Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 3

There were no Gibraltarians untill the British conquest

This is a discussion between User:Gibnews and User:Burgas00 relating to the population of Gibraltar which left en masse during the British conquest. Whether they left out of their own free will, they fled or were expelled is a matter of contention. According to Gibnews, those inhabitants of Gibraltar who lived there before the British conquest should not be called Gibraltarian.

No, its not a matter of contention on whether the Spanish inhabitants were expelled or they left. They fought, they surrendered and were offered the option of leaving or remaining, that is a matter of historical record. The above statement in bold, is basically untruthful --Gibnews

There is no evidence that the Spaniards living in Gibraltar considered themselves to be Gibraltarians, you are making it up. As for their departure, it was orderly, dignified and they had the option of remaining. Considering the future anyone sensible would have left, as hard times lay ahead for the civil population.

The basis of the account is take from Jackson and at no point does he refer to the incumbents as anything apart from Spaniards (and French).

The term 'Gibraltarian' was introduced more recently and its use in this context is inappropriate and only used to diminish the credibility of todays population of Gibraltar as a distinct people.

--Gibnews 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for evidence that Gibraltarians considered themselves Gibraltarians. Are you listening to what you are saying???? Obviously they didnt use the word Gibraltarian because they didnt speak English (duuh!) they considered themselves Gibraltareños which means.... yes you got it: Gibraltarians!

Please read the eye witness account by another Gibraltarian which is sourced on the article (unless you have deleted it once more) Gibraltarians left fleeing violence and plunder. Who is Jackson? Did he happen to be involved in the capture and pillage of Gibraltar? --Burgas00 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the credibility of the distinct nature of today's inhabitants of Gibraltar. It is clearly explained in this article, in the article Demographics of Gibraltar, in the article yanito, in the article Culture of Gibraltar and so on. Had the name Gibraltar been given by the Brits I would agree with you, but since that is not the case the definition of Gibraltarian is naturally "those who are or were from Gibraltar".--Burgas00 11:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

An example famous philosopher Ibn Rushd was Cordobés and is considered Cordobés in Spain. Even though he was of Arabic origin and spoke Arabic, he inclusion as Cordobés does not deny the distinct nature of the present day people of Cordoba or Andalusia as a whole...--Burgas00 11:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is a legal status. There is no evidence the population of Gibraltar in 1704 considered themselves anything apart from Spanish subjects of Phillip V, just because you +think+ it does not make it so. 'Jackson' is Sir William Jackson the soldier and historian. He wrote the definitive book on the subject and refers to the people as Spaniards.

--Gibnews 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So should we leave the history of the occupation of Poland in WW2 to be written by soldiers in the German army? Also it is true that according to Hitler, German Jews were not really German but untermenschen who had to be wiped out, right?

I am still waiting for you to show a constructive attitude so that some consensus can be reached. I am not going to let this go until you do so. Too many users have done so, and I have faith in Wikipedia and its longterm objectivity.

Gibraltarian means, in the English language, someone who is from Gibraltar. Look it up in the dictionary if you want.

To the anonymous editor (probably banned user Gibraltarian) who erased the number of Gibraltarians who left: The number is well known and documented.

--Burgas00 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. There is no reliable record of the numbers who left, nor of those who stayed. Nor is there any record of how long any had been established in Gibraltar. Many people visited Gibraltar for trading purposes, or had not been here long. How many of those who left were actual Gibraltar belongers or had merely turned up the previous day, week or month is also not known. Can someone who turned up the previous week to sell produce be classed a Gibraltarian?

Many figures have been bandied about but they are ALL pure conjecture. Nobody knows.

No figure has been brandished below 4000 and all sources agree that the vast majority of Gibraltarians fled the town. Actually many of the few who stayed were foreign traders who were as you say "not Gibraltar belongers".--Burgas00 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The people who left were SPANISH thats how its reported, not Gibraltarians. There is an accurate record of who stayed. The departure was orderly. The history is taken from Jacksons book and he says 4000 thus so do I. You seem to have invoked godwins law.

--Gibnews 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would bring that up. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi. I simply consider you are being illogical, unfair and biased in your approach to this issue and I was trying to use an appropriate metaphor. Gibraltarians at the time were Spanish because Gibraltar was part of Spain. It is their condition as Spaniards which was unstable not as Gibraltarians. Had they stayed in Gibraltar after the conquest, they would have ceased to be Spaniards but would remain Gibraltarians. Do you understand what I mean?

It is as unfair to treat those people as Spaniards as it is unfair to treat you as a "foreign colonizer" or "present inhabitant" of Gibraltar.

Gibnews you are wrong on this, you know it.

Besides our personal dispute on this issue... Is there any way user Gibraltarian can be blocked without blocking the whole of Gibraltar? Too many people are involved (and too much time is wasted) in reverting his vandalism daily.

--Burgas00 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The people were Spaniards, they are referred to in the source cited as Spaniards, they are only 'Gibraltarians' in your mind.

I see increasing similarities in behaviour between Gibraltarian and Burgas00. Take a deep breath and write an article for Wikipedia about the joys of Madrid or gnome wrangling, that do not involve Gibraltar and break out of this destructive cycle.

--Gibnews 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me in what way you are more Gibraltarian (you were probably not even born there) than people who were born and bred their and who's ancestors had lived there for several generations. How does being Spanish (logically since Gibraltar was in Spain at the time) exclude someone from being Gibraltarian? You are talking nonsense Gibnews. It is your insistence on this completely ludicrous position that proves to everyone who is reading this exchange that you have a clear political agenda and are not neutral.

Israel does not deny that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who were born in Haifa (now in Israel) are "Haifans". Why do you deny that these people were Gibraltarian? If your position wasnt so utterly incomprehensible by anyone bar yourself I would accuse you of distorting historical facts.

I repeat since you seem to be a bit slow:

• Gibraltarian = someone who is from Gibraltar.
• Parisian = Someone who is from Paris.
• Londoner = someone who is from London.
• New Yorker= someone who is from New York.
• Dubliner = Someone who is from Dublin.

Do you really need more examples?

Similarities with User Gibraltarian? Really? In what way? Please elaborate...

--Burgas00 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat this again for one last time. The word Gibraltarian is a recent one used to describe the present inhabitants of Gibraltar. It is a legal status and Gibraltarians have the right to residence in Gibraltar and British Citizenship.

• The people who left Gibraltar in 1794 were Spanish and other nationalities.

• They are described as such in the reference cited, the book 'Rock of the Gibraltarians' by Sir William Jackson.

• NEWSFLASH They left and they are not coming back - Get over it.

--Gibnews 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well your senseless sectarianism and NPOV position has clearly been exposed for everyone to see. Mr Jackson, the past governor of Gibraltar, can call the Gibraltarians Spaniards, Chinese, Aliens or whatever he pleases. It is not going to affect reality. I dont think there is anything on this article which supports your position for the moment. So we might as well finish our argument on this issue.

I think the fact that these "alien" Gibraltarians all chose to abandon their homes and property voluntarily for no apparent reason except allegiance to one of the pretenders to the crown (according to your only source: the governor of Gibraltar who didnt speak Spanish and thus had no access to sources beyond those of the British military + was blatantly one sided due to his position) is worthy of note. If you see the edit as sarcasm it means that perhaps you are not so sure of your position.

In any case: This is a controversial issue and your position is equivalent to that of considering Yasser Arafat (or Ariel Sharon) the only valid source to document the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Your edits are the "truth" and all other positions are "propaganda". A classic in wikipedia. If this article was Kosovo instead of Gibraltar, thus attracting more attention, you would have been banned by now.

Please answer these questions: In what way are people who have lived in Gibraltar for generations less Gibraltarian than you? Do you really think that these people never called themselves Gibraltarian, even thought they were born there, their parents were born there and their granparents were born there? And if not, why not? Why this exception when all Spaniards have always described themselves in relation to the town they were born in?

--Burgas00 09:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews said:

"The people who left Gibraltar in 1794 were Spanish and other nationalities"

True. And of top of that they could be, without losing an inch of their "spanishness", sevillanos from Seville, zaragozanos from Zaragoza and, no wonder, gibraltareños from Gibraltar.

