Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 5

Education

I am just wondering what the relevance is of breaking down educational achievment by religion and race?

Would a bridge connecting Gibraltar to Morroco be used?

A few years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a show called Engineering the Impossible. One of the items mentioned was a bridge connecting Gibraltar to Morroco. What the show never answered was "Would anyone use it?"

Now I ask you, would such a bridge, mentioned in at least one science fiction book, be something worthwhile? Or would it be the destination rather than a route? Will (Talk - contribs) 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly it would be madness to have a crossing terminated in Gibraltar itself, because there is not the scope for the infrasructure needed to go with one, our roads are not wide enough, there is no rail connection or room for one, and everthing would have to transit the frontier with Spain. Secondly, the current proposal is for a tunnel to cross the strait of Gibraltar terminating in Spain. Thats more sensible than a bridge, but given the economic problems of the Channel Tunnel which was easier to construct and made more sense, I rather doubt it will be built.

Delivering cargo to a port in Spain for Europe when it can go more cheaply by sea does not make sense, and a large amound of money is spent keeping people out rather than facilitating their entr

There are wikipedia articles on both and some discussion on merging them. I'm told I have the wrong POV on the tunnel being built - we shall see - or not as the case may be :)

• Gibraltar Bridge
• Gibraltar Tunnel

But the quick answer to your question is ... NO

--Gibnews 09:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a tunnel or bridge would naturally be used considering the millions of French, Spanish and Belgian Moroccans who take the ferry at Algeciras each summer to visit their country of origin. The number of immigrant travellers would probably increase with a fixed land link and many of the millions of tourists which go to Spain and even southern Portugal each year from Northern Europe would no doubt take the opportunity to drive down to Morocco as well. Spain and Morocco could develop a joint strategy in the tourism sector in the Costa del Sol, Costa de la Luz, Tangier and Tetouan regions and it would also make life easier for Ceutan and Melillan Spaniards who are cut off from mainland Spain, having to take the ferry (albeit, at much lower prices than other travellers). It would have long term benefits for both Morocco and Spain, in terms of commerce and Tourism. Gibraltar would also benefit no doubt, being situated near a main transcontinental axis. It would be a pity, nevertheless, if the bridge was constructed at Punta Paloma, one of the most beautiful coastlines in Spain. There are, nevertheless, other alternatives, Gibraltar never having even bee considered as a possible terminal.

I doubt very much that this enterprise would be profitable and a decision to embark on such an adventure would have to be calculated in terms of its long term positive externalities.

The main problem is technical. Although Morocco and Spain are much closer than France and England the Straights are much deeper than the English Channel. --Burgas00 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think for once we are singing from the same hymn sheet, UK-France was mostly into soft clay and the strait is much deeper. The holiday traffic is very seasonal and it would not cope with the inrush. They started work on the channel tunnel at the time of Napoleon and it took a long time to realise, as will profit for its shareholders. --Gibnews 14:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Stock Exchange

There were rumors a few years ago about a possible stock exchange in Gibraltar, and there is a page in Wikipedia about it (GibEX). Did it materialize in the end? W2ch00 15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres been speculation about it for a number of years, however the building has gone up next to the Natwest Bank and its going to open soon. --Gibnews 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan ?

Apart from some members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment serving, and geting medals for bravery in Afghanistan I'm puzzled what its got to do with us ...

--Gibnews 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO

Please do not threaten me.

Can I remind you of your comment:

I would agree that the WikiProject Spain template is inappropriate for the main Gibraltar article, because Gibraltar isn't part of Spain, but Gibraltar's history plainly does come under the WikiProject's scope. Please put nationalism to one side - you can hardly argue that Gibraltarian history has nothing to do with Spain. -- ChrisO 13:43 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What are we going to have next, Spanish flags on articles about South America, and Florida because at one time Spain occupied those lands?

The Gibraltar pages are about GIBRALTAR not Spain. But if we have to debate this lets do so, in the meantime, no provocation, and please no threats.

