Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 6

UK Overseas Territory vs British Overseas Territory

Gibnews keeps reverting this and refused to engage with a discussion I tried to commence with him on his talk page. The fact is that legally, as per the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, Gibraltar along with the thirteen other territories are called the British Overseas Territories. The act itself can be read here: As the territories mentioned in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) are now known as "British overseas territories". I don't deny that the FCO may refer to Gibraltar as a "UK Overseas Territory", but that is not its correct, legal, name. Does anyone else have any opinions on this? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that FCO uses both terms interchangeably - see [1]. However, a Google search shows that "British Overseas Territory" (81,600 hits) is more widely used than "UK Overseas Territory" (13,400 hits). On this basis I suggest using "British Overseas Territory" as the commonest and legally correct term, though it might be a good idea to use a compromise form of words such as "a British (or UK) Overseas Territory" to cover both bases. -- ChrisO 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

. -- ChrisO 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted it again, again without contributing to this discussion. I've now reverted three times - would someone else care to do the honours? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to discuss the matter here on the talk page and I'd request you to do the same. Revert wars aren't productive. This should be sorted out by dialogue, not by reverting or asking others to revert. -- ChrisO 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've dropped a line to the FCO to ask them which is the preferred term. I'll let you know what they say. -- ChrisO 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Hopefully they should have a bit more spare time on their hands after developments in Iran. ;-p The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. :-) The lights are still on in King Charles Street as I type this; they're in the middle of working out the logistics of getting Our Boys™ home from Tehran... -- ChrisO 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can demonstrate at a stroke why the FCO website cannot be used as a reference for this: it uses both "British" and "UK".

• Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the term British overseas territory too. And the BBC. So too should WP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews wrote on his talk page (which I will write here because he is presently blocked for 3RR violation): "The BBC make factual errors some of which they correct. However the FCO take a lot of care on their country profiles and they are up-to-date and 100% correct although other parts of their website may be wrong, or express a historical view. The 2002 act was correct in 2002, the correct designation for Gibraltar in 2007 is a UK overseas territory". It is preposterous of him to claim words to the effect that "the FCO website is correct in the bits that serve my purpose, but there is a factual error in the bits where it does not". That is an unfalsifiable argument, and one that deserves to be thrown out of the window. Gibnews has provided no evidence to suggest that there has been an official name change (unsurprisingly, because no act has superceded the 2002 one). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the FCO had to say in answer to my query: "Thank you for your query regarding the terminology of the use of Overseas Territories. Both terms - British Overseas Territories and UK Overseas Territories are used, but the British Overseas Territories was used in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002." So it would seem that it doesn't actually matter which one is used. -- ChrisO 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1035796306456 FCO Gibraltar travel advice page]: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory".

• FCO Gibraltar country profiles page: "Status: UK Overseas Territory"

Quite clearly, in common parlance, both terms are used. However, equally clearly, according to the wording of the two Acts of Parliament that determine the legal status of the overseas territories, "British overseas territory" is the correct legal term. I find it bizarre why User:Gibnews would disagree with this, but now I have demonstrated that the FCO website uses both (as well as the Gibraltar website), he should retract his claim that this is wrong, and that I am vandalising the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that ChrisO already noted that the FCO uses both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More on the FCO's terminology. The following is a quote (with my bold emphasis) from the Explanatory Notes to British Overseas Territories Act, which was (to quote verbatim) "prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act":

• "There are fourteen British overseas territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Turks and Caicos Islands."

Although the FCO uses both on its website, when writing explanatory notes about the Act, it sticks to the official, legal name. I should point out that [http://www.britannica

Nice, glad to see they got back to you, and quickly too. I guess that merely confirms what we were saying all along. However, it does completely disprove Gibnews' claim "other parts of their website may be wrong, or express a historical view. The 2002 act was correct in 2002, the correct designation for Gibraltar in 2007 is a UK overseas territory." Given that it is the term used in the Act (and therefore the legal term) and given that the WP article is named British Overseas Territory, and given that the BOT article now says (thanks to ChrisO) another name is UK Overseas Territory, and furthermore, given that it is bad style to drop in acronyms without introducing them, I suggest the right thing to do is leave in its current state, "British Overseas Territory". I'll remove the overreferences that I added yesterday. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as both terms are valid, I see no reason why the term UK Overseas Territory should be withdrawn. I suggest that in order to comprise the both terms and not overlook any in particular (which may be usable or valid nonetheless) both should be included. I believe someone mentioned this before. As so, there will be no seclusion of a categorically valid term, and furthermore, it will have an evenhanded influence. Chris Buttigieg 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The dual use is now recorded in Wikipedia in the British Overseas Territory article. It's going somewhat overboard to say "British (or UK) overseas territory" just to resolve this (rather bizarre) dispute - I think we can all agree that no other source uses that "double" term. So WP should use one or the other. However, instead of "UK Overseas Territory", "Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" is a better way of phrasing it, because the acronym "UK" is not being dropped into the article without introduction. But, what is the objection to not using the legal name, and that of the linked-to article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense, for a very simple reason - 'British' does not have any meaning in a territorial context. 'British' refers to a nationality not a territory - UK does, its the name of a member state of the EU and has a precise meaning. Thats why its termed a UK Overseas Territory.

"British refers to a nationality not a territory"???? You have excelled yourself with that statement. You are confusing the noun - the British (people) - with the adjective - of or pertaining to Britain, its people, language or culture. British territory means territory belonging to Britain. Gibraltar is British territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

British has a lot of meanings, but for community purposes the designation is UK, which is on the front of my passport. I travel under a document issued under the authority of the UK Government, not the 'British Government'. --Gibnews 08:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will believe this, but according to [The Guardian Style Guide], "Britain/UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. Take care not to write Britain when you might mean only England and Wales, for example when referring to the education system." Just to repeat the key information there: "Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." Who to believe... one of Britain's most eminent newspapers, or a chap in Gibraltar? Hmmm... tough one... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although ChrisO has got an quick answer from the FCO, there is no doubt a more detailed one available. Why is it important? Because Gibraltar is different to the other overseas territories in being part of the EU with the UK being the member state responsible for certain things. The FCO have changed the name it refers to Gibraltar by a number of times and not all the references are up-to-date, however they do make a major effort with the country profiles, which I cited, which was Last reviewed - 09 January 2007 and that is, I feel the best source to check information on Wikipedia against, the travel advice page has only had the general section updated, probably to reflect international dialling code changes.

I did ask The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick to discuss the matter on this talk page, and feel that shouting at me on my user page was not a productive way to progress the matter, nor was continually reverting the description and removing the definitive reference added.

I feel that ammounted to vandalism and thus it was reasonable to revert it back and labeled it as such. As I've been banned its hard to continue the discussion, although that will no doubt make some happy, I am pleased to see there are other Gibraltarians around to ensure that it does not describe us as 'spongers and fleas' or some of the nonsense there used to be.

--Gibnews 01.56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it very concerning how every time evidence is cited that disagrees with your position, you find new and increasingly odd reasons for it not to be admissible. I look forward to you providing references that demonstrate what you say is the case, and that these claims do not represent your own original research or point of view. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion. Since both terms seem to be be used, we could in principle use either. However, which term does Gibraltar itself use - does it self-identify as a British or a UK Overseas Territory? This seems like a situation in which WP:NCON should be applied. -- ChrisO 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence or rational reason has been put forward to say that British Overseas Territory should not be used, let's try that approach:

Criterion	British Overseas Territory	UK Overseas Territory
1. Most commonly used name in English	"British Overseas Territory" - 82,100 google hits "British Overseas Territory" Gibraltar - 19,900 hits 1 point	"UK Overseas Territory" - 13,300 google hits "UK Overseas Territory" Gibraltar - 687 hits 0 points
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	The British Overseas Territory Act, 2002 1 point	No evidence provided yet to the contrary that Gibraltar's legal status has changed. 0 points
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	"British overseas territory" in the .gi suffix - 78 google hits 1 point	"UK overseas territory" in the .gi suffix - 4 hits 0 points
	3 points	0 points