Why are you so eager to deny this?. It stands above any political discussion. I'm Spanish, born in Zaragoza. If tomorrow France take over my region or town, legally I could be French or Spanish (should I choose to remain so) but what nobody can take away from me no matter what happens politically, is that I am and will be zaragozano forever.

Imagine that Gibraltar becomes Spanish (or Moroccan for that matter) in the future. Those who called themselves Gibraltarians now will suddenly stop to be so?. No, they will remain Gibratarians because they were born and raised in Gibraltar. Same applies to those 'gibraltareños' who left in 1794.

Burgas gave some similar examples about Palestinians. After WWII many Germans had to move to Germany, their hometowns being transferred to other countries. If, for instance, you were a German born in Danzig, the fact that this town was transferred to Poland, meant that you were no Danzingnian anymore(or whatever name is given to those born in Danzing)?.

Your stubborness on this matter goes beyond comprehension. But what can we expect from somebody who claims that his POV is the truth and others is just propaganda.

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.179.83.86 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.

This argument is getting long and ridiculous. Burgas00, please try listening to what GibNews is saying. 'Gibraltarian' is a modern word. A very modern word. It doesn't just refer to the inhabitants of Gibraltar, it is a legal status and also a self-definition. At the time of the exodus, Gibraltar was Spanish and the llanito identity did not yet exist. The most accurate thing to label the people as is 'Spanish', as this was their legal nationality. However, it must be pointed out that the concept of the nation state had not yet been developed. States, in the beginning of the 18th century, were personal empires rather than nations based around a common identity and language. Some states, like Austria-Hungary contained several linguistic & national groups and didn't turn into nation-states until much later. To label the inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704 as 'Gibraltarian' is an anachronism and serves only to confuse the issue. Saluton 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Saluton: So maybe Ancient Romans should not be called "Romans" since they were different from the Italian-speaking Romans of today? I understand you live in Gibraltar and you are defending your neighbour. What Gibnews is saying is ridiculous and beyond comprehension. I am sure 99.9% of Wikipedians outside Gibraltar will agree with me. Just have a think about it. --Burgas00 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's more like calling ancient Romans 'Italians'. Saluton 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that Italy and Italian is a modern concept whereas Gibraltar and "Gibtaltarian" is not... I'm afraid burgas00 is right on this. Gibraltar has always been Gibraltar and its people have always been Gibraltarian. To what part of the article does this dispute refer to specifically? --Mushobe10 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is no evidence to that effect, they are referred to as Spaniards and not Gibraltarians.

• Gibraltarian has a legal meaning.

• They were also Europeans, but nobody would refer to anyone as such at the time.

• If they felt themselves to be Gibraltarian rather than Spanish they could have remained.

--Gibnews

If you really must comment on the above please do so under this and do not

'rewrite' my text - it is confusing and bad style

As regards people in San Roque holding keys to their houses in Gibraltar, I have bad news for both them and yourself. Nearly all the houses were blown away when the Spanish attacked Gibraltar - contrary to what Spain signed up for under the Treaty of Utrecht.

Almost everything in Gibraltar has been built since and belongs to the Gibraltarians - however if any of the Spaniards who left in 1704 come back and knock on my door I will invite them in for a whisky.

--Gibnews

Where to begin...

• You say "Italy and Italian is a modern concept whereas Gibraltar and 'Gibtaltarian' is not". My argument exactly is that Gibraltarian is a new concept. As a word it only emerged in the late nineteenth centuary. I'd give you a reference for that, but I'm in university at the moment, away from my books on Gibraltar's history. 'Gibraltarian' refers to a concept that did not exist in 1704. It is a cultural identity which simply did not exist before around the late 19th c. Before this, most people considered themselves Genoese, British, Spanish, Maltese, Jewish, or whatever. The British colonists (and no, I'm not going to throw in idiotic POV views about them being Gibraltar's wonderful, benevolent saviours or anything like that) generally refered to people as 'natives', or as being from wherever they originally came from eg 'Maltese' or 'Genoese'. To refer to the people of Gibraltar as 'Gibraltarians' before the concept of Gibraltarian existed is anachronistic and bad history.

• This point has been made before, but when Gibraltar was Spanish, so were the people of Gibraltar. They were Spanish legally, ethnically and culturally. So really, Spanish is a better term for them. Even this though can be misleading, as in 1704 the nation state hadn't really developed yet and it's unlikely that the people who left Gibraltar had a strong feeling of Spanish national identity.

• You say "In Spain as in every country, region and city in the world, one has always referred to the inhabitants of a particular town in such a way. Now, then and always." This is completely untrue, at least in English. I don't know exactly how it works in Spanish, but I do know that in English this is not the case. It applies to some towns, but not all. For example Madrid - Madrileño, London - Londoner, Birmingham - Brummy, New York - New Yorker. Do the residents of York ever call themselves 'Yorkers', 'Yorkies' or 'Yorkians'? No. Never. I've never heard of people from Hull calling themselves 'Hullites', 'Hullans', 'Hullarians', 'Hulleños', 'Hullers' or anything else for that matter. What about Portsmouth, Norwich, Truro and Leeds?

• In historical documents which you can find in San Roque (10 minutes drive from your house), you will see that inhabitants of Gibraltar referred to themselves as Gibraltarians. Actually, San Roque more like a 40 hour drive from here, so I'm afraid I can't check on that. But you will find no English language source which refers to 'Gibraltarians' before the late nineteenth centuary. Actually, most English people find the word 'Gibraltarian' hilarious for some reason, and generally say 'Gibraltan' if they don't know what the word is. As for San Roque today, note that in the Spanish wikipedia's article on San Roque it says "San Roque fue fundada por habitantes de Gibraltar", which translates to "San Roque was founded by inhabitants of Gibraltar" rather than "San Roque was founded by Gibraltarians". Meanwhile, San Roque describes itself as “San Roque, la tierra donde viven los de Gibraltar” (San Roque, the land where those of Gibraltar reside). No use of the word 'Gibraltareños' there either.

• Finally, I think your comment "Gibraltians of San Roque still have the keys to their homes in Gibraltar which were given away to Genoese colonists. They still feel Gibraltarian." is very revealing. It shows the reason why you are so concerned about this rather minor detail. One of Spain's arguments against self-determination is that the Gibraltarians are somehow not the real Gibraltarains. I don't want to take anything away from the suffering experienced by the people who lived in Gibraltar in 1704, but they were not Gibraltarian in the modern sense. Their feeling of being wronged had more to do with losing their homes and having to move than losing their nation and national identity. Oh, and people from San Roque don't still have the keys to their homes in Gibraltar which were given away to Genoese colonists. The Genoese didn't come until much later. When they came, the Genoese were not invading colonists, but moved peacefully to a place that had been British for years. And the majority of the people of San Roque don't consider themselves Gibraltarians. Trading sentimental points like this doesn't have much value 300 years after the event, either. There's not much that can be done about it - no houses still stand from before 1704. They were mostly destroyed in wars with Spain. Let's not forget Spain was equally brutal with the treatment of Moors during the reconquest. And many people had to uproot, leaving their homes behind in much the same way fleeing La Linea to Gibraltar in 1936.

Saluton 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Given the level of conflict there appears to be about this article, it is remarkable that there appears not to be a single cited statement in the article. Both sides would do a lot better to actually cite sources in controversial matters. - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The article refers, and is based, on the following:

Sir William G F Jackson 'Rock of the Gibraltarians' ISBN 0-948466-14-6 Page 98 - 101

The people who left in 1704 are referred as Spaniards. Most of the wording is taken directly from this book, which is the definitive work on the subject.

--Gibnews 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then specific citations in the article, with page numbers, would make your case a lot stronger. Conversely, this is clearly a controversial matter, and cited material from other viewpoints would also belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As I'm not sure how to include that as a citation, please feel free to add it given the pages numbers I've quoted as its correct. The book is factual rather than offering an opinion and gives its sources. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion in order to suggest that someone apart from the Gibraltarians have a claim to the territory. They do not. Most of what is the territory today has been constructed since 1704.