--Gibnews 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to continue this debate? I believe we should remove the Spanish flag but consider it essential that we gain consensus first, ie edit warring is not acceptable. This page is now unportected, please can we discuss the issue and leave the Spanish flag here in the meantime, SqueakBox 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:33 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain

Following my personal 1RR, instead of reverting Astrotrain's reversion of my readding of the WikiProject Spain box I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. It seems absolutely clear to be that the Gibraltar article is obviously related to the history of Spain and therefore falls fully within the scope of WikiProject Spain. Adding the WikiProject tag here does not imply anything political about the relationship between Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, which appears to be the objection of both Astrotrain and Gibnews; rather, it says merely that this is an article that relates to the activities of that WikiProject. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, this sounds logical to me.

If there was a WikiProject:History of Mexico or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico I would not object to them tagging the Talk pages of California and Texas. I would, however, object to them tagging all articles that are related to those two topics. (The Port of Houston and San Diego Padres are not sufficiently linked to Mexico to bear a tag from a WikiProject related to Mexico).

I would like to hear the counter-argument to this. Johntex\^talk 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a while, and I agree with Johntex. Gibraltar's history is intimately tied in with Spain, for better or for worse, and there's no escaping that. Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar are clearly within the scope of the Spain Wikiproject. I honestly don't really care about Wikiproject banners too much, but its removal here seems unjustified. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The history of Gibraltar and the dispute over sovereignty do involve Spain, however unless you are going to include Florida and most of South America in the Spain project Gibraltar itself should not because Spain has not involved in Gibraltar since 1704.

Adding the Spanish flag to anything to do with Gibraltar is analogous to posting images of the Swastika on the Israel page. The version by Asterion is a good compromise.

Can we leave it at that and move on.

--Gibnews 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To say that 'Spain has not involved in Gibraltar since 1704' is something of a misrepresentation, I would suggest, since Spain's claims of sovereignty clearly have a continued involvement in the politics of Gibraltar right up to the present day, and the proximity of Spain has an obvious influence on Gibraltar's culture. Also, your reference to Nazism is needlessly emotive and quite unnecessary. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its an accurate comparison, and Godwins law does not include symbols of oppression. The last time anyone displayed a Spanish flag this is what happened. --Gibnews

IMO Gibnews is right, this is no more under the Spain project than either Portugal or France, SqueakBox 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this last statement. Gibraltar can be both in the Spain and the UK project its not a big deal. Just as Ceuta can be in the Spain and in the Morocco project because of the political claim as well as the cultural, demographic, geographic and historical connections. I would also like to point out that Monaco and Andorra are in the France project so I believe that settles it... --Burgas00 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not settled at all. What has Gibraltar got to do with Spain? SqueakBox 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the Vatican have to do with Italy? What does the West Bank have to do with Israel? What does Taiwan have to do with China? They are closely related topics thats all... Its as easy as that, France is not surrepticiously attempting to take over Andorra by means of Wikipedia and neither is Spain with Gibraltar... This is all quite childish, in my opinion. It is quite evident that it should be part of Wikiproject Spain. --Burgas00 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought with the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim that Gibraltar is a part of Spain is itself a good reason not to. We need a compromise and to add Gibraltar to the Spanish project isnt right now that compromise, SqueakBox 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Im sure the Palestinians are quite hostile towards living under Israeli occupation but not even they would vent their anger by wanting the West Bank not to form part of Wikiproject: Israel, or Wikiproject Israel and Occupied territories. The aim of the Projects is to coordinate and cooperate in closely related articles, regardless of Gibnews' political stance. I assume you also consider that the UK military bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be excluded from a potential "wikiproject cyprus". Im serious, this is ridiculous. The whole project enterprise is about cooperation not about politics. --Burgas00 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And to Gibnews: I understand that your knee jerk reaction was to oppose this, but have a look at what wiki projects involve (I just have) and you will see that it is only logical to include Gibraltar... This would help improve Gibraltar related articles in the long term and Wikipedia in general.--Burgas00 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is a part of Wikiproject China, despite de facto sovereignty for many years and unlikely reunification in the near future. Why? Because they are not only historically intertwined, they are politically intertwined today. Taiwan is an important issue for both Taiwan themselves and China. Western Sahara would be part of Wikiproject Morocco if it existed, Ceuta and Mellila would fall under Spain and Morocco, and so on. Certainly this doesn't fall under the Portugal or France Wikiprojects, Squeakbox. But it certainly does fall under Wikiproject Spain. Your note that the banner removal is due to "the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim" clearly shows that you're forgetting the fact that this is a project coordination issue — NOT the heated political issue you're making this out to be. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think the scope of a Wikiproject should be subject to the veto of a single user. The fact is that as a disputed territory on the Iberian mainland, Gibraltar's political, historical, economic and geographical background does very clearly overlap with that of Spain (and I say that as a Brit who strongly supports Gibraltarians' right to self-determination). If Wikiproject Spain leads to more Spanish editors working on Gibraltar-related articles, that can only be a good thing. Gibnews has done a sterling (pun intended!) job of improving these articles but to ensure that NPOV is met, we need to encourage a wider range of editors to contribute. More fundamentally, as a collaborative project we absolutely shouldn't be sending a message to Spanish editors that they're not wanted on Gibraltar-related articles. If they want to help, that can only be a good thing.