Seems absolutely categorical to me, even - for the sake of argument - allowing zero points for number 2. Until evidence is put forward, there is no point in continuing this debate. Evidence, incidentally, does not constitute the ludicrously farcical attempt at putting forward evidence below - "I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless for the reasons give above" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A cursory Google search is not evidence why a particular term should be excluded from use, its legal status notwithstanding. If both terms have demonstrated their acceptability, I feel that more proof is needed before the debate is settled. In my opinion, the table is misleading, asserting how this predomination of Google hits is indeed clear-cut proof, when in actual fact it is inconsequential. As Gibnews said, I think it best that the wording is taken from the Falklands page which has it both ways, and use that until there is a definitive answer. Chris Buttigieg 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A google search is inconsequential is it? Read this: WP:NCON#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, simply because one term is more prevalent in English, why should the other 13,300 hits be dismissed or rendered nonentities? I understand your point, I just feel that the table is a misleading illustration, and I still feel that people are jumping to conclusions. Chris Buttigieg 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a way to resolve disputes like this though, and that WP page outlines the best way to do it. Noone is denying that "UK Overseas Territory" is used. The question is, which do we use here? The evidence so far points to three things: (1) the FCO uses both - as evidenced by browsing their site and ChrisO's reponse from them, the Government of Gibraltar website uses both, the BBC and Britannica use "BOT", the CIA "Overseas Territory of the UK" (2) "British Overseas Territory" is the name used in the most recent, currently in force, Act of Parliament determining the legal status of the territories and their citizens (3) "British Overseas Territory" is the more commonly used name on the internet, globally (4x more) and within Gibraltar itself (20x more). In the light of that evidence, until evidence is put forward to the contrary, the case for "British Overseas Territory" is much, much stronger. I'm happy to discuss empirically verifiable evidence to the contrary - I am still waiting for some. All we have had so far is opinions from Gibnews, ranging from claims about the semantics of the term "British" to claims that he asked "a lawyer", to suggestions that Acts of Parliament can be superceded by the wording on a government website. Note that there is no opinion of mine in the three points outlined above, they are evidence that anyone here can verify independently. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that given that it is a contentious matter, and not yet fully resolved, that its unfair to impose the current wording and and contrary to the comment 'the debate is over' its not.

However, as a compromise, can I suggest to Chriso to take the wording from the Falklands page which in effect does have it both ways and uses that until there is a definitive answer.

In terms of local usage, I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless for the reasons give above. There is a lot of confusion about the subject and I researched it for a TV programme recently, note that was research not original research.

Although the dispute may sound similar to 'Romans they go to the house' the centurian was correct.

I'm refraining from editing as my router IP still seems to be blocked. Have a nice Easter I'm off to exploit the Spanish state and spend money abroad. Perhaps I can find some telefonica IP's to steal.

--Gibnews 10.10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe substantial weight should be afforded to the legal documents establishing Gibraltar's existance. The British Overseas Territories Act (2002) is very persuasive. The entity's own terminology is also important. Other people's terminology is less important.

The Gibraltar government's website makes no mention as far as I see. What the BBC or Google uses may be notable to reach a conclusion about practical use, but are not authoritative determination. If they were the deciding factor, then consider calling Gibraltar part of Spain because that the Spanish view (at least, some of them)!

Would the editors like to consider this text (includes text and footnote/reference)?

Gibraltar is a British overseas territory located near the southernmost tip of the....

Discussion is useful. Please don't try to report each other and try to seek sanctions. This just creates ill will. Gibraltar is supposed to be a happy place! On my talk page, I even have included a flag of Gibraltar even though I have just visited there and don't live there.VK35 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, but... isn't it enough that the British Overseas Territory article now has words to this effect (which I added myself, expanding on an addition by ChrisO) - "The British Overseas Territories are also referred to as overseas territories of the United Kingdom[2], UK overseas territories[3], or when the context is clear, simply the Overseas Territories[4]." (The Gibraltar govt website uses all of these, in fact [2]) By doing it in one central place, it covers all fourteen overseas territories in one fell swoop. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my suggested footnote is to recognize the sentiment for "UK overseas territory". If there weren't such strong sentiment then the blue highlighted link would be enough and there wouldn't be any need for a footnote with the explanation. I wrote in the hopes of facilitating cooperation, try to reduce fighting and ill will, and because I like Gibraltar.VK35 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason given above for "UK Overseas Territory" is that Gibraltar is not a British Overseas Territory. No (verifiable) evidence has been put forward that verifies this claim. My reason for "British Overseas Territory" is that this is the official, legal name, and the most commonly used one. I, and another contributor, have put forward several (verifiable) sources that verify this claim. Like the debate below, a compromise would only be pandering to the POV of one hot headed contributor, not for any sensible reason. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not pandering to a POV its my uderstanding that the correct term is UK Overseas Territory if anything changing it is pandering to another editors POV simply because of the noise level.

However, I have made a formal request to the FCO and will get a detailed statement on the subject which will be published, no doubt there will be those who wish to argue further, but they will be wrong, and until such time as we declare UDI and become a republic whatever title the mandarins of the FCO say is correct IS the definitive version. --Gibnews 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to your comments, it appears to me that the actual legislation naming the status of Gibraltar is "British Overseas Territory". (See explanation above in this section). However, there is so much confusion that even the FCO website uses the term "UK overseas territory". Therefore, I think it is best to use the correct terminology but, in view of the other commonly used terminology, it seems acceptable to me to make such an explanation. In fact, the mere noting of the alternate usage may enhance wikipedia's credibility as a well referenced and detailed encyclopedia. I am curious to whether printed encyclopedias explain the difference (i.e., which term is used in legislation and which terms are used in daily life).

Even if the FCO responds in writing, I would question their response if they use the term "UK overseas territory" and fail to explain why the original legislation uses the other term. If they adequately explain why the term "British overseas territory" is obsolete, then this would be a very notable addition to this article about Gibraltar.

It's ok to consider the issue, but let's agree to find the true answer and not view this as a confrontation between two sides!VK35 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that, and am still awaiting a formal letter from the FCO about the status which I will publish elsewhere. The initial response indicates that BOT is the official status, however no reasons were given.

Some wish to be confrontational, and long pretentious names do not inspire my confidence. --Gibnews

ChrisO already added this clarification to the British Overseas Territory article, and I then expanded it to include all four usages ("B.O.T.", "UK O.T.", "O.T. of the UK", "O.T."). I don't think we need to add this to all fourteen articles on the BOTs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag

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 unprotected, please can we discuss the issue and leave the Spanish flag here in the meantime, SqueakBox 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews' objection wasn't simply about the flag but about whether this article falls within the scope of WikiProject Spain. The unanimous consensus from other editors was that it does. The flag is secondary to that. Gibnews should respect this consensus rather than trying to impose a personal veto. -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unanimous consensus? Unanimouis means everyone whereas there were 2 dissenting voices, mine and Gibnews's, and if that is a definition of unanimous I am a Gibraltan. Come on, Chris, making untrue statements wont help in any way, SqueakBox 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did I misread your earlier comments? I was under the impression that you had no objection to the article being within the scope of WikiProject Spain but that you did support the removal of the flag. Is that right? -- ChrisO 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont object to they're being a part of the Project Spain (neutral view) but I do support Gib that we shouldnt have a Spanish flag here. From my understanding it is the flag that is causing the controversy not the being a part of the Spain project, though I will also add that logically the 19 ex-Spanish colonies should also be a part of Project Spain but that it would be equally unacceptable to put the Spanish flag on those 19 talk pages and to be very clear tghere is no unanimous consensus to have the Spanish flag here, SqueakBox 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I without doubt advocate the removal of the Spanish flag on this talk page, on first sight I deemed it a joke and an attempt to purely inflame and provoke any Gibraltarians, which will in turn (and inevitably) cause endless edit wars. Understanding that it may perhaps fall under the scope of the project, well there's nothing I can do about that. Chris Buttigieg 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is easily resolvable by creating a new template with the Wiki Spain info and without the Spanish flag, SqueakBox 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Little reason has been offered for doing this other than appeasing the particular POVs of individual editors, which is certainly not a road we ought to be going down. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox's idea sounds good to me. I do not know what is WP's policy on political correctness, but it would certainly do a great deal in alleviating any umbrage. Chris Buttigieg 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put together various (unequivocal) points that I feel are why the removal of WikiProject Spain and needless to say, its attached flag should come about.

1. If WikiProject falls under the scope of Gibraltar because at one epoch in history Gibraltar was under Spanish rule, one would inevitably question why other former Spanish territories and colonies do not.

2. Likewise one would also question that, given that at one point in time Gibraltar was also Moorish, if there was a WikiProject Moorish should it not also fall under the scope of Gibraltar, surely there are many telltale signs of their occupation.

3. Seeing as Gibraltar is related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain, should it not similarly fall under WikiProject United Kingdom? One can hardly argue that a Spanish project has more right to fall under the scope of a British territory than a British project does.

