.e. estate agents to advertise homes in this area). However, Gibraltar is definitely a city rather than a town. The traditional way to differentiate a city from a town is whether it has a cathedral or not. Gibraltar has not one, but two cathedrals. Gibmetal 77^talk 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)