Perhaps it might be possible to compromise by making this page the subject of two Wikiprojects - Spain and a new Gibraltar project, or maybe a wider British Overseas Territory project? -- ChrisO 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltar has already been covered in the 'History of Gibraltar' the only thing we are likely to get from Spanish editors is more edit wars.

Although I make a lot of noise, recently there have been a number of contributions from other Gibraltarian editors, they are starting to participate because they don't have to slog it out endlesly with people with an anti-Gibraltar agenda, as did the banned user Gibraltarian. The time and energy of spanish editors can be better spent on other things where they do have first hand knowledge and not about Gibraltar regurgitating propaganda translated into English, or as we have had before, in Spanish.

Gibraltar is not Spain any more than Florida is. --Gibnews 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very, very inappropriate for you to try to exclude editors of a particular nationality. It's totally against Wikipedia's open-access ethos. I highly suggest that you go and read WP:OWN, since you appear to have some misconceptions on that issue. -- ChrisO 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to exclude anyone, just pointing out there are lots of other things that would be more productive and less likely to be offensive. --Gibnews 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Offensive to you, you mean? Like I said, neither you nor anyone else has a veto on this. -- ChrisO 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, 'WikiProject Spain' doesn't mean 'Spanish editors', it means 'editors who are interested in Spain'. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this again, Gibraltar is not Spain. --Gibnews 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but the scope of WikiProject Spain is "to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain" (bolding added). The Iberian Peninsula isn't purely Spain either (where's Gibraltar located, again?) but it's part of the WikiProject nonetheless. -- ChrisO 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So? It's entirely reasonable for editors who are interested in Spain to be interested in Gibraltar. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar and Talk:History of Gibraltar? Gibnews is substituting the Wikiproject Spain templates to remove the Spanish flags due to the "sensitivities of others". Though I won't comment on the flag issue here again, I'm not sure substitution of widespread templates subject to change is such a good idea. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless and paranoid behaviour. Please Gibnews I ask you once more not to make a political issue out of this. In any case there is no other way forwards although I agree that Gibraltar can be subject to multiple wikiprojects including a UK one, of course.--Burgas00 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok removing the flag is just plain silly but I'm fine with it as long as it solves the problem.--Burgas00 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if the flag is there or not, it's just the fact that, to my knowledge, the template probably shouldn't be substituted. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the Spanish flag would resolve the problem, SqueakBox 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing the flag, but I don't think it's necessary. I don't consider Hispanophobia to be a valid reason for removing the flag. -- ChrisO 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that. But its not really worth the effort of having an argument over...--Burgas00 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good then don't, but Gibraltar is not Spain and the project is not about the Iberian peninsular its about SPAIN. Suggest you add it to Portugal and see what they think of it. Similarly Spain is not Gibraltar. --Gibnews 11:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, 'this article is part of WikiProject Spain' does not imply that 'Gibraltar is Spain'. You're arguing against a position that no other editor has actually taken up and which you have invented yourself. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it there ? Looks very much like a Spanish flag to me. Go and put on on the Portugal page and see what they say. --Gibnews 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's there for the same reason that WikiProject tags are attached to any talk page: because the article is one that stands to benefit from the contributions of members of that WikiProject. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But Gibraltar is not Spain. Is it going to go on the page discussing every European Territory to 'improve' those ? I guess not. Add it to Portugal and see what they have to say. --Gibnews 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but no one is claiming that Gibraltar is Spain. The WikiProject Spain banner does not imply that Gibraltar is part of Spain. It implies only that this is an article which stands to be improved by editors who are interested in 'expanding and organising information better in articles related to Spain', which is the purpose of that WikiProject.