4. Finally, (with regards to the flag) WikiProject Spain should be removed, whereby its accompanying flag is politically incorrect. Political incorrectness is defined as language or conduct that could give offence, e.g. on the basis of ethnic origin or sexual orientation, and as I am sure most people are well aware, the Spanish flag is offensive to Gibraltarians, not to the POVs of particular contributors, but a whole people.

I hope I have made myself clear. Chris Buttigieg 10:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. For clarity, I'll respond to each of your points using the same numbering.

1. They do. WikiProject Spain is interested in all articles 'related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain', so this might include other historical colonies too.

2. Yes, Gibraltar might well fall under the scope of a putative 'WikiProject Moorish', as of course would the article for Spain itself.

3. Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that Gibraltar also falls under the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom (although that project has largely been split up into many more specific sub-projects such as WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Greater Manchester, and so on: WikiProject Gibraltar might be considered one of these too). WikiProject scopes are not intended to be mutually exclusive: the article doesn't have to be tagged as part of either WikiProject A or WikiProject B, it can quite happily be tagged as relevant to both.

4. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.

Hopefully this clears up the relationship of WikiProjects to articles (in particular, that one article can be considered part of many separate WikiProjects); it's probably worth reiterating that the fact that this article falls within the scope of WikiProject Spain categorically does not imply any kind of statement on Gibraltar's current political situation. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Buttigieg, the fact that other articles on colonies are or are not parts of the wikiprojects of their former rulers is neither here nor there: at the end of the day, it's just a tag that someone has or has not yet seen fit to add. But, you might want to look at the Macau talk page, Macau is an ex-Portuguese colony in China, and is part of both Wikiproject Portugal and Wikiproject China, and shows the Portuguese flag. What is important is the definition of what a wikiproject is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If WikiProkject Spain is interested in all articles 'related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain' shouldn't Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the other myriad territories which were once Spanish be tagged with WikiProject Spain. They may not be Spain, yet they are related to the history etc of Spain, just as Gibraltar is.

It is preposterous to assert that a WikiProject Moorish would fall under the scope of Gibraltar - therefore I surmise that a Wikiproject Romans/Vandals/Phoenicians and everything else Gibraltar once was would also fall under the scope of Gibraltar.

Notwithstanding the fact that WikiProject United Kingdom may have branched into other sub-projects, it has an equal right to be present on this page just as Spain does, if not more.

I respect that Wikipedia contains content which some readers may find objectionable or offensive, yet what I am trying to say is that the removal of the flag is not to appease the POVs of specific contributors, but to prevent offence. Chris Buttigieg 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Offence is a POV though. You find the sight of the Spanish flag offensive on the Gibraltar talk page, I do not. We have differing points of view on this subject. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're reading what I've written accurately. The WikiProject tags are not mutually exclusive: the only reason there isn't a 'WikiProject United Kingdom' tag on this article is that no editor has put one there yet (well, and because, as I stated above, no such WikiProject United Kingdom actually exists). Similarly, it would be perfectly reasonable for, to take one of your examples, Cuba to be tagged with a 'WikiProject Spain' tag: the fact that it hasn't just means no one has done it yet.

You're also missing the point about objectionable or offensive content. Let's have a hypothetical counterexample: a Spaniard whose ancestors were expelled from Gibraltar by the invading British forces in the eighteenth century. This hypothetical Spaniard finds the Gibraltarian flag as offensive as you find the Spanish flag. Should it be removed from the article? Of course not. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Three points on that One, no Spaniard was expelled, when Gibraltar was liberated they were given a choice of remaining - perhaps you should read the article. Secondly what is acceptable in relation to Gibraltar is a matter for Gibraltarians. Finally, the Spanish flag is considered a symbol of oppression in Gibraltar and its use as offensive as a swastica on the Israel page.

Indeed it was a Spanish editor who produced the non flag version as he knows the sensitivity of that symbol.

--10:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has tried to do it yet but my guess is there would be a lot of resistance. We are supposed to be an inclusive encyclopedia whereas this flag is turning more people away than it is bringing here. To use a Spanish term "no vale la pena" (not worth the hassle), SqueakBox 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but it would nevertheless be a rather worrying precedent: we're being asked to remove a perfectly legitimate tag on no grounds other than that an arbitrary symbol it uses makes some users unhappy. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I respect the fact that being offensive is evidently no excuse to Wikipedia, and I therefore cannot continue to argue solely as a Devil's advocate. I have nonetheless mentioned what I feel are logical reasons, regardless whether they are valid or not in Wikipedia. In addition I would like to remark that this symbol does not 'make some users unhappy', I would say more of a 'rensentful displeasure' or 'offence' and futhermore I have now tagged Gibraltar are part of WikiProject UK. Chris Buttigieg 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just chiming in to say that I don't have a strong opinion about the flag at this point. I do feel strongly that the Article should stay in all 3 WikiProjects. I would also like to point out that on March 1 2007 I tagged both Talk:Texas and Talk:California with WikiProject Spain. Those tags quickly got replaced with WikiProject Mexico tags, which I agree are more relevant. The WikiProject Mexio tags have stayed there ever since, with no objections. The analogy is a very good one. Mexico once controlled all or most of Texas and California and there continue to be interconnected interests even today. Johntex\^talk 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that these projects add little apart from clutter, Although there is an argument that the history of Gibraltar is linked with Spain, the argument that the main article should form part of a foreign project is weak, and the inclusion of a nationalist symbol is offensive, there are NO Spanish flags in Gibraltar for that reason. --Gibnews 11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such think as a "foreign project" here. all these projects are part of Wikipedia. This is not a nationalist endeavor. Johntex\^talk 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If its not a 'nationalist endeavor' then why is there a national symbol attached to the template, one which is seen as grossly offensive when used in connection with Gibraltar. --Gibnews 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• It pertains to the country of Spain, yes, but that does not make it "nationalist". Please see above how no one in all of California or Texas has complained about the WikiProject Mexcio tag (with flag) on those states. Once again though, I don't mind if we make a new template that does not include the flag. Johntex\^talk 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation is quite different, and as far as I am aware the Government of Mexico has not systematically harassed Texans and tried to interfere with their right to vote or play football. Thankfully on a personal level, Spanish nationals are most welcome in Gibraltar, the flag is not, and it will not be for a long time. --Gibnews 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But they do harrass us - they keep coming here and starting Mexican restaurants and making us fat!!! It's a conspiracy. Fortunately they have not interferred with the football games. If they do that, then perhaps we will rise up and throw off the yoke of oppresion.  :=) Seriously, I'm OK with it if you want to put up a tag that removes the flag. Would that be acceptable to you? Johntex\^talk 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took out the flag. Can everyone live with this compromise? Johntex\^talk 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The flag is not welcome in Gibraltar? I respect the views of Gibraltarians and their right to decide what flags fly in their land, but this talk page isn't Gibraltar. It's Wikipedia. I think this is the start of a very slippery slope, and really, at the end of the day, those that are objecting to the sight of the flag are really just demonstrating how they are unable to maintain a neutral point of view. The presence of the flag is not a factual inaccuracy, it is not claiming that Gibraltar is Spanish, it is not making personal attacks, it is merely making a statement that Gibraltar is part of a project on things relating to Spain. On point of principle I object to this, and would be willing to take this discussion further if anyone else wishes to, because I think a very important principle of Wikipedia is at stake here. I will say this though, the only balanced compromise is that if one flag is removed, all should be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it loooks much better now. I dont believe trying not to offend people unnecessarily is the start of a slippery slope. The flag here in now way can be said to have made a better encyclopedia nor its absence a worse one (our goal), SqueakBox 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if ALL those stupid and useless flags and templates were removed from talk pages. Although the HISTORY of Gibraltar involves Spain, so far the inclusion of Gibraltar in 'project Spain' has only attracted the attention of an editor expressing illinformed and insulting views that the Gibraltarians are an economic cancer.