--Gibnews 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is definitely the concerning issue here. Gibnews, I suggest you read that page and WP:CITE to learn how to cite sources. These are policies which are necessary to understand to order to edit at Wikipedia contructively. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, Citations and Taxhavens

Jmabel I am afraid that the reason for which sources are lacking is mainly because most unfortunately do not reach the criteria established by Gibnews, i.e. he considers they are not valid or untrustworthy.

For example: A few months ago there was a dispute between User:Gibnews and a number of other users over whether Gibraltar was a Tax-haven and whether its Tax regime should be discussed in the Economy section. According to Gibnews the answer to both questions was No.

This despite sources provided by editors (and promptly removed by Gibraltarian) such as the following:

• OECD report declaring Gibraltar a Tax Haven in 2000
• Washington State legislation declaring Gibraltar a Tax haven
• Gibraltar Financial Service Commission which states that there are 28,500 active companies registered in Gibraltar of which 8,800 are exempt companies.
• Lowtax.net An updated (2006) summary of Tax regime in Gibraltar which explains that "In Gibraltar there is no capital gains tax, wealth tax, sales tax or VAT. The main tax for companies is income tax, and there are withholding taxes; there are also stamp duties on certain transactions, and property taxes ('rates'). Companies can take advantage of a number of offshore regimes in order to reduce taxation."
• The Wikipedia article Tax haven which mentions Gibraltar as an example, where tax exempt companies, which must not trade or conduct any business locally, are taxed at a flat rate of up to £300 a year.
• IMF Report on Gibraltar in which it is clearly explained that Gibraltar is a tax haven.
• History of Gibraltar's emergence as an international Ta haven since 1967
• Updated Gibraltar Government website explaining in what ways Gibraltar is still considered an important centre for international business, although the advantages now arise from the fiscal opportunities available rather than the physical location.

User:Gibnews dismissed and erased these sources and citations claiming that "thousands of websites claim that Elvis lives." No consensus with him was reached and eventually it was "his way or the high way". He has decided that no mention of Gibraltar's tax regime or tax haven status should be made.

So, Jmabel as you can see, there is not really much point adding sources or citing?:-( I hope this article becomes NPOV at one point... --Burgas00 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you get over the fact that Gibraltar has not been Spanish for 300 years and if the views of the current electorate are respected will NEVER be so.

Wikipedia is a place for facts - If we quoted out of date reports about Spain you would be described as living in a fascist dictatorship. That has changed and today the OECD are quite happy with Gibraltar and do not describe it as a 'tax haven' so grow up and get a life.

--Gibnews 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/Gibraltarian

gibraltarian A noun 1 Gibraltarian a native or inhabitant of Gibraltar

http://www.rae.es/

gibraltareño, ña. 1. adj. Natural de Gibraltar. U. t. c. s.

Both English and Spanish definitions don't enter into questioning the citizenship of anybody.

In any case Gibnews shows once again great vision, respect and tolerance, apart fromm the fact that according to his comments Gibraltarians must be immortals ("if the views of the current electorate are respected will NEVER be so"). Never is a very strong word. Just have a look at the map of Europe 100 hundred years ago and then come back.

But the highlight of his last comment is an old one from him: "so grow up and get a life". Nice way of arguing, coming from someone who lives in this page. We have a life, that includes from time to time reading your one-sided, biased and subjective views. It is you who has a big problem and need a life. You must dream, think and live only for this page. Sad, very sad.

Ah, one last thing. Not something that bothers me particularly but it is funny how Gibnews jumps at it when someone brings up the matter:

http://www.eumed.net/cursecon/dic/oc/paraisos.htm

Andorra Anguilla Antigua & Barbuda Aruba Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belize British Virgin Islands Cook Islands Dominica Gibraltar Grenada Guernsey Isle of Man Jersey Liberia Liechtenstein Maldives Marshall Islands Monaco Montserrat Nauru Dutch Antilles Niue Panama Samoa Seychelles St Lucia St Kitts & Nevis St Vincent & the Grenadines Tonga Turks & Caicos US Virgin Islands Vanuatu

No, it is not the countries playing the World Cup in Germany, but the list of tax heavens according to the OCDE. Do I Spot Gib....?

The official OECD website does not list Gibraltar as a 'tax haven' --Gibnews 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 22 June 2006.

I am wondering if "get a life" is a regular expression in Gibraltar. Szvest 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Its a common expression used in internet conversations which applies to people who are overly concerned in forcing their warped view of reality on the rest.--Gibnews 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's you, Gibnews, a magnificent self-portrait.

Gibnews' views are not the problem here. I am happy he feels so strongly about his territory and I support the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar. The problem is that all users have given up on editing this article since they know gibnews will immediately revert their edits without any previous constructive discussion. On this particular discussion, it is clear that sources point to it being a tax haven, since the government webpage of Gibraltar explains in what ways foreign companies should set up in the territory and thus benefit from tax breaks. This is not enough for user Gibnews, the Gibraltar government webpage becoming yet another of a long list of sources censored by this user. There is a number of other issues which have been resolved by personal attacks, erasal of sources and instransigence on behalf of this user. Perhaps we should uphold Wikipedia's status as a "Free" Encyclopedia.

Another issue which must be tackled is Gibraltar's status as a colony. It is included in the list of colonies presented by the UN Decolonisation commission. This should also be mentioned.

The perspective of Ex-governor of Gibraltar Sir William Jackson, relating to the exodus of the population of Gibraltar in 1704, should be contrasted with other sources. Particularly relating to whether the exodus was the fruit of the will of these people or of the use of force.

Regarding Gibraltar's status as a tax haven. It should also be stated that it has done alot in the way of complying with OECD and IMF directives and has been removed (since 2000) from the OECD list of "non-compliant" Tax havens. However, its status as a Tax haven is beyond dispute, albeit one which has now complied with the rules and regulations of this international organisation.

--Burgas00 10:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such list, Yet again you are making things up.

Please cite a link to a list of 'tax havens' on the OECD website or stop wasting everyones time.

Here is a quote from a reliable source:

We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively.

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 4th report on Gibraltatr published 22nd June 1999.

As regards Sir William Jackson, he was a respected historian and if you read his book you would find he cites a number of Spanish sources.

--Gibnews 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish accusations of money laundering and smuggling in Gibraltar are not an issue here. No one in this discussion is making such accusations. The issue is whether Gibraltar is a tax haven. It is beyond any discussion that it is. Do you know what the word tax haven means? I should think you do since English seems to be your native language!

Please take the time to read the 8 sources presented (including the government of Gibraltar web page) before discarding them yet again.

I am sure the Ex-Governor of Gibraltar is a respectable man and his book is probably very interesting and well written. Nevertheless, sources must always be contrasted.

--Burgas00 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me repeat, Sir William Jackson was an accredited HISTORIAN, thus his sources are properly referenced and the book has been introduced by Spanish contributors to the history of Gibraltar.

• I certainly know what 'Tax haven' is, its a pejorative term used by badly informed people. It is NOT used by the OECD.

• The source I quote confirms that Spanish sources often tell LIES about Gibraltar. Another example was of Lola Palacio missuing her position as an EU commissioner to make false allegations that the MT Prestige disaster was somehow the fault of Gibraltar.

You need to be able to seperate the truth from the lies. Hopefully one day the Government of Spain will wrap up its propaganda department and accept reality. In the meantime your taxes are being wasted. Wikipedia should be factual and not used as yet another vehicle for Gibraltar bashing.

--Gibnews 20:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1903251_1_1_1_1,00.html

Current list form OECD official website. Have a look.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/mae/oshore/2000/eng/back.htm#table1

Current list from the International Monetary Fund website, that describes OFF SHORE CENTERS as follows:

OFCs can be used for legitimate reasons, taking advantage of: (1) lower explicit taxation and consequentially increased after tax profit; (2) simpler prudential regulatory frameworks that reduce implicit taxation; (3) minimum formalities for incorporation; (4) the existence of adequate legal frameworks that safeguard the integrity of principal-agent relations; (5) the proximity to major economies, or to countries attracting capital inflows; (6) the reputation of specific OFCs, and the specialist services provided; (7) freedom from exchange controls; and (8) a means for safeguarding assets from the impact of litigation etc.