Your Portugal suggestion is another straw man: it should be clear to even the most partisan participant here that Gibraltar, which was once part of Spain and whose politics both internationally and domestically continues to be heavily influenced by Spain, falls much more clearly within the scope of WikiProject Spain than Portugal, since from their inception as nations Portugal has never been part of Spain (though for a period at the turn of the sixteenth century they were governed by the same monarch). --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Gibnews's comments show that his objection is based on the flag of Spain being unacceptable in terms of Gibraltarian nationalist politics. But as Jimbo Wales has made clear, Wikipedia is not censored to conform with local standards of political correctness. We have a detailed article on the Tiananment Square massacre which definitely doesn't conform with the Chinese Communist Party's line. We show the cartoons that were the subject of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, despite millions of Muslims finding them offensive. We show the old Flag of the Republic of Macedonia in the Vergina Sun article, despite Greek objections. Bottom line, Gibnews has every right to state his opinion, but we can't and won't (and don't) censor Wikipedia for purely political reasons. -- ChrisO 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are in the main space whereas this flag isnt, which I think makes a difference, SqueakBox 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The same principle applies anywhere in Wikipedia. More so on talk pages, I would have thought, as they're meant to be used for free and unfettered discussion of sometimes controversial issues. Users may post content which other users don't like. That doesn't mean that anyone gets a veto on what is posted (other than content which violates our legal policy, of course!). -- ChrisO 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just come across this debate. On the subject of Portugal, check out the Talk:Portuguese Empire page, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia and as a result as an Indonesian flag emblazoned on it, apparently without controversy. I agree with everything ChrisO says. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gibraltar created

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, complete with template, userbox etc. Everyone with an interest is invited to sign up and start tagging the Gib-related articles. I've already tagged Talk:Spain, by the way... -- ChrisO 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This Not the answer, and it does not address the inclusion of an offensive image on Gibraltar related pages. I was quite happy with the solution from Asterion which included a tag on pages of joint interest only but omitted the flag. Can we go back to this and please get back to creating pages instead more useless garbage templates.

I see no reason to include Spain its really very silly and inapropriate, you might as well include the rest of Europe.

It would be nice if you undid all this ! --Gibnews 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you're not keen in participating in a WikiProject. I'm sure the rest of us can take good care of it, though you'd be welcome to join any time. As for including Spain, it's just a recognition of the fact that the scopes of WikiProjects Spain and Gibraltar overlap. Nobody seems to have objected to including the Gib template on Talk:Spain... -- ChrisO 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they will, but I really don't thing filling up Wikipedia with flags and templates is a substitute for information. Although wikipedia spain is a valid project, the basis for this is dubious, and I'm in favour of all things Gibraltarian, but not nonsense for the sake of it.

And my objection to the Spanish flag remains --Gibnews 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate that you're being so negative about it. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding about what a WikiProject is for - see Wikipedia:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. The attached talk pages are a convenient forum for those interested in a particular project." It's a well-established tool on Wikipedia for improving the coordination of article development on a particular topic.

I've removed your PROD from Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, as you haven't offered any reason other than what amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is never a valid reason for deletion. There is really no good reason not to have a WikiProject on this subject - there are certainly enough articles (well over 100) on Gibraltar to make the thing worthwhile. Hopefully it will also have the effect of encouraging more editors to become involved in Gib-related articles. It's being advertised for the next week on the community bulletin board to raise its profile. -- ChrisO 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the obvious compromise is to keep the Gib project page and remove the Spanish flag from this talk page, SqueakBox 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Gibnews that the Olivenza article (a Spanish town claimed by Portugal) is part of wikiproject spain and wikipedia portugal and, yes, the Portuguese flag is present on its talk page. As far as I can see no Spanish wikipedians are going ballistic over this affront to their sovereignty... so please reconsider. --Burgas00 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to reconsider. Olivenza is a totally seperate issue, my understanding is that Spain annexed it, and defaulted on an agreement to return the territory to Portugal - however as the people living there are not concerned either way, its a non-issue.