Nationalist symbols belong where appropriate. --Gibnews 08:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So it seems we finally agree on something! BTW - the best policy is to ignore people who write things like that on talk pages, and if it gets into the article and it's unsourced and/or blatant POV, delete it. Either way don't rise to their provocation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah but it demonstrates the level of ignorance and prejudice that exists. --Gibnews 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could modify the UK template with this pic? SqueakBox 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gibnews, do you or do you now support the compromise above, where the tags remain but the Spanish flag is gone? You say above "I'd be happy if ALL those stupid and useless flags and templates were removed from talk pages." I don't think there is any chance we are going to remove all the tags. Your personal dislike for wikiproject tags does not govern this page. So, do you support this version, or should we go back to the standard tag which has the Spanish flag? Johntex\^talk 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose the restoration of the Spain flag and would happily see the removakl of the UK Jack as well, SqueakBox 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I remove the UK flag, leave the Spanish flag out, and leave the Gibralter flag in as the only flag? Johntex\^talk 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. Wikipedia is not to be held hostage by childish whims. This subject has been discussed for long enough already. --Burgas00 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. If we didn't censor the Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons to appear 1 billion annoyed Muslims, we certainly shouldn't be in the business of censoring the Spanish flag to appease a single intransigent Gibraltarian user. Gibnews is quite simply trying to censor Wikipedia by trying to exercise a personal veto. This isn't acceptable in my view. I've posted a couple of requests for outside input to see if we can get a clearer take on the community's view of this matter. -- ChrisO 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not a single intransigent Gibraltarian There are lots of us who feel the same way, as I have tried to explain politely its considered sufficiently offensive that the last person to try and fly it was arrested and the police rescued him from being lynched. Can I remind you YOU said it was not appropriate on the Gibraltar page originally. When Spain renounces its territorial claim and takes note of the views of the Gibraltarians then it may be acceptable - in the meantime its inflamatory. It also gets in the way of creating an encyclopedia. --Gibnews 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims of censorship imply it should be here? Why? To discourage people who feel strongly on this issue (most Gibraltans) from participating? How can we claim censorship and this isnt even a main space page? GibNews is one of a number of editors here opposed to the flag so we cant claim it is his personal veto. I dislike the UK having nothing other than ?????, I think we should put on the bulldog pic I linked to above (we Brits are known as bulldogs John Bull etc), SqueakBox 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: noone is forcing anyone to contribute. Contributors are here of their own volition, which entails agreement with Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. If some contributors find certain aspects of frankly inocuous attempts at improving Wikipedia offensive, there is a very simple solution: stop looking at the page and go and do something else. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats a defeatist attitude. But for the avoidance of doubt I'm not going anywhere, and there are plenty of others who agree with me. The Gibraltar pages are pretty much current, although there is room for one about 'popular missconceptions about the formal name of the territory' If you do not understand why Spanish flags are unpopular, then research why Gibraltar is not currently in UEFA. --Gibnews 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only "missconception" (sic) about the formal name of the territory is yours, based on a gross misunderstanding of both the English language and the British legal system. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be more polite, however in due course you may have to eat your words and your ridiculous hat. --Gibnews 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I didnt know that. What a disgraceful attitude by the Spanish football authorities (its not as if Gibraltarians could play for Britain), and then people wonder why their flag isnt wanted here! SqueakBox 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Spain should allow Gibraltar to join UEFA but this has little to do with the current discussion doesnt it? The Taiwan flag isnt wanted in China, the Serbian flag isnt wanted in Kosovo, nor is the Potuguese flag wanted in Olivenza... But neither Kosovo Albanians nor Taiwanese nor Spaniards are being so childish as to create edit wars over this in their respective articles where the Serbian and Chinese flags are well present. Says alot about the mental age of gibraltarian editors...--Burgas00 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its popularity is in reverse proportion to the insults and harassment from the Government of Spain. As you sow so shall you reep. And the flag is still there. --Gibnews 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Great there are 3 wikiprojects here, perhaps this article will get WP:FA status 3 times as fast? Go focus on the article please, rather then the talk page that nobody but editors likely will see anyway. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not until this is settled.

my preference

• remove all the stupid 'project' templates they do no good anyway and clutter the page.

• remove the Spanish flag

Any solutions that include the second item are OK, then we can get back to creating something useful. --Gibnews 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The second has already happened - the Spanish flag is already gone. I don't see the first happening, ever. Wikiproject are here to stay and you are not going to change that. It's time for you to stop making noise about how you want this talk page to look. We've been more than accomodating to you. Johntex\^talk 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If its gone, good. I admire the flag in Spain where it belongs. I also look forward to the day when we can fly it in Gibraltar because that will mean the Government of Spain has renounced its claim and started treating the people of Gibraltar with respect. --Gibnews 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys that flag really has to go. It is one thing to call this article part of wikiproject Spain, that is a massive POV problem. But to have the flag at the top of the page is really pushing it. No show/hide tricks, no games, Gibraltar is no more within the remit of wikiproject Spain than Portugal or France are. Spanish people don't see it that way, they run Wikiproject Spain (probably), which is why they included it in Wikiproject Spain. This is POV and provocative. What would you say if someone included Finland in Wikiproject Russia? Or Korea in Wikiproject Japan? Or Sinai in Wikiproject Israel? Or Morocco in Wikiproject Spain (that would make much more sense, Spain hasn't been into Gibraltar in 300 years, but was in Morocco in the past 50)?

Remember that Gibraltarians were subject to a hostile blockade by Spain for 30 years and they are not great friends. Recognize that this action is nothing more than a childish provocation that is wasting everyones time here. This serves no purpose and generates constant strife. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read all of the above discussion? Did you read how Texas and California are tagged with WikiProject Mexico, which features the Mexican flag, even though they have not beeen under control of Mexico for over 100 years? Did you see how we have tried to remove the flag, but that Givnews was still not satisfied? Johntex\^talk 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting a territory under a heading of a nation that seeks its incorporation is provocative and serves no good purpose. Yes, yes I read all this and I not convinced by any of it. The flag is still there, and the wikiproject is still there. There are 1000s of pages in Wikiproject Spain, Portugal isn't there Morocco isn't there and France isn't there, and if they were included there would be a massive shitstorm. I would show you, but that would be WP:POINT. Users of the Spain wikiproject are free to edit this article but this isn't the way to lead to improvements and this lengthy discussion rather proves that point. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugal was never part of Spain. Morocco was never part of Spain (although the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are). France was never part of Spain. Gibraltar was part of Spain for hundreds of years and its culture, economy and politics continue to be influenced by Spain to a large degree. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for it to fall within the scope of WikiProject Spain. Your accusations that WikiProject Spain constitutes Spanish editors trying to push a particular POV are both inflammatory and grossly patronising: thanks for assuming good faith there! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What this really boils down to is that Gibnews amd David Spart are trying to impose a specifically Gibraltarian nationalist speech code on this page, i.e. that the use of the flag of Spain is unacceptable to Gibraltarian nationalists. This isn't the way Wikipedia works. We don't impose a Chinese speech code that prohibits any mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre, or a Greek speech code that dictates that the Republic of Macedonia be called "Skopjiana", or an Iranian speech code that denies the existence of Israel. We're an international project and Wikipedia is not censored to meet local speech codes. It's as simple as that. -- ChrisO 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats your POV but as I said in the beginning one needs to respect sensitivities, and this is one. I see the red hand of Ulster causes similar disquiet amongst the Irish republicans. Gibraltar is not Spain, however much some would like it to be. --Gibnews 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my POV, it's fundamental Wikipedia policy. You agreed to play by the rules when you signed up as an editor. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but we're not going to change the rules because of one editor's personal objections. -- ChrisO 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not 'one editors personal objection' you know very well that is untrue however often its repeated. --Gibnews 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags And Templates And Things

Careful everyone, or this will end up in the Lamest Edit Wars hall of fame... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is completely lame and utterly pointless. When people nationality is attacked they are provoked. There is an important point though: this is a violation of WP:NPOV since it makes it look like it is wikipedia policy to recognise Spain's claim as valid AND a violation of WP:CIVIL since it upsets users without adding any utility. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise you're contributing to the lameness, as have I been. Look back at the talk page everyone, there's more space devoted to discussing the flag on the talk page than the article itself. This is ridiculous! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am trying to end the lameness, which will roll along forever and ever until it is removed from the wikiproject. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean you will continue the lameness until you get your own way? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I just found this yesterday. I have never been to Gibraltar and I am not even British! But this is clearly wrong, and needs to stop now. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you all think, the bottom line is that due to the outdated territorial claim of Spain, and the years of persecution by its Government, that national symbol is seen as something unwelcome by the majority of Gibraltarians. Its use in connection with Gibraltar is an unfriendly act. --Gibnews 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Given some see the flag as still being here please can we use the Spanish template with the Castle and the UK template with the bulldog or some such British symbol. I thought the castle was great and very Spanish (in that Avila/Salamanca kind of way) whereas the flag is, IMO and, given the comments of other editors inc Gibraltarians and those who have never been there, (which I have) it seems to me we have a strong consensus to remove non Gibraltarian flags. I would oppose Spain Project not being here at all but this is Gibraltarian space and we just need a liitle respect and everything will be fine, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"This is Gibraltarian space"??? To paraphrase our dear friend Gibnews, Talk:Gibraltar is Wikipedia not Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on, quoting Gibnews at me isnt an argument! Why would we want to turn Gibralrtarians away from this article. We arent Spanish wikipedia! SqueakBox 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And what, pray, about Spanish editors' sentiments? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah you mean like the one who said 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. what is a pity is that Gibraltarian editors, like user:Chris Buttigieg are scared off by this nonsense, and generally all 'Spanish editors' have to add about the topic of Gibraltar is their prejudice, because they do not know the difference between reality and the lies in the Spanish media.