They can also be used for dubious purposes, such as tax evasion and money-laundering, by taking advantage of a higher potential for less transparent operating environments, including a higher level of anonymity, to escape the notice of the law enforcement agencies in the "home" country of the beneficial owner of the funds.5

Gibraltar is in the list.

Regards

Yes, Gibraltar is 'in that list' along with Ireland and Switzerland. Its a list of Financial centers.

Quoting Wikipedia

Nowadays Gibraltar has an extensive service-sector-based economy, dominated by financial services and tourism. A number of British banks and international banks have operations in Gibraltar. Gibraltar has become an International Finance Centre. There is no tax on capital income and other advantages.

That is rather differerent to being a 'Tax Haven' and the OECD do not use that particular term as it implies disreputability. There is no suggestion that there is institutional money laundering in Gibraltar, except by Spain for political purposes as noted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and strongly refuted.

--Gibnews 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No disreputability implied in the word. Have a look at the definition on Wikipedia: Tax haven. Why are you still ranting about Spain? You have serious issues.:-)--Burgas00 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Regretably you are again wrong, the word 'tax haven' is a | pejorative term and is inappropriate to use in connection with a well managed finance center such as Gibraltar - the motives of anyone who wishes to apply it this are suspect. The existing neutral wording as quoted is correct.

Quoting from the above source:

1. What’s in a Name? International Organisations, Labelling, and Defining Tax Havens

International organisations like the OECD, FSF and FATF gain a great deal of their power from the ability to label and categorise (Barnett and Finnemore 1999). The OECD’s efforts to regulate international tax competition since 1998 have provided a classic instance of how international organisations can achieve influence through their authoritative command of language. Various OECD component bodies like the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices and the Committee on Fiscal Affairs have moulded the meanings and connotations attached to the term ‘tax haven’ and have used this label to exert pressure on non-compliant jurisdictions by threatening their reputations. ‘Tax haven’ is now regarded as a pejorative, an unfavourable judgement on a jurisdiction’s stability, financial probity and reputation.

Google gives 139,000 hits for tax haven pejorative take some time to read about the reasons.

In relation to the Government of Spain, I am not 'ranting' about them, however, I do note that my mobile phone works in America and all over Europe but not in Spain because of the Government, and that the safety and convenience of flights to Gibraltar are compromised for political purposes.

--Gibnews 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for that obscure source. So apparently the OECD IMF and other international organisations are in league to blacken the name of Gibraltar? And their worst weapon is the use of the terrible word "Tax Havens" in their reports. How your position changes....its so funny. First it was that in Gibraltar did not have tax breaks. Then it was that no one uses the term Tax haven. Then that the OECD doesnt use it. And finally its that the OECD uses the term as a way of "threatening the reputation" of Gibraltar. C'mon Gibnews you are so blatantly NPOV that its actually quite funny. When cornered by facts you look for impossible silly arguments while complaining about Spain and your cell phone.

The wikipedia definition of a Tax Haven is the following: A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all. This encourages wealthy individuals and/or firms to areas that would otherwise be overlooked.

The government of Gibraltar advertises with glee its Tax haven status:Updated Gibraltar Government website

There is no synonym as far as i know for tax haven. If you find one tell us. The term Financial Center has nothing to do with favorable tax regimes.--Burgas00 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you the purpose of this talk page is to discuss material for inclusion in the page, it is not a forum. You seem to have an obsession with 'tax havens' and are struggling hard to manufacture nonsense to support your position. The links you give, particularly the Government of Gibraltar website do not use the term, nor does the OECD and Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources. You complain I 'rant about Spain', but then when pointed out that the blocking of telecommunications are indeed real issues, have no answer apart from abuse.

--Gibnews 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the 8 sources provided by a number of wikipedians on the issue. If you consider they are erroneous, try finding proper arguments to support your position, otherwise they will be included in the article.--Burgas00 14:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Google gives 139,000 hits for 'tax haven pejorative' there are enough

arguments available already.

--Gibnews

Gibnews as you know I have retired from the discussion. Just one suggestion. How about Off-Shore Financial Centre? I think that would explain everything without using a pejorative term.--Burgas00 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct term is 'International Finance Centre' - 'Offshore' is bit of a meaningless term and also now considered linked to bad things.

That was the view of the financial services regulator when I met with him recently. I've also chased up the article about the economy from someone else and it will come ...

--Gibnews

For what it is worth, my views on the subject are as follows:

• I don't like the term tax haven either. It is outmoded - it was used in the 1970s, but isn't really used today except by people who are stongly opposed to low tax jurisdictions. The preferred term today is offshore financial centre or offshore jurisdiction. This partly reflects the fact that OFCs are much less about tax these days than about regulatory infrastructure. Wikipedia has to some extent adopted this dichotomy with on article entitled tax havens (which is very much critical of offshore jurisdictions), and another article entitled offshore financial centres (which, I would argue is more neutrel (as I wrote most of it), but others would probably say is pro-OFC). The term international financial centre would not be correct to apply to offshore jurisdictions - an IFC is used in distinction to an OFC, and would refer to a major financial centre like London, New York or Tokyo.
• Whatever you call them, and almost whatever way you dice the critera, Gibraltar is an offshore jurisdiction. I practice offshore finance for a living, and whilst I don't practice in Gibraltar, I regularly deal with people who do, and no one could conceivably argue that Gibraltar is not an offshore jurisdiction. I would go further and say that Gibraltar is one of the leading 6 or 7 offshore jurisdictions in the world. This is certainly a view actively promoted by the Gibraltar government and the Gibraltar law firms and trust companies at pretty much every conference I have ever been to.
• A lot of hot air is circulating about changes in Gibraltar law which mean that offshore companies formed in Gibraltar are no longer tax-exempt within Gibraltar (removing the "ring-fenced" tax regime, to use the offshore parlance). This generates more heat than light. Because of various initiatives by the OECD and others to prevent "unfair" tax practices in offshore jurisdictions, most OFCs that utilised a ring-fenced tax regime had to dimantle them. Gibraltar was not alone in this. The British Virgin Islands (arguably the world's leading offshore jurisdiction by volume of incorporations) also dismantled its ring-fenced tax regime on 1 January 2004. But in both Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands (and others) the removal of the ring-fenced tax regime was replaced by a new tax code that also prevented direct taxation of companies' dividends and capital gains (albeit in a way that was less offensive to OECD sensibilities). Changing your tax regime doesn't mean that you cease to be an offshore jurisdiction outside of the most extreme cases (such as Nauru).
• More hot air has been circulated in relation to the famous OECD and FATF "blacklists" of offshore jurisdictions that are perceived to be non-cooperative in the fight against money laundering. Gibraltar has never featured on any of those lists. But then neither have most of the major offhosre jurisdictions. The only leading offshore jurisdiction that ever has been on the list is Cayman (and people have views about that, but this isn't the place for them). But the fact that Gibraltar is considered to be a cooperative partner in the global fight against money laundering doesn't mean that it ceases to be an offshore jurisdiction. Whatever the popular press may think, being an offshore financial centre is not a badge for aiding and abetting money laundering - it simply means a legal system that facilites financial and investment structures in a tax neutral and low regulatory environment.

Just my views as someone who, unfortunately, spends most of his day wading through offshore financial structures of one description or another from various jurisdictions. Legis 07:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, one other comment does occur to me. I am slightly perplexed why Gibraltarians on Wikipedia seem so opposed to having their country percieved as an offshore jurisdiction. It seems at odds to the general views of Gibraltarians that I meet (although that perhaps has something to do with the people I meet in my profession). Personally, I am from the British Virgin Islands and I am very proud of the successful offshore financial industry that we have. I think we play an important role in the global financial markets, and I have no reservations that we play our part (more than play our part when you see how we are let down by law enforcement in some onshore jurisdictions on occasion) in the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. I am used to people who don't know much about offshore finance assuming that it must be a "badge of shame", but I am perplexed about that view seeming to eminate from people in another offshore jurisdiction who, to be brutally honest, I would think would have a more open minded perception. Legis 07:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous Gibraltarians

I've reverted the removal of the rock band Breed 77 from the Famous Gibraltarians list. The reason given was that they are a group rather than individuals, but bands are listed in the 'famous people' lists of many other places. For example Radiohead is mentioned in the Oxford article. Also, I'd say that Breed 77 are more famous than anyone else on that list at the moment.