Gibraltar is not Spain. When Spain allows the Gibraltar tourist office to put up a Gibraltar flag on its premises AND Gibraltarian athletes are allowed to flay the Gibraltar flag in Spain, lets discuss it again.

Sticking a small Gibraltar flag and a template on pages is not the answer. A plain template on the pages previously mentioned is a good compromise, and the template was created by Asterion not me.

But never mind Olivenza, put a Spanish flag on the Portugal talk page and see what they say. Then try Florida. --Gibnews 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the objection to the flag is overblown. The Spanish flag flies at the United Nations and no one thinks Spain owns New York City. It flies at the Alamo and no one thinks Spain still owns Texas. I have added the WikiProject Spain template to the US states of Florida, Texas and California due to to the historical connection and cultural influence of Spain on these parts of the US. We need to stop worrying about a little image here and get back to actually improving articles. Johntex\^talk 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are free to think whatever you like, but the fact remains that there are no Spanish flags to be found in Gibraltar. Although thousands of Spanish nationals visit Gibraltar regularly without any problems, they have the courtesy not to come waving flags in our faces. When the Government of Spain stops its persecution of Gibraltar and renounces its outdated territorial claim their flags will be seen here along with other European states flags, but today you won't find one. Thats the way it is. --Gibnews 08:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can source this about no Spanish flags in Gibraltar we should include it in the article, SqueakBox 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this about Olivenza being completely different? Olivenza is a town on the Spanish/Portuguese border owned by Spain since the Spanish war of independece and claimed by Portugal. Its people are very concerned about which country they belong to, as would anyone. Gibraltar is a town in Southern Spain conquered by the United Kingdom in the 18th century, and under British sovereignty, and its people are also concerned over which country they belong to. What is the difference? I dare say the only difference, for Wikipedia at least, is User Gibnews. I'm sure that if the inhabitants of Olvenza spoke English and contributed to wikipedia, they would not object to the presence of the Spanish or of the Portuguese flag on the talk page of the article for the town, since (as is the case of Gibraltar), their culture, history, heritage and day to day life, is intrinsically tied to both countries.

Well I deont think we can speak for the people of Olivenza though I note that while the en and pt versions mention the dispute in the opening the es version only mentions it way down. If Gibnews is the difference between Gibraltar and Olivenza then we are lucky to have him, SqueakBox 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really quite get you squeakbox. I believe you have lost track of what we are arguing about. We are talking about whether the article on Gibraltar can be linked to the Spain project. It is a silly argument because from any rational and logical position the answer can only be yes. I have no time for Gibnews' personal phobias which he wrongly attributes to the whole of his town and his discriminatory claim that "Spaniards" are inherently biased and must be discouraged if not barred from editing this and other articles. There is no rational argumentation here and we are just wasting our time and obstructing the normal self-improvement of wikipedia.--Burgas00 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil as your comment could easil;y be interpreted as a personal attack against Gibnews and that kind of thing wont resolve the problem whereas removing the Spanish flag from this page would do so, SqueakBox 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about Gibnews, he is pretty thick skinned.  :-) --Burgas00 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I hear that I am concerned that incivility will discourage new editors from wanting to contribute, SqueakBox 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a some points made by Burgas00 which need clarification;

I may be thick skinned but I'm not thick.

Although its a subtle point to attempt to label Gibraltar as a town its actually a territory' and as we have two cathedrals it contains a city not a town.

Any resentment I have is directed against the GOVERNMENT of Spain which continues to attempt to restrict the human rights of Gibraltarians in persuit of its outdated and unwelcome territorial claim rejected by 99% of Gibraltarians. There is no personal animosity directed to Spaniards who simply need to be educated to know the difference between their Governments lies and reality.

Regretably the contributions of Spanish editors has largely consisted of whitewashing Spains's unacceptable behaviour whilst defaming Gibraltarians and our society, plus occasionally replacing the Gibraltar flag with theirs. There is still no reason given why Gibraltar which is NOT part of Spain should be in project Spain Will Spain next claim everything in the EU ?