The Spanish Government still blocks any EU legislation which mentions Gibraltar, and tried to block Gibraltarians voting in EU elections, taking the case to the European court, and lost, as they did with a case about the repair of HMS Tireless.

Unless 'Project Spain' wishes to cover all European states, I don't know what they are doing in Gibraltar, because the Spanish contribution to the territory was prior to 1704 and there is a seperate article for history. I note its not on the Portugal talk page.

And despite the offers to remove the flag its still there. --Gibnews 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as a Brit I have no issues with not seeing our beloved Jack here. Why would Spanish editors feel differently, especially if they respect the views of the great majority of Gibraltarians while here, as I do, SqueakBox 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It completely misses the point of this being a neutral encyclopaedia to suggest that because this is a talk page on Gibraltar, and people from Gibraltar contribute to it, that one has to tiptoe around Gibraltarian sentiments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It definitely isnt mine. I respect Gibraltarians. Why would would anyone else be here if they dont? SqueakBox

The suggestion seems to be from one user, that since Spain has a claim their flag should be here, which is what I suspected all along despite the protestations that "close ties, former possession, etc". Well that is unacceptable and goes to show that adding the flag at the top is POV and uncivil. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm... who is suggesting that the Spanish claim is the motive for placing the Spanish flag there? Even if someone is, so what? The answer to that individual is the same as that to the two offended Gibraltarians, which is that those flags are not there for political reasons. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be more mature and rise above any petty suggestions to the contrary. That goes for both Gibraltar-hungry Spaniards and proud-to-be-British Gibraltarians. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious attempt to provide a soley British perspective in this and many other articles relating to Gibraltar, can editors please remember that this is NOT English wiki it is English language wiki.--Vintagekits 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its up to the people promoting 'project spain' to back off because they have nothing to add, and all its done is start this pointless debate and attract insults about Gibraltar. I'm sure there is plenty of work for them to do elsewhere, describing the virtue of paella. --Gibnews 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, you are an experienced editor and shouldnt need to be reminded of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You show signs of WP:OWN in your editing of articles about Gibraltar.--Vintagekits 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally know more about what happens in the place I live that those who rely on what is printed in the Spanish media. In the past there was a lot of incorrect information on the Gibraltar pages, on balance, have helped to make these, and other pages, better and more factual.

The problem with Spanish editors is much of what they genuinely believe to be true is propaganda generated by the state. For instance, the last time the OECD produced a blacklist, Gibraltar was not included in the official version but was added in the version by TVE.

Otherwise there is the ususal vandalism which seems to be quickly put right.

However, the Spanish flag remains as popular here as flying the Irish republic flag in a Unionist area of Northern Ireland.

I look forward to the day when the Spanish flag does not encapsulate repression and bad will. That will only be when the ridiculous 300 year old territorial claim is officially dropped.

Gibraltar is different to the situation in NI because there is virtually nobody in favour of union with Spain, so if we wanted to we could have all the marches and parades we want without upsetting anyone. Consider the reaction to the presence of the Spanish flag as being similar to the reaction of the residents of the Garvaghy Road to the Orange Order asking them to put posters for the marching season in their windows.

--Gibnews 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Ok the current version of the page is acceptable to all parties. There are no flags but the article remains within the scope of all the relevant projects. Can we please move on to something else? --Burgas00 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about!? There are 3 flags. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

4 flags so nothing is resolved, SqueakBox 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not enough, the flag is still there and the wording says This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain Gibraltar is not Spain. Their culture is not my culture, their language is not my language and their claim is not wanted by 99% of Gibraltarians, according to our recent referendum. --Gibnews 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...a perfect demonstration that you are trying to hijack Wikipedia for political motives. I see you conveniently failed to mention the "history" of Spain, presumably because Gibraltar was Spain, and is therefore relevent to a project one of whose stated aims is to cover Spanish history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think it's about time to draw a close to this particular discussion and move on. The only reasons that have been put forward for removing the WikiProject template or its component elements are (1) simple nationalism; (2) a claim that a particular article is "owned" by its subject(s); and (3) a claim that local political cultures can dictate the management of article development on Wikipedia. (I stress management, because this is essentially an administrative issue, not a content dispute.) These three reasons are inapplicable and fundamentally contradict our most basic principles - for which read Wikipedia:About. So, to make matters absolutely clear: there will be no removal of the flag or the template, and attempts to remove either will be treated as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I hope that makes the position clear. -- ChrisO 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It seem like time to make a Wikipedia:Request for comment to me as I dont think swhat you augest is acceptable. So we should get some further opinions and I would have thought an Rfc is the best way to do that, SqueakBox 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can make a RfC if you wish, but absolutely fundamental principles can't and won't be overturned that way. The principles in this case are so fundamental that you'd need - at the very least - to take the issue to Jimmy Wales, and I can tell you that you won't have a hope in hell of getting him to overturn the principles on which he founded Wikipedia. Your view that there's such a thing as a "Gibraltarian space" and Gibnews' view that "foreign" WikiProjects aren't to be allowed are in total contradiction to Jimmy's vision of what Wikipedia should be. Frankly, if the two of you don't want to follow those principles, you'd be better off going to somewhere like Wikinfo, which has a "sympathetic point of view" policy which would seem more suited to your objections. -- ChrisO 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense, wikilawyering, and twisting wiki policies to suit your own POV. There are no firm guidelines as to what the remit of wikiprojects should be, but now it looks like there will have to be. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And your claim that we would have to go to Jimbo is absurd and not backed

up in any policy. Actuallyu it should be for the editors here to decide but when one admin comes along unilaterally threatening (with blocks etc) the editors here merely for making good faith edits or having a discussion then Rfc is clearly appropriate. For me if these flags offend one user they should be removed, its as simple as that. If we use policies to discourage good faith users then I assume the policy is being mis-read, SqueakBox 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Let me quote from WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".. The applicability of Wikipedia policy isn't a matter to be determined by debates among editors or RfCs. It's always applicable, all the time. Carving out a "safe space" for one nationalist user is about as fundamental a violation of NPOV as you can get, and as I said it's something that totally contradicts Jimbo's founding principles. -- ChrisO 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV has nothing to do with this, CIVIL on the other hand does. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know there is a theory that if you repeat a lie often enough people may believe you - however the objection to the Spanish flag does not come from one nationalist almost everyone in Gibraltar objects, and a few others too. --Gibnews 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I keep reading 'a personal veto', 'one particular editor' etc. People need to accept that this is not the case. Chris Buttigieg 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting Gibraltar to Featured Article status

Now that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar up and running (feel free to sign up if you haven't already!) we can start work on our first major mini-project: getting this article up to Featured Article status. If at all possible I'd like to see it featured on the main page on September 10th, Gibraltar's National Day.

Getting the article to featured status will be tough: there are only about 1,300 featured articles on the whole of Wikipedia and they have to pass a stringent set of criteria. What we have now is a good start, but it will need some work. I've been working offline on a revised version of the article which is based largely on the current text but with changes to reflect the manual of style and other applicable featured article criteria.

One of the key things that we will need to do is to ensure that the article is fully neutral. This will require us to balance the British, Gibraltarian and Spanish viewpoints. I'm sure our Gibraltarian editors can take care of their end and I'm happy to do what I can for the British end, but we will need to have some substantial and sustained Spanish involvement as well. To that end, I intend to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain to get involved, so that the Spanish angle is properly represented.

This mini-project will require a fair amount of work, fact-checking, negotiation etc over the next few months. The desired outcome will be an article on Gibraltar that can be counted as one of the top 0.1% of Wikipedia articles. I hope everyone would agree that this is a worthwhile goal, and will be willing to contribute to it in good faith and with due regard for the neutral point of view and other foundational policies. -- ChrisO 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, The Gibraltar article is about Gibraltar, that may sound simplistic, but lets not forget it. There is no need to balance the British, Gibraltarian and Spanish viewpoints What the Spanish think is IMMATERIAL and largely nonsense as demonstrated by user:kiko.