OK lets have a heading for bands and list the members; you could also include Melon diesel and Taxi etc. The heading really should be for individuals and the two there are significantly rich and famous.

On the subject of the 'Gibraltar Pound' All the current notes say 'Pound Sterling' - the 'Gibraltar pound' was a swindle by Barclays Bank to charge a conversion fee of 1% between Sterling and local currency. They were taken to court over it and had to admit that it was not justified. Although the GIP exists in theory, in practice there is no such animal.

--Gibnews

Death on the Rock

Murder is a defined criminal act, and no court has ruled that the terrorists were murdered.--Gibnews 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon

Comment by 212.120.236.210 (banned user Gibraltarian) removed. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could just create an account if you wanted to. And demands like this really won't get you anywhere in Wikipedia. --Ultimus 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned comment from the anon IP above is from the permanently-banned User:Gibraltarian. He's not going to be getting an account any time soon. -- ChrisO 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet more edit wars with Gibnews

I think that now that the term OFC (which I originally proposed and was dismissed by User:Gibnews) is now backed by an official 2006 IMF source found by user:Panchurret, this is clearly the term which must be used. Tax haven, which I originally supported is correct although Gibnews has found sources which argue that it is a demeaning term. Albeit these sources are probably written by people living in, or working for tax havens:-)

OFC is now beyond dispute- considering sources. Tax haven, I would support using it as well as a synonym but I dont consider those who are against it as vandals. --Burgas00 10:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews you are going way over the top in your plight to erase all sources you dislike. User:Panchurret's sources were perfectly valid and up to date. This is censorship and vandalism. I am reporting your behaviour to the adminstrator noticeboard. Probably wont be much use, anyways.... --Burgas00 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is not shared by the Gibraltar financial services regulator. Please read the acticle here

We live in a world where the simply use of one word or phrase, rather than another can have an immediate impact upon attitude and reputation. Take the phrase “international financial centre” and the image of gleaming chrome and glass sky scrappers springs to mind. Change one word and make it an “offshore financial centre” and a different image and reputation appears. Yet the two phrases can be used almost interchangeably. Use the phrase “tax haven” and you immediately conjure up connotations of money laundering, arms dealing and shady deals.

Does EVERY resident of Spain feel it their mission in life to try and imply that Gibraltar is a 'den of pirates' ? Why not write some articles about how good Spain is instead of continually slagging off Gibraltar. We would get a better encyclopedia that way. --Gibnews

Gibraltar sure as hell is a tax haven, I have about 125 thousand Euro's there because of it. TruthCrusader 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea - we report under the European Savings Directive. --Gibnews

We are not talking about opinions Gibnews, neither gibraltarians or spanish. We are talking about you repeatedly deleting official sources like IMF reports just because you don't like what they say and trying to hide it with a relentless childish behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&diff=63013583&oldid=62977600 --Panchurret 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So you say, however the OECD do not report that Gibraltar is a 'Tax haven' and for all the reasons previously given it is a term used in an insulting manner.

Why not write about what a paradise Spain is instead of trying to denigrate Gibraltar -or- you could write an article explaining why Spain blocks Gibraltar's telephones and nearly every EU measure that might be favourable to us. It might be amusing.

Tired old nonsense about being a 'tax haven' 'a den of pirates' etc is SO boring and has been done to death. Gibraltar is not Spanish, its not going to be Spanish, get used to it and move on. --Gibnews

Nobody is talking about Gibraltar soverignty, only you and just to distract the point. If you don't like living in a officially recognised Tax haven complain to your goverment or to the IMF [1] --Panchurret 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All Im complaining about is erasing sources. I hope Gibnews will now change the way he contributes to this page. Its about adding, not substracting.--Burgas00 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen this dispute on WP:AN, I thought I'd give some feedback here. I have to say that Gibnews is off the mark here. Deleting well-sourced references for apparent POV reasons is plain wrong - the Arbitration Committee have banned people for it in the past. The sources provided for the "tax haven" statement are clearly reliable, verifiable and relevant to the subject. The fact that Gibnews considers them "biased" or "untrue" is not relevant. I suggest that s/he should take a look at WP:V, in particular the point it makes that the standard is verifiability, not truth. (I know that sounds nonsensical but read the policy - it does make sense.)

I suggest you should also take a look at WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. If there's a counter-source that denies the statement, such as a Gibraltar government statement refuting the IMF and OECD's claims, the proper thing to do is to add and describe that counter-source. You can outline the controversy as "source X and Y say this, source Z denies it and says that". It's not our job as editors to tell the readers who is right. That's a personal point of view and probably inadmissible original research as well. -- ChrisO 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are no sources shown by Panchurret simply references to the terms and organisations on Wikipedia pages. WP:CITE Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources.

I'm not sure how you can claim that when two sources were provided in the disputed block of text: [2] and [3]. -- ChrisO 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The OECD does not list 'tax havens' and it does not include Gibraltar in its list of territories engaging in harmful tax practices.

The OECD source cited above says explicitly "Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven" and goes on to say that it "will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly." Which I read as saying "we view it as a tax haven, but a clean one". -- ChrisO 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I included a cite to an article explaining the meaning of these terms by a recognised authority in the business. Please read it Here

It doesn't seem to be working, unfortunately... -- ChrisO 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It works perfectly well for me, and is cited by in the article negating your claim of it being my original research / POV --Gibnews

• The use of the term 'Tax Haven' is contentious at the best and used by persons who do not understand the nature of the business of an International Finance Centre and wish to imply Gibraltar is engaged in dubious practices. --Gibnews

The problem is that that's your personal point of view. Wikipedia:No original research explicitly rules out the inclusion of arguments "without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". The fact that an organisation of the stature of the OECD has classified Gibraltar as a tax haven (and used those words) is highly significant, whether or not it's controversial. As I explained before, the right thing to do here is to find another reputable source which disputes the OECD's position and cite that in the article. -- ChrisO 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there is no evidence that the OECD lists Gibraltar as a tax haven currently. I could say that Spain was a fascist dictatorship, or that America a colony of the UK, none of these things are true today, and the references given simply do not support the use of the wording as implied.

• http://www.fsc.gi/press/article20112004.htm
• http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/sharman.html

--Gibnews

The point is that OECD and IMF had listed Gibraltar as both Tax haven and Offshore Financial Centre in their last existing reports (from 2001 and 2002) and IMF includes its report in the up-to-date:

"Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs): IMF Staff Assessments (Last Update: June 4, 2006) " [4].

While IMF or OECD doesn't observe a relevant change in Gibraltar's tax laws they don't have to renew them and these last reports stand as the most credited reference in this issue, like it or not.

--Panchurret 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, very funny the last links that you provided, very appropiate for an encyclopedia:

Building a good reputation

This article appeared in the November issue of the Gibraltar Magazine.

David Parody

Chief Operating Officer Financial Services Commission

“Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit and lost without deserving.” Cassio from “Othello the Moor of Venice” [...]

Thank you for waste our time with such relevant information.

--Panchurret 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've updated the wording in a compromise attempt. We should list that Gibraltar was considered a tax haven, but has tightened up its financial regulations and is now regarded as an International Finance Centre. There is no use linking to obsolete documents that do not back up statements. Astrotrain 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I just think that this is still grabbing the wrong end of the stick. Gibraltar is universally recognised (both internally an externally) as an OFC not an IFC. See for example the website of Hassans, the largest law firm in Gibraltar - "[Gibraltar] ... enjoys unique status as an offshore financial centre within the European Union"[5] Type "List of offshore financial centres" or "list of tax havens" into Google, and 9 out of 10 lists that come up will list Gibraltar. I am not going to repeat everything that I said at the end of the previous section, but any credible list produced of the world's OFCs will include Gibraltar. Compromise is fine, but this is apples and oranges. Gibraltar is an OFC, not an IFC (not in its wildest dreams), so call it that. Avoid the perjorative term "tax haven" because that ticks everybody off. I have only been part of this debate for 1 day, and already it seems to me to tedious and repetitive. Legis 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

People I talk to at the fsc prefer the word International as they say Offshore has become suspect.

I really do object to inclusion of phrases like "Gibraltar's has a favourable corporate tax regime which benefit over 20,000 locally registered companies." as they are untrue. The whole point of the complaint about Gibraltar's tax structure is that non resident companies get the benefit of tax advantages not available to resident ones (like mine) the number of companies is also a missleading figure which Spanish sources like to quote to try and imply there is something dodgy going on here.

HINT: Company number 1 is the Gibraltar Gas Utility. It is defunct.

I really don't understand why its SO important to people in Spain to go into great detail about what the OECD had to say about Gibraltar in 2000. It has nothing to do with an introduction to the economy today.

However I do note the OECD say that in 2006 someone should :

rapidly amend its law so that companies can be found directly liable for bribing foreign public officials and sanctioned with serious fines, according to a new report by the OECD Working Group on Bribery.

and

• Remove distortions in the housing market
• Reform the pension system

But the someone is not Gibraltar.

Personal and company taxation is higher in Gibraltar than either Spain or the UK, however we believe we get more back in terms of education, health care and benefits for the elderly.

--Gibnews 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Gibnews: 'People I talk to at the fsc prefer the word International as they say Offshore has become suspect' . It's a matter of facts and sources [6], not personal opinions or experiences. You should build your own webpage about Gibraltar if you want to explain your life and personal POV.
• I agree that this phrase "Gibraltar's has a favourable corporate tax regime which benefit over 20,000 locally registered companies." needs first a valid source to be included in the article.
• 2000 is not such a looong time ago and anyway this is an encyclopedia. Not including facts just because you are worried about your country's reputation is ridiculous.
• As said here I misunderstood the part of this OECD link talking about unco-operative tax havens and Gibraltar was not considered that so the unco-operative part should be removed from the article. Anyway the link still states literally: Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. (sorry being sooo repetitive)

--Panchurret 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Drug smuggling and Money Laundering

Both these activities are crimes in Gibraltar and have nothing to do with the economy of the territory. Its a frequent line promoted in Spain in an attempt to discredit Gibraltar institutions.

I note my first edit here was in 2003 to remove the allegation that Gibraltar banks were institutionally involved in such things. It seems that three years on the same baseless nonsense is being regurgitated. --Gibnews

NO ONE IS ACCUSING GIBRALTAR OF SUCH THINGS. IT ONLY SAYS THAT SPAIN OFTEN ACCUSES GIBRALTAR OF THIS. I AM PARAPHRASING YOU, GIBNEWS. ONLY WITH AN ADDED SOURCE. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???? YOU DONT LIKE THE SOURCE ???

No need to shout.

Perhaps if you read what you are complaining about it might help. There has been a history of unsubstantiated defamatory statements made on these pages, which form part of the continued harassment of the people of Gibraltar by the Government of Spain because they solidly resist any annexation.

This is played out in high level organisations like the UN with repeated false statements made by various Spanish foreign ministers, and across all international sporting organisations where the Spanish representatives are under instructions to attack Gibraltar. Even in the field of Amateur Radio, which is supposed to be above politics, Spain refuses to accept the competence of the Gibraltar licencing authority for political reasons.

The media harassment consists of planting stories in the domestic Spanish press and the international media making unfounded allegations of criminality, which is why the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has on a number of occasions and in a number of reports refuted these claims.

It also involves blocking EU legislation mentioning Gibraltar, even when this involves Air Safety, or is designed to provide protection to the handicapped.

Spanish EU officials, like Lola Palacio have used their position to make totally false allegations about Gibraltar, which are on the record.

For the purpose of economic sabotage, Spain refuses to accept Gibraltar's international dialling code of 350 and our mobile phone operator has roaming agreements with every operator around the world, so that my mobile works in Europe, Australia, America (its tri band) and probably Iraq but cannot work in Spain because its banned by the Government.

Vehicles at the frontier are subjected to a random delay, depending on the political climate and on direct instructions from Madrid (revealed in a recent trial of some Guardia Civil officers for corruption)

Aircraft that fly to Gibraltar are not allowed to go to Spanish airports, and on occasion cruise ships that come here have been banned from Spanish ports.

But apart from that 'no one is accusing Gibraltar of anything or acting maliciously against the people of Gibraltar'

Personally I would like the Wikipedia pages to contain concise factual information about the territory, however, if you prefer I can spend some time producing long detailed and carefully referenced descriptions of the continued harassment by successive Governments of the Kingdom of Spain, and have several gigabytes of background information to share accumulated over the last 20 years and covering a much longer period.

Interestingly enough prior to Spain being under a fascist dictator, relations with Gibraltar were good and there was no perceived 'problem' With Spain a member of the European Union and NATO and with a progressive socialist Government one might expect decent relations with our neigbour and in that contect one awaits developments with hope.

Now you are better informed - Have a nice day.

--Gibnews 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews I mean no EDITOR (myself or anyone else on wikipedia) is accusing Gibraltar...

--Burgas00 08:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Burgas00, anyone else on wikipedia is too much to asure... :)

Gibnews, personally I don't agree neither trust in right wing goverments like Aznar's ones (remember Irak false excuses or March 11th aftermath), and I feel shame if you can't use your cells here in Spain and that kind of bullish presure on Gibraltar's people. I feel shame but I'm interested in knowing what is and what was the behavior of my succesive goverments... and yours too (at least talking about taxes :). But same as you, I hope Zapatero is more worried in progressing on the relationship with our neighbours than in the pride and glory of our old flag.

Step by step, and with all our distrust, we are improving the NPOV of this article.

--Panchurret 09:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see the British Conservative Party have pulled out of the alliance with the PP in the European Parliament. The formation of a new grouping should remove some of the PP influence there. --Gibnews

You could make a start by removing the references to a 'tax haven' which are only there to denigrate our financial centre, and although it may have been used by the OECD in the past they do not use that bad language today, nor do they have any complaints about the way things are done here. --Gibnews

I dont think the OECD complains about Gibraltar being a tax haven. It is perfectly legitimate to have business friendly corporate tax regimes. --Burgas00 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary one of their aims is to eliminate what they consider 'unfair tax practices'. I believe they use the same weapons as the Spanish inquisition. However let me remind you again that Gibraltar is not a 'tax haven' and nor does the OECD refer to it as such apart from in out-of-date documents --Gibnews

Well Gibnews, it seems we have reached a consensus with you. We are all being civil lately and the section seems fine. I agree that the term tax haven to describe Gibraltar nowadays is perhaps too much (it wasnt so in the 80s). It seems also to have gone out of use lately. Had you accepted my original proposition: to scrap the use of the word Tax Haven and just go for OFC, we could have saved ourselves all of this quarrel and the RfC as well. It was your unwillingness to reach any form of consensus and constant accusations and reverting of sources which led me to start the RfC in the first place.

I hope you will relax a bit from now on and understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is out to destroy the good name of gibraltar.

--Burgas00 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you are trying to claim something for which there is no evidence, plenty of people have contributed to the pages about Gibraltar and its generally clear when they have an agenda above being factual.

Regretably most people living in Spain assume that what they have read and seen on Spanish television is true. It is not.

--Gibnews

Economía

Main article: Economía de Gibraltar

The Spanish version of the economy section seems pretty balanced and is written in a readable fuid style. Perhaps we should use it as a model... We should translate it, see what everyone thinks. There are nevertheless a couple of sources which must be removed, (the Spanish Police website) as they will no doubt considered evil Spanish propaganda by Gibnews.

The fact that the article on Spanish wiki is so unbiased suggests two things:1. This conspiracy against Gibraltar is only in Gibnews' mind. 2. There are Gibraltarians (who, unlike Gibnews, speak Spanish) on spanish wiki, who have protected the NPOV of the article. In any case it is much better than the English version.

--Burgas00 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Here it is:

:es version of economy section

es version of economy section

Debido a la carencia del espacio en la península, no hay agricultura. Hay una pequeña cantidad de industria ligera (tabaco, bebidas, conservas) pero las fuentes de ingresos principales son el transporte marítimo, el turismo (más de siete millones de turistas visitan Gibraltar cada año), y las actividades financieras.

En los últimos años se ha producido una expansión significativa de las instalaciones hoteleras y de las facilidades de baño para estimular el turismo. Las instalaciones portuarias ocupan la mayor parte de la orilla occidental del territorio así como una porción de tierra ganada al mar en la bahía de Algeciras.

La economía gibraltareña estuvo tradicionalmente sustentada en la provisión de servicios al Ministerio de Defensa británico. En 1984, tales actividades constituían el 60% de la economía gibraltareña. Sin embargo, desde entonces, la presencia militar británica se redujo abruptamente (en 1983, se cerraron los astilleros de la Royal Navy), con lo que la economía gibraltareña se vio forzada a diversificarse (en 2002, la contribución del Ministerio de Defensa británico al PIB gibraltareño era apenas un 7%). Fue sobre todo tras la elección de Joe Bossano en 1988, cuando Gibraltar, amparada en su condición de territorio de la Comunidad Europea, al tanto que exenta del IVA y al margen de la unión aduanera, desarrolló una legislación fiscal que la convirtió en un activo centro financiero offshore, considerado un paraíso fiscal debido a sus ventajosas condiciones fiscales. Se definieron así dos tipos de compañías, las exentas (exempt companies) [7] y las cualificadas (qualifying companies) [8], que, residentes en Gibraltar, no tienen actividad económica ni comercial en la colonia. Estas compañías pagan un impuesto anual no superior a 300 libras estelinas y pagan un impuesto sobre beneficios testimonial (2% en el caso de las compañías cualificadas; nada si se trata de exentas). Adicionalmente, no existe ningún tipo de control de cambios para las personas físicas o jurídicas residentes en Gibraltar. De esta forma, en septiembre de 2004 existían 28.000 empresas registradas en Gibraltar [9].

El régimen fiscal gibraltareño llevó a la OCDE a incluir al territorio en la lista de paraísos fiscales en junio de 2000. El gobierno gibraltareño se comprometió en 2002 a mejorar la transparencia de sus sistemas regulatorio y fiscal y establecer un intercambio efectivo de información en materia fiscal con otros miembros de la OCDE, de forma que no fue incluida en la lista de paraísos fiscales no cooperadores [10]. Las autoridades gibraltareñas sostienen que a pesar del ventajoso régimen fiscal del que disfrutan las sociedades exentas, el rigor de los controles aplicados impide la utilización de la plaza como centro de blanqueo de dinero, lo cual ha sido respaldado por informes de organismos como el FMI [11].

En la actualidad, se encuentra en marcha un proceso que terminará con la total eliminacion de este sistema financiero en 2010. En efecto, el 18 de febrero de 2005, el gobierno británico aceptó la recomendación de la Comisaria de la Competencia de abolir para finales del 2010 el régimen fiscal exento gibraltareño.

Thats your opionion; your need to shove the SPANISH view of Gibraltar down the throats of GIBRALTARIANS is amazingly arrogant.

Please do not post foreign language material here.

Gibraltarians and Spaniards on es:wikipedia seem to have done a pretty good job of the article particularly with regards to the economy section. That is why I have copied this section here so that editors, can have a look at it. Could someone give me a hand translating it? --Burgas00 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish restrictions on Gibraltar

As regards your suggestion that 'the conspiracy against Gibraltar is only in my mind' Please explain why the Spanish Government:

• Randomly bans cruise ships that have called at Gibraltar from entering Spanish ports

• Forbids domestic telecom operators from entering into roaming agreements with Gibtelecom, which means that my mobile phone which works everywhere else in Europe, America, Australia and probably in Iraq does not work over the border

• refuses to implement the ITU allocated IDD code of 350 for Gibraltar which as a result restricts our telephone numbering system

• blocks any measures in the EU which mention Gibraltar

• Instructs sporting associations to block Gibraltar's membership of international bodies, such as FIFA or when Gibraltar competes withdraws the Spanish team (recent bowling tournament)

• Bans the Gibraltar team from using a Gibraltar flag in Spain.

• Transmits pornographic videos on UHF Channel 53 to interfere with GBC television which is allocated this channel by International agreement.

That will do for a start.

If anyone wants to read the Spanish pages on Wikipedia they can, there is no need to reproduce it here.

--Gibnews 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews the es: version has probably been written by Gibraltarians who, unlike you, happen to speak Spanish as their native language.

As usual you are wrong, Gibraltarians learn Spanish as a foreign language at school - some are pretty good at it, others learn Mandarin and are equally as good. I find difficulty with foreign languages but did manage to rewrite some of the page about Gibraltar on the .es wiki to remove the suggestion that the economy of Gibraltar depended on criminal activities as it does not.

You could more profitably spend your time finding out why the Government of the Kingdom of Spain wastes so much of its time in trying to destroy the economy of Gibraltar with the measures listed which you chose consistently to ignore.

In the long term the only hope that there will be improved relations between Spain and Gibraltar is that the aggressor ceases abusive behaviour. That is good advice for both the Spanish Government and individuals. It does not get anywhere and only promotes problems.

--Gibnews

Gibraltar and money laundering?

Sorry Gibnews, I just feel that this article has to be brought into the discussion:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12236

--Burgas00 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting material from talk pages

To all parties involved - please do NOT delete other people's material from talk pages. Wikipedia:Talk page includes under "Behavior unacceptable on Wikipedia" the act of "editing others' comments without their permission." Please note that "Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia." Don't do it. -- ChrisO 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one party involved as usual. Thanks:-) --Burgas00 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, user:Burgas00 deleted my response, which is why I reverted it.

However posting long texts in a foreign language taken from Wikipedia is abusive behaviour and a link would be quite enough, were anyone was interested, but frankly what Spaniards think about the economy of Gibraltar belongs in fairy tales --Gibnews

You also deleted Burgas00's posting of the Spanish-language content and you violated the three-revert rule by deleting it four times after being warned not to. As for your comment about "what Spaniards think", that's frankly racist and violates our no personal attacks policy. (If you doubt that, replacing "Spaniards" with "Jews" or "Poles") Please confine yourself to commenting on the merits of what other users say, rather than making ethnic generalisations. -- ChrisO 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar, money laundering and the Russian mafia

Sorry Gibnews, I just feel that these articles have to be brought into the discussion:

• http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12236
• http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/031117/yukos.html
• http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8338
• http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.baltics/msg04356.html
• http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:xPyhFsPJcgwJ:www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/TJF_2-2_on-screen_edition_2006.pdf+Yukos,+which+belongs+to+the+Gibraltar-.+based+Group+Menatep&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
• http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tdDicZGlPWMJ:www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/acad/12722.dld+Menatep%2BGibraltar%2Blaundering&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19
• http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2004/8/9/64354.html

• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/ethics/story/0,,846687,00.html
• http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greenpeace-boards-single-hull

It seems that it is the rest of the world which is accusing Gibraltar, rather than Spain. I havent really found many Spanish sources talking about these issues.

--Burgas00 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people chose to belive in alien abduction, others that Mary was a virgin, and yet others that Elvis lives, I believe I'll have a cup of tea and ignore your attempts at provocation. --Gibnews

...and some people believe in P.O. Box 246, Suite E, Regal House, Queensway. I wish that was my address!

Are you being cornered by reality, Gibnews? --Burgas00 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reality is an illusion caused by alcohol defficiency.

On the other hand the address you quote was the offices of Denton Wilde & Sapte a firm of International Lawyers, nice people, they did a conveyancing for me. They closed the office last year. Should you wish to make any allegations about them, no doubt like Sue, Grabbit and Runne they will be in contact.

I imagine their office has already been let.

Read all about them at:

http://www.dentonwildesapte.com

"The World stands aside to let anyone pass who knows where he is going"

Please close the door on the way out.

--Gibnews

Money laundering and organized crime: General

According to theUnited Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention: "Russian criminal organisations seem to have a highly diverse approach to their profits, with reports that "dirty money" of one kind of another is going to Israel via Antwerp, through Gibraltar and into Spain, into the London real estate market.

Regarding Yukos and Menatep

• Time Magazine, 2003, published an article on the multi million dollar fraud at the time when Mikhail Khodorkovsky had been arrested for these crimes and the core of his fortune had been seized.

The article elaborates on how Khodorkovsky and his business associates created an elaborate series of offshore holding companies designed to launder money and keep Yukos stock holdings safe.

According to Time Magazine as well as other sources, "The trail starts in Gibraltar, where P.O. Box 246, Suite E, Regal House, Queensway, is the official address of Group Menatep Ltd. Group Menatep owns 100% of Yukos Universal Ltd., an Isle of Man company, which in turn holds 100% of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., based in Cyprus. Hulley is the official holder of 1.29 billion shares of Yukos, or 57.5% of its total. Yukos Universal holds another 3.5%. The value of the combined stake thus sheltered: $15.8 billion."

• In 2005 an article appeared on Corpwatch regarding the trial of Khodorkovsky for fraud and tax evasion, made possible through the use of offshore shell companies.

According to the article Khodorkovsky used artificial fronts set up in tax havens that offer corporate and bank secrecy, no or low taxes, and protection from international law enforcement or minority shareholders seeking to trace the money. It mentions that "Khodorkovsky’s favorites included Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Panama, and Gibraltar, a British crown colony.

• Article in the The Dorset Echo regarding the death and possible murder of millionaire Stephen Curtis in 2004 who had been accused of masterminding a number of offshore companies for tax fraud and money laundering. He is named in a lawsuit brought by US investors who claim they lost up to £541 million in the collapse of Russian oil company Yukos. The company's chief executive, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is currently in prison in Russia awaiting trial for tax evasion and fraud.

According to the article, Mr Curtis was the managing director of Gibraltar-based Menatep, the £16 billion holding company of Yukos.

He is named in a lawsuit brought by US investors according to which "Stephen Curtis served as the `corporate master-mind' for organising the myriad of offshore structures...which were used as part of the scheme of tax fraud and money laundering."

Regarding the Prestige disaster in NW Spain

A recent article published on The Observer explains how the Prestige was owned by an oil trading company called Crown Resources. Crown was formed in Gibraltar in 1996. "According to the company's own website, the Gibraltar office still provides logistical support to the company, and it is believed to have controlled the movements of the Prestige which appears to have been ultimately headed for Singapore.

It also mentions that:

At least five of Crown's Directors are British and one (Mr Joe Moss) is a former Gibraltar Government Minister.

The article argues that, although these companies can be ultimately traced to large (in this case Russian) global conglomerates, it is hard to bring a case against them for civil responsibility because of the numerous shell companies (based in Tax havens) used.

Greenpeace statement 2003:

Gibraltar's complicity with the oil industry is unacceptable. Gibraltar is playing Russian roulette with the marine environment allowing high risk practices as those being carried out by the Vemamagna and by avoiding a ban on single-hulled vessels.

We want full and unlimited liability throughout the chain of responsibilities, including the owners, managers and operators of a vessel and of any charterers or owners of the cargo. Additionally, Greenpeace is demanding that the EU immediately ban the use of single hulled tankers and exclude ecologically sensitive areas from shipping routes.

The Vemamagna is a 22 year old single hull vessel belonging to the Vemaoil Company based in Gibraltar but is registered in Malta.

--Burgas00 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is flawed and out-of-date-nonsense I really don't see the point of including this here, and you are infringing the copyright on the stories in question.

However, the major pollution incident of the bay of Gibraltar at the time of the Greenpeace protest was the sinking of the Spanish single hulled tanker the Spabunker IV, based in Algeciras.

--Gibnews 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, short quotations for the purpose of discussion aren't generally regarded as copyvios - see Fair use. Burgas, it might be worth mentioning the money laundering allegations in the Economy of Gibraltar article in connection with the claims of Gibraltar being a tax haven, but I wouldn't go into them in much detail other than to note that the claims have been made. As for the Prestige, that seems very tangential to an overview article Gibraltar; the newspaper articles you've cited could be worth mentioning in an article about the disaster, but I don't think they would be significant enough to be worth citing in this article. -- ChrisO 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I dont want the Prestige stuff mentioned in this article. I was just making a point, since Gibnews has frequently used the Prestige disaster as an example of the slander and lies of the Spanish government.--Burgas00 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I will do so again, as its a good example of a Spanish 'European' politician telling lies about Gibraltar on the record. There is no need to post large slabs of copyright text here where links will do, less is more, and you are not intimidating anyone by volume.

Although American law allows for the concept of 'fair use', the material is taken from British newspapers who are more protective.

--Gibnews

Loyola del Palacio is perhaps the stupidest and most incompetent politician Spain has ever had. Its pretty sad she was given that job on the European Commission. I havent read what she said regarding Gibraltar's links to the Prestige disaster but I wouldnt be surpised if she had got her facts wrong... Actually,I wouldnt even be surprised if she had lied. You may recall it was her who forced a UN resolution explicitely condemning ETA before it was clear who had commited the 11 of March Madrid attacks. Albeit, there are reasons to question Gibraltar's opacity and irresponsibility regarding the disaster. --Burgas00 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are NO reasons to question Gibraltar's involvement in the MT Prestige disaster because there was no involvement. By now you should have noticed I critisise the Government of Spain in relation to harassment of Gibraltarians because they are indeed responsible. The ranting about 'money laundering and institutional crime' in Gibraltar, none of which is substantiated, is paid for by your taxes.

In the case of the tanker, it was not registered in Gibraltar it was not owned by a Gibraltar company, nor was its destination Gibraltar. I believe that a Russian company registered here had an interest in its cargo. Its a free country, and a legitimate company operating here is not 'Gibraltar' if you feel that all Russians are crooks you being xenophobic.

However, if you want to talk about irresponsibility then the PP Government of Spain had a lot to answer for. If the ship had been allowed into a port and repaired, any leakage could have been contained, but instead nobody took responsibility and it was sent out to sea to break up, resulting in an ecological disaster. But that has nothing at all to do with Gibraltar.

--Gibnews

Well I agree with your last paragrapgh... The PPs handling of the disaster was.... disastrous.

--Burgas00 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At least we can agree on something then; and their attempt to blame 'el banda terrorista ETA' for the Madrid bombings was an equally shameful affair. ETA have no support here, and were believed to have supplied the Semtex to the IRA for the planned bombing here. We were fortunate.

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?GOGX050310_1.xml

--Gibnews

I don't even want to go into that... According to many wikipedians on en: (they seem to have the upper hand on related articles) the PP never lied and the attacks were organised by a secret alliance between ETA, the PSOE, the Spanish police and judiciary, the French and Spanish secret services and Al Qaida. Thats wikipedia for you... If any one is the victim of a slander campaign, its the Spanish government and institutions. The sad thing is that this campaign is being orchestrated by Spaniards themselves.

--Burgas00 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want any support in that, without prejudice I agree. Its undeniable that the PP lied, however they would have lost anyway as a large section of the population wanted a change. Good conspiracies are damn hard to organise in practice, and so generally its the simple explanations that are the ones I believe.

Bush and Blair are live on TV currently, the smell of BS is overpowering.

--Gibnews

I guess we agree on more things than we think, despite our long open war on this article. Lets give it a break. As you can see, I havent attempted to edit the article for a long time now. I just wanted to point out to you that things are not black or white. People in Spain may have used Gibraltar's tarnished reputation for political purposes. But it was Gibraltar's government, under Joe Bossano, which gave them the instruments to do so. I agree with you that your territory has gone a very long way in the right direction since the late 90s. --Burgas00 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Although we have found some points of agreement, its unfair to Joe Bossano to say that. He certainly made a number of mistakes but he inherited an economy reliant on a dockyard which had closed, with a top heavy public sector and when he left, the foundations of todays succesful economy based on tourism and financial services had been laid. The #1 social problem, housing was solved and the telephone system modernised. Previously with the old exchange there was the joke that you had to put in a written request for a dial tone.

However, rather like Churchill, he won the war but lost the election. I've got most of the political events of that period on VHS tape, must convert to DVD before they fall to bits or go mouldy.

It looks like there has been some agreement in the talks :

The three participants confirm that the necessary preparatory work related to agreements on the airport, pensions, telephones and fence/border issues, carried out during the last 18 months, has been agreed. Accordingly, they have decided to convene in Spain the first Ministerial meeting of the Tripartite Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar on 18 September 2006.

--Gibnews