--Gibnews 09:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I leave it to other users to deal with Gibnews.--Burgas00 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Gibnews is apparently unwilling to listen to anyone on this issue - the scope of WikiProject Spain has been explained often enough - and since consensus is against him, I've taken the somewhat unusual step of locking the templates in place and transcluding the talk page from here. This will prevent any further disruption of this talk page while hopefully not affecting people's ability to contribute to it. -- ChrisO 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have changed your view from when you originally said that Gibraltar was not within the scope of a this project, and now wish to enforce this based on support from a handful of Spanish editors and people who do not have a clue about the subject.

Congratulations, you have succeded today. Tomorrow is another day. --Gibnews 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews perhaps you should learn a bit from this fellow Gibraltarian who has Spanish flags posted all over his user page

-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gibmetal77

--Burgas00 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

¿Why does evil Spain claim Gibraltar?

After reading the article, some doubts got my mind by assault...The main is "why those evil spaniards want Gibraltar back?" The gibraltarians love the Union Jack, they form a human chain around the rock dressed in shorts, they vote NO in the referendum for the shared sovereignty by a 103% ehh excuse me, by a 99%, and furthermore Spain protects pederastians, and systematically cut off the relevant investigations of the Gibraltarian police about criminals going into Spanish borders, spanish fishermen having illegal campaigns in such a rich waters of Gibraltar, and they also restrict the human rights...Why I have not a clue about why the Spaniards are so shameless to claim Gibraltar?

Maybe, because in article dont appear words such as "drug traffic", "tax free", "western mafia", "washing money" or "fiscal paradise".

Well, maybe the most of the gibraltarian populacion have nothing to do with such bussiness (despite Gibraltar has more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants), but what is clear is that it should be great take the car and get loss into Spain ussing Spanish hospitals, highways, parks, beaches, international airports, and all kind of public services without-paying-a-cent-in-taxes Hey, each month 300 Euro of my salary go to the damn Government! I also wanna be British!

I am not telling that as an absolute truth, it is just my point of view, but the fail to show in the article something about the Spanish view of the problem makes the article partial, unclear and, in one word: BAD. Is somebody going to correct it?

Kiko 11/3/07

The article does need a bit of work - we're going to have to be careful to ensure that we've got the balance right between the Gibraltarian, Spanish and British points of view. -- ChrisO 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to consider the 'Spanish point of view' if its nonsense and lies ?

1. There is no mention of 'Drug traffic' because the flow of drugs is from Spain (where drugs are legal) to Gibraltar where they are not.

2. Gibraltar is not tax free, income tax is quite high, higher than in Spain for instance.

3. Money laundering? what money laundering ...

Let me quote from the House of Commons report 1999

(7) 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. (Paragraph 57)

4. I believe the Mafia are a sicilian organisation and do not have a representative branch listed in the Gibraltar telephone directory.

5. Quite what a 'fiscal paradise' might be is a mystery - it seems to be a phrase used by very ignorant people about things they do not understand.

6. Gibraltarians do indeed use Spanish hospitals, and British hospitals on a commercial basis reports indicate that the Spanish ones are often better equipped than the UK ones and can be accessed without flying. They encourage paying patients which helps to subsidise the service they provide to Spaniards.

7. Spanish fishermen are a plague all around the world and are driving fish into extinction. However if caught fishing with illegal nets in Gibraltar waters they end up in court.

8. No, Gibraltar does NOT have more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants Thats what we call a lie.

Yes there is something wrong with the popular Spanish view of Gibraltar IF that was an example.

But you know I thought we were compiling an honest reference work, and those untrue allegations belong on a page 'false propaganda the Spanish Government propagate about Gibraltar in support of its outdated territorial claim' and it becomes very tedious to continually have to refute this sort of nonsense.

--Gibnews 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1-So the flow of drugs is from Spain right? Well, it is a point that the Spanish Police and Guardia Civil don´t share with you. Usually, the Spanish Coast Guard helicopters have to abort their prosecution when fast ships having Moroccan drugs on board enter Gibraltarian waters.