What matters are not ill informed opinions, but facts, its a reference work not a forum for propaganda. The people from 'project Spain' may have things to add to the period of history when Gibraltar was occupied by Spain.

Unless they know something about Gibraltar today, what can they do, and generally Spaniards know less about Gibraltar than Australians.

Improving the style is commendable, as the main article has been hacked a lot, however the important thing is not to be competitive and make it a featured article but that when anyone looks up Gibraltar on wikipedia that what is there is factual, current and honest.

Edit wars promoting 300 year old irredentist claims, backed by unfounded accusations of institutional criminality add nothing. --Gibnews 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars will only happen if people make them happen. Unfortunately your view that "what the Spanish think is immaterial and largely nonsense" is exactly the sort of attitude that's likely to result in edit wars - it's totally inappropriate. You really need to go and read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You don't own this article, and nor do Gibraltarians in general. Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit - we don't discriminate on the basis of nationality. -- ChrisO 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish people know less about Gibraltar than Canadians, and have been fed a diet of lies by successive governments, starting with Franco, because the issue of Gibraltar is always a good one to distract from domestic problems. In time that will be resolved. Because they think Spain is a wonderful place, they may not understand that we consider Gibraltar is an even better one and do not want any political union with their country. Nor do we wish to join the Russian federation to be annexed by Albania, or join the United States of America - the Gibraltar article should be about Gibraltar not other peoples missconceptions of it. There is no need to balance reality against blind prejudice. --Gibnews

Suggestions: Consider adding a section about things for the visitor to see. Some wikipedia readers will read the article in anticipation of a visit. It's been a few years since I was there, but I remember the 100 ton gun, the Trinity Lighthouse, Moor Castle, and deep caverns (name?). If there is interest in including such a section but nobody edits it, I suppose that I could do it and have it reviewed by others who live in Gibraltar. If it is already in the article but I didn't see it, sorry!VK35 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. We shouldn't have a lengthy sightseeing section, but something highlighting the key sights would be useful. -- ChrisO 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Its already well catered for by way of the external website links. The GoG spends tens of thousands a year in promoting tourism on its website, and its hard to compete against that. --Gibnews 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with that rather defeatist attitude (if Jimbo Wales had said the same thing about Britannica...), I do think one should be careful not to stray into the bounds of Wikitravel: this is an encyclopaedia not a travel guide. Other articles on cities and countries seem to reference the major landmarks within the main text and do not have explicit sections on things to see. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gibraltar Pound

Its impossible to buy a Gibraltar pound, or to open a bank account in that currency. All business is in the pound Sterling.

If you have any doubts, please look at a currency note in circulation. Because there is an ISO code defined for the GIP this does not show it exists.

Its basically a myth. --Gibnews 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite some evidence for this view of yours. As per WP policy, I have removed your claim because it is unsourced. What you say contradicts the evidence I can find:

• [FCO Gibraltar Country Profile] (the very same page you claimed proved your claim for UKOT vs BOT - explain that one)
• [CIA Factbook]
• [Yahoo Currency Converter] (all such sites allow you to enter values in GIPs)
• [Government of Gibraltar Website] "Gibraltar's currency is the Gibraltar pound. The sterling pound is also accepted in Gibraltar on a one to one basis with the Gibraltar pound. There are no exchange controls in Gibraltar."

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please produce a picture of the mythical Gibraltar pound. Although looking into my wallet may be considered original research, and the image has been taken off the wikipedia commons, presumably for copyright reasons its here and you will see it says 'pounds sterline' and not anywhere 'Gibraltar Pounds'

Whatever anyone says, show me the money before you want to change it. there are no notes issued in Gibraltar Pounds and no banks offer accounts denominated in it. Any that do say that are old demoneterised notes images of which may lurk around. --Gibnews 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, and as such is original research which I have removed as per WP guidelines. I have provided links from the FCO, the CIA and the GoG websites. You have provided no evidence whatsoever. "Show me the money" isn't any sort of argument or evidence at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did provide some evidence, look here

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/2c/175px-10_pounds_of_Gibraltar.jpg

Show me a picture of a Gibraltar Pound, or tell me a bank where I can open an account in Gibraltar pounds and I'd agree. But there are none. --Gibnews 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews is right, Gibraltarian notes (and coins) simply bear 'Pounds Sterling', nothing whatsoever about (e.g.) 'Five Gibraltar Pounds Sterling'. The fact that our currency may be known as the Gibraltar Pound is simply to differentiate it from the British pound, and distinguish that they are made on behalf of the Government of Gibraltar. Chris Buttigieg 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a clearer image on this page: http://www.guardianfx.com/information/europe/gibraltar.html . However, I note that the Gibraltar government makes a clear distinction between the Gibraltar pound and the pound sterling: [3]. They're plainly two separate currencies albeit pegged at parity; I guess the closest comparison would be the former Irish pound and the pound sterling, which were at parity from 1928 to 1979. -- ChrisO 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a contentious area, I assume the images on wikipedia of the notes have been deleted for copyright reasons, and the guardianfx site image is probably illegal - However, that is the current five pound note and all the others bear the words 'Pounds sterling'.

At one time Barclays Bank used to charge .25% to convert from 'Gibraltar pounds' to Sterling. They were taken to court over it and had to refund the charge as there was no difference.

Heres a ten, front and back. Note the words 'Pounds Sterling'

http://www.banknotes.com/GI30.JPG

Until someone can show evidence of a GIP, rather than references to it on websites, I think the original version should stand.

--Gibnews 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you tweaked your entry above, it read "Looking in my wallet may count as original research but there is not a GIP in sight." [4] In your own words, it's original research. Sorry, but that is not good enough for Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But I did 'tweak' the wording, which you should respect. I do have Gibraltar notes in my wallet and know their look and feel which you clearly don't, however theres only two Gibraltarians here who know, and a lot of think they know better. Have you actually looked at the picture ?

http://www.banknotes.com/GI30.JPG --Gibnews 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You still seem convinced that being Gibraltarian accords you some special status and knowledge that entitles you to be the arbiter of everything relating to Gibraltar. The sooner you learn that it doesn't, and that you have to provide references for your conclusions like everyone else, the better. I am fully aware that the note says "Pound Sterling". That is not in dispute. That alone though is not evidence for your various claims; ChrisO has provided a full explanation below on the subject. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, so because Gibraltar notes say 'pound sterling' thats not evidence. Generally Gibraltarians do know more about Gibraltar than other people, I know nothing about Amersham and would not attempt to pontificate about it. But if they are not 'Pounds Sterling' you have better call the police as there is some large scale counterfeiting going on.

The 'Sterling area' became obsolete when Mrs Thatcher abolished regulation on exporting currency. --Gibnews 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's what a bit more research has turned up. Historically, there's something called the sterling area (or sterling bloc) which encompasses the UK, the Crown dependencies and some British overseas territories. The territories in question are in a monetary union in which they all share a single currency, the pound sterling (ISO 4217 code GBP). They were given the authority to make local issues of banknotes and coins, hence the existence of the Guernsey pound, Jersey pound, Manx pound and the various notes issued by Scottish and Northern Irish banks. They are all issued under the authority of the Bank of England as the central bank of the sterling area. Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Saint Helena and its associated dependencies issue their own separate currencies (the Gibraltar pound, Falkland Islands pound and Saint Helenian pound respectively, with separate ISO 4217 codes - GIP, FKP and SHP). They may call their currencies pounds sterling but they aren't part of the sterling zone, and their issues aren't legal tender in the sterling zone or in each other's territories (see e.g. [5]). The GIP, FKP and SHP are linked to the GBP by a fixed 1:1 fixed exchange rate similar, as I said earlier, to the arrangement that used to obtain between the GBP and the Irish pound. -- ChrisO 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You should note that legal tender laws in the UK are quite arcane, and are not a good measure of whether or not a note or coin is denominated in GBP. Scottish and Northern Irish notes (which are not issued by the BoE) are not technically legal tender anywhere - including in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but no-one doubts that they are denominated in GBP. While they're not legal tender, Gibraltarian coins (though not banknotes) are more likely to be accepted in England than Scottish banknotes. Same currency? In theory probably not, but I don't see that it makes any practical difference. Pfainuk 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that complication. :-) To make matters even more complicated, Bank of England notes aren't even legal tender outside England and Wales! The Scottish and Northern Irish notes are promissory notes, not legal tender. But the point is that everything issued within the sterling area - BoE, Scottish, Northern Irish, Manx, Jersey and Guernsey pounds - are all the same currency, GBP. The regional variations are merely local issues under the central authority of the Bank of England. The three pound-denominated currencies issued outside the sterling area, namely the GIP, FKP and SHP, aren't part of the UK currency union; they're independent currencies under the authority of their separate governments, not the BoE. -- ChrisO 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that there are no notes issued saying 'Gibraltar Pounds' nor can you open a bank account in GIP.

The origin of the word sterling remains doubtful but the derivation thought most likely is that it comes from 'steorra', a star, because some of the early coins bore a star. Another possibility is that it is derived from 'staer', a starling, since some of Edward the Confessor's pennies carried a design of four birds.

Today the word sterling is described in Collins Dictionary of Economics as the name given to the UK pound in international dealings to distinguish it from other countries using the pound as the basis of their currencies.

All Gibraltar notes say Pound Sterling on them, and Wikipedia should reflect that IF its going to be an accurate reference work. --Gibnews 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that quote all you can come up with to back up your claims? Give us a break. And you still haven't explained how in an earlier debate you used the FCO Gibraltar country profile page to back up your argument saying it is the "definitive source" and telling me to "take it up with the FCO" etc etc, how the FCO mandarins have the final say etc etc, and now when the same page contradicts your argument you are quietly ignoring it. Explain that please? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your pound notes and my pound notes both say "pound sterling" doesn't mean that they're the same currency. The taxonomy of different currencies is defined by ISO 4217; this clearly states that the Gibraltar pound and pound sterling are two separate entities, with two separate ISO codes and two separate names. "Pound sterling" is reserved as the official name of the UK currency, not the Gibraltarian one. See http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/popstds/currencycodeslist.html for the official list. The government of Gibraltar evidently agrees, as it also makes a clear distinction between the Gibraltar pound and the UK pound. Interestingly, the Falklands and Saint Helana pound notes don't seem to use the term "pound sterling", so Gibraltar seems to be on its own in that regard (I suspect probably for political reasons). -- ChrisO 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris you say: No such thing as "Gibraltar pound sterling" - the ISO 4217 term is "Gibraltar pound" - then as we both know it does actually say 'Pound sterling' on the currency, it can't be an ISO 4217 note ... --Gibnews 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Plainly it isn't ISO 4217 compliant. You should write to the Government of Gibraltar to complain. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They work perfectly well, However, as the notes are 'Pound Sterling' there needs to be a mention of that on wikipedia. --Gibnews 07:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, I'm still waiting for you to explain your selective usage of the FCO Gibraltar country profile page... are you ignoring me because you cannot explain it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you need me to refresh your memory, you wrote on your talk page over our BOT vs UKOT debate: "However the FCO take a lot of care on their country profiles and they are up-to-date and 100% correct", and, "As I have said repeatedly, the Country profile is definitive". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of 'selective use' You seem to be equally doing it as you don't accept that the FCO is right when they say Gibraltar is a UK Overseas Territory, but you want to use their profile to support the mythical Gibraltar Pound. However, the UK Government determine the political status of the territory, but not the currency.

I believe whats written on the notes, which is 'Pound Sterling' --Gibnews 07:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the term "UK overseas territory" is not used: I even added a reference to support the fact that it is used to the British Overseas Territory page. All I said is that the legal term is "British Overseas Territory" (the FCO replied and said as much to ChrisO). There is nothing self-contradictory in what I have said. There is though in what you have said, using the FCO page in your UKOT/BOT argument and quietly ignoring it in the GBP/GIP argument. So, I'm still waiting. (I'll let you off the hook though, and say this: I don't expect you to ever give an explanation, because your position is indefensible. You know that and I know that. I'm just exposing your "methods" for all to see, though I suspect everyone is fully aware of them already.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds remarkably like a personal attack, rather than an attempt to clarify material for a Wikipedia article. This is not a newsgroup. --Gibnews 14:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is written on the notes and what the currency itself is called are two separate things. ISO 4217 is the definitive statement on the latter question. -- ChrisO 07:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Without notes and a bank account, a 'currency' is worthless. However like the status of the territory, getting reliable information and a definitive statement may take some time, so lets put it aside for the present. Although I consider these things are wrong, they do not make much difference. However, as an act of goodwill, perhaps you could look at the nonsense added to the section on the economy, which its not cited, and what references there are do not support what is said, and remove any material you consider inappropriate, rather than me doing it (again). --Gibnews 14:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a currency doesn't necessarily need to exist in the form of notes and bank accounts for it to be useful. Currencies can exist as purely accounting units without any physical representations at all. The best recent example is that of the euro, which existed as an accounting currency from 1999-2002 before the first coins and notes were introduced. In the case of the Gibraltar pound, what seems to be happening is that you're getting notes and bank accounts advertised as "pound sterling" even though they're actually denominated in a different currency altogether (GIP, not GBP). I'm not sure why this is the case, but I'd guess it's some sort of historical hold-over. -- ChrisO 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

True, there was the gold franc used as settlement for telecom bills that never had any physical reality. However I have identified someone who chould be able to produce a reliable answer to this mystery.

However as the currency in use in Gibraltar is the pound sterling, I think thats what the article should say. There is no physical evidence that the GIP exists. --Gibnews 11:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a second reference on the tourist section of the GoG website [6] "The monetary unit is the Gibraltar pound, on a par with Sterling. The legal tender is Gibraltar Government notes and coinage, though Bank of England notes and coinage are equally welcome." Above I posted a statement from the GoG finance section [7], "Gibraltar's currency is the Gibraltar pound. The sterling pound is also accepted in Gibraltar on a one to one basis with the Gibraltar pound.". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever anyone says on their websites, the currency says its Pounds Sterling

• http://www.atsnotes.com/gallery/gibraltar-28.JPG
• http://www.guardianfx.com/banknotes/europe/GIP_5.jpg

Money talks. --Gibnews 11:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(to the tune of "Rawhide"...) Trolling, trolling, trolling... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you feel you must always get the last word in, even when its simply Yet another personal attack rather than disputing facts. --Gibnews 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take your personal wars with each other elsewhere. We are here to discuss the article, and your personal attacks (both of yours) are hindering the discussion. -kotra 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Economy

There is an article on the economy of Gibraltar, Local companies pay quite high rates of tax. The attempt to label Gibraltar a tax haven is a well known tactic to try and impune the reputation of the finance centre. There is already a full discussion of that, with a link to the OECD statement regarding obsolete material often cited in the article economy of Gibraltar.

We have already been round this a number of times.

--Gibnews 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've been there a number of times. The point is about WP:CITE and WP:V. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your second revert today re to this point. Please do not use irrelevant edit summaries. There's no important and relevant argument as Wikipedia policies. I've mentioned 2 of them and i am sure if you persist in removing sourced material, i'd mention many more before filing a RfC. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You already tried a RfC on this topic which got nowhere.

The point is that this is obsolete information, and the main article simply gives a synopsis of the economy. Nobody cares what the OECD said in 2000 including the OECD, who have issued a press release to that effect:

That list should be seen in its historical context and as an evaluation by OECD member countries at a particular point in time of which countries met the criteria set out in the 1998 Report, Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue. More than five years have passed since the publication of the OECD list contained in the 2000 Report and positive changes have occurred in individual countries’ transparency and exchange of information laws and practices since that time. The list has not been updated to reflect such changes.[5]

There is no source given for the claim that Gibraltar's has a favourable corporate tax regime which benefit over 20,000 locally registered companies.

Which is nonsense, and the various historical things are covered in detail in the article on the economy of Gibraltar.

Your reference cited to show Gibraltar is a 'tax haven' actually shows Gibraltar -- Assessment of the Regulation and Supervision of Financial Services - October 31, 2001 (558 k pdf file) and is irrelevent.

--Gibnews 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is obsolete. You got to understand that information such as "Germany was governed by Nazis", "The US dropped a nuclear bombs on Japan" has nothing to do w/ being obsolete. This is the main article for Gibraltar and encyclopaedic information such as this must be documented. As for You already tried a RfC on this topic which got nowhere, i must assure you that this time it got to get somewhere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the article on Godwin's law

• Your reference does not say what you claim

• Please read what the OECD say about their old press releases

• there is no evidence to support the claim about 20,000 companies

• The inclusion of this nonsense adds nothing to the article.

--Gibnews 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to this source, Gibnews, the number of companies registered in Gibraltar hovers around 60,000.http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/media_articles/times3.htm That is two companies per inhabitant right?

Gibnews your denial of blatant reality after so much time is getting really irritating for everyone. It has become clear that you have no regards for the principles of wikipedia or of what the project stands for. If you want some more sources, here they are. Just take the time to read them...

• http://www.gibraltaroffshore.com/gibraltarqualifyingcompany.htm
• http://www.lawandtax-news.com/html/gibraltar/jgilatoltr.html
• http://www.sovereignsociety[dot]com/offshore1653.html
• http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?Page=10&PUBID=35&ISS=12619&SID=469278&TYPE=20
• http://www.corpestonia.ee/index.php?id=753
• http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=7323&searchresults=1
• http://www.bakertillygibraltar.gi/files/Tax%20facts%202006-07.pdf

There are dozens more. I dont know why I waste my time googling them for you... --Burgas00 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I because its quite immaterial how many companies are registered in Gibraltar. Why? because companies are like cars, they are created, registered and a large number of them are no longer around.

Nonsense to say that there are 20,000 companies benefiting from a 'favourable tax regime' this is not particularly generous:

Corporation Tax

Resident Companies Full Rate 35% Small companies Rate 20% Marginal relief 7.5% Small companies’ rate applies if taxable profits do not exceed £35,000 and the company derives at least 80% of its turnover from trading. Between £35,000 and £105,000 the full rate applies less marginal relief on the difference between £105,000 and taxable profits.

--Gibnews 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to accept that you are so ignorant of the tax system of your own territory. Read the sources well. Surely you know that Gibraltar's tax-haven status concerns its non-resident companies which do not pay corporation tax at all.

I can only ask you to read the sources I provided you AGAIN (and properly this time). I cannot believe you are from Gibraltar!!!! --Burgas00 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I never question peoples beliefs, they can be strange and illogical.

• Your reference cited to show Gibraltar is a 'tax haven' actually shows Gibraltar -- Assessment of the Regulation and Supervision of Financial Services - October 31, 2001 (558 k pdf file) so is quite irrelevent.

• None of your eight googled references say there are 20,000 companies in Gibraltar as you imply.

• What the OECD do say is That list should be seen in its historical context and as an evaluation by OECD member countries at a particular point in time of which countries met the criteria set out in the 1998 Report, Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue. More than five years have passed since the publication of the OECD list contained in the 2000 Report and positive changes have occurred in individual countries’ transparency and exchange of information laws and practices since that time. The list has not been updated to reflect such changes.

So the information is flawed, the references given do not support it and really its not nothing to do with the economy of Gibraltar, and even if it did does not belong on the main page which is simply a summary.

Why do you feel its so important, when its rubbish ?

--Gibnews 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the government of Gibraltar there are 60,000 companies registered in Gibraltar http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/media_articles/times3.htm. Of those, I assume "only" 20,000 benefit from these special concessions regarding corporation tax http://www.bakertillygibraltar.gi/files/Tax%20facts%202006-07.pdf --Burgas00 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets go round that again:

• You cannot determine the number of active companies from the company registration number.

• Only special companies benefit from exempt status and special arangements, Gibraltar based companies, which are the majority, pay at the rates given for corporation tax.

• Tax exempt companies are being phased out

• There is no evidence for 20,000 its a ficticious figure used by the Spanish media.

But a discussion of corporate structures and the myths and propaganda surrounding them does not belong in the overview of the economy of Gibraltar.

You have not answered the points I make about the references being wrong, and the figures nonsense.

--Gibnews 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, before I awnser your points I think that firstly you should accept that no one on this talk page has a bone to pick with Gibraltar, no one is out to bad mouth the territory and blanking sources is wrong. Neither is the article's purpose to promote Gibraltar. Its purpose is to explain all aspects of the territory, the good things and the "bad" things in a balanced and neutral tone.

You should, for once and for all, stop deleting information on the grounds of "conspiracies" and "slander campaigns" against Gibraltar.

I know that you are very emotional about Gibraltar, since it is your home, but I also know that you have the ability to be reasonable.

The transformation of Gibraltar's economy and legal framework and over the past few years is extremely interesting, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the territory as such. You cannot censor this article on the grounds of your love for Gibraltar.

I don't like the economics section as it stands at the moment either. It is just a collection of random quotes on whether it is a tax haven or not which is silly, childish and incoherent. I just reverted it back to the point in which more sources were available to make a point to you. We need to offer a succint summary of Gibraltar's economic and financial history, making sure it stays neutral and has no political purpose.

If this is done properly, you will be satisfied with the end result because, as we both know, Gibraltar is and has been moving, over the past few years, towards becoming a reputable and transparent financial centre.

--Burgas00 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You never stop trying to push a POV, No Gibraltar has not been 'moving to become a reputable financial centre' it always has been so. In terms of regulation and transparency, Gibraltar is presently regarded as a model jurisdiction. Its not that Gibraltar has changed, the whole world financial industry has evolved and the threat of global terrorism has forced institutions to implement 'Know Your Client' compliance etc. However, the stuff about '20,000 companies' is a big lie straight out of the Spanish anti-Gibraltar media campaign and your 'sources' simply do not say what you claim. --Gibnews 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally found the correct figure. Check out your talk page! In any case they will all be gone in 2010. So will the online gambling industry according to many, unfortunately... --Burgas00 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again the figure given is not meaningful as that is around the total number of exempt companies formed; A company may be registered for a specfic transaction overseas, or in the past they were used to own property in Spain where the law on ownership is a big mess, and it was easier to sell a company in Gibraltar (or a similar jurisdiction) than to sell the property in Spain. Most of that business was transferred to Ireland when the Spanish Goverment caught on the the tax avoidance implications of using a Gibraltar company.

Most of the exempt companies have lapsed, and the number currently is not available.

Really theres not much point in having this in the main article, currently the lawyers I know consider the Gibraltar exempt company a dead duck, so promoting its virtues or otherwise is pointless.

On betting, the outlook is brighter, I understand there are changes in the US position upcoming. Betting is like sex, religion and alcohol, they have been around for a long time and will last longer than their opponents.

But I would not invest in tobacco. --Gibnews 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"currently the lawyers I know consider the Gibraltar exempt company a dead duck, so promoting its virtues or otherwise is pointless" A Gibnews classic there. Risible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(if anyone missed the British Overseas Territory debate - "I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless for the reasons give above" Gibnews and his lawyers, eh...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds remarkably like a personal attack, rather than an attempt to clarify material for a Wikipedia article. This is not a newsgroup. I begin to suspect you are bitter about something. --Gibnews 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Panorama (Gibraltar based journal):

"The exempt status regime is not only the mainstay of the Finance Centre, it is also the basis of most of the gaming industry. These two sectors account for thousands of jobs in Gibraltar and a large chunk of our economy. Continuity is therefore of vital economic importance," said the chief minister Peter Caruana.

With the tax-exempt company regime on the way out, what will happen to the gaming companies in the short-term? Will the gambling go elsewhere before you can place a bet?

--Burgas00 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Times change and things move on, the tax exempt company is dead in the water, it may have been a mainstay of the economy when that article was written, but it has a short time to live and there are better solutions for asset protection now and under development. The future is not 'no tax' but 'low tax'

But now read this --Gibnews 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure but you accept that your position up until now directly contradicts Chief Minister Caruana's statements?

The tax-exempt regime is indeed gradually dissapearing due to pressure from the EU and international organisations...

Gibnews, what tires me is that you know perfectly well that everything Im saying is true... You are just waiting for me (and the rest) to give up on the article as so many have done in the past. Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti, thats you alright!:-)

--Burgas00 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think everything you are saying is true, in fact, you are dodging answering the points I've made. There is no way of knowing the number of active companies in any class as its not published, and the number registered includes those ceased. Personally I've set up around ten (normal trading) companies and only two remain because the particular businesses are history, eg IBM S/36 support. The references cited do not support the text, and really the section on the main page should simply be an overview not detail about arcane topics of what the OECD allegedly thought in the past.

Peter Caruana has abandoned the 'no tax' company as a dead duck and is currently promoting 'low tax' instead, the quote must be from the past. This depends on the case in the EU on regional selectivity, which requires Gibraltar to have a seperate tax system to the UK. This is being opposed by the 'usual suspects'.

However rather than waiting for you to go away to sneakily delete the stuff, I'd rather appeal to your better nature and common sense and suggest you remove it for the reasons given, mainly that its inappropriate and adds nothing of value. --Gibnews 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews I agree the section is not good as it now stands. I dont know the exact number of offshore companies in Gibraltar, and as you rightly say, maybe it is impossible to know. However it is important to explain in the article that Gibraltar is an offshore centre which attracts companies due to its low tax legislation (among other things), an example being the on-line gambling enterprises. Also Gibraltar's recent transformation, for example the end of the exempt regime etc should be mentioned. I