2-Really the Gibraltarian taxes are higher than the Spanish ones? How much money an average Gibraltarian pay to the Ministerio de Fomento? Which average part of the Gibraltarian taxes go to pay all the Spanish services that they use? Let me guess: zero percent? In my home I also suffer high taxes. All the money that does not go to the Spanish government, goes to me. I pay a 100% of my salary in taxes for me!! my home is the place with the higher taxes in the world.

3- Money laundaring? what money laundaring... Haha. Ok, I like jokes during discussions. I will believe that you was trying to be funny. Otherwise I would think that you live in Wonderland playing cricket with Alice.

Actually, a House of Commons' report is assumed by me as the most impartial point of view about the Gibraltarian problem under the Sun (Hehe excuse me, now i am the one who is kidding).

4-Gibraltar is view as a "hot point" by Spanish Police and CNI in the issues related to the western (Russian, Romanian, Yugoslavian, Kosovar, etc) mafias that commit all kind of crimes in southern Spain.

5-Gibraltar is assumed as a fiscal paradise by whatever the economist around the world saving the British/Gribraltarian ones.

6-The waste of money of Spanish public hospitals hosting Gibraltarian (and British) citizens is higher than the money the "Paying patients" pay, by far. In fact, there have been reported many cases of people with cronical illness hosted or operated in Spanish public hospitals. There have been even reports of people who fly from the UK with a hearth attack or whatever the serious illness and once in Spain they go to a public hospital to recieve treatement saying that they suffered the attack while in holidays in Spain. You can ask whatever the doctor working in a Spanish hospital. The money British/Gibraltarian governments pay DOES NOT reach the cost by far. This "tradition" is not just a waste of money for Spanish social care system (that I PAY, and you dont, with the money i get working hard), but a serious risk for the patients.

7-Sure. And Spain should shot down all the aircrafts that violate the Spanish airspace while approaching the tinny Gibraltarian airport. Gibraltarian waters, the paradise for Spanish fishermen...hehehe ok, i assume you are again joking.

8-Ok, we agree at this point. I was wrong, and I beg for your pardon. Actually, Gibraltar has about 27.500 inhabitants and only 24.000 financial societies based in its territory. Sorry. There are not more financial societies based than inhabitants. It was not a lie, just ignorance.

Look. Dont missunderstand me. I would like to be Gibraltarian so much. This is the great life. Actually, what moves to Spanish people when they protest about this shameful situation, is the envy. I also would like to enjoy the life in Spain without paying a cent and without "dar un palo al agua" as we say in Spain.

Cheers my friend! Kiko 3/4/07

I hope you feel better for that rant, I do not pay Spanish taxes, apart from IVA when visiting, because I live in Gibraltar which is not Spain.

The is no evidence for any of the criminality you refer to, and as previously stated, The Government of Gibraltar pays the commercial rate for healthcare provided in the UK or Spain, as do private patients.

If you are not happy with taxes in Spain, go somewhere else. Regretably as a Spanish citizen you cannot apply to become a Gibraltarian.

Although its useful for others to see the nonsense spewed up as a result of a diet of propaganda, its important to keep Wikipedia factual. If you have any further comments please take them somewhere appropriate this is not a message board --Gibnews 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does have some whiff of bias though. Do we really care what Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell has to say about "the Gibraltarian People's pride in being British?" Villamota 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a message board, and this discussion has not sense anymore. But as you think the Spanish points are spewed up as a result of a diet propaganda, I think Gibraltarian points are the usual ones of a sponger. Gibraltarian points are what a flea would tell to the dog in wich it lives in order to stay in such a warm and comfortable skin for ever. As you see, we both have our personal opinions which don´t matter here, since this is an encyclopedia. But I agree also that we need to keep the Wikipedia factual, and this is why I think the article is partial and unclear, and need to be compensated. As I said before, there is not even a shadow of the Spanish point about the Gibraltarian problem. I would do so by myself, but unfortunatelly, as you can see, my english is not good enough. I hope somebody else will work a little bit more in it as ChrisO suggested.

Cheers, and goodbye! Kiko 4/4/2007

Your sentiment is noted. --Gibnews 01.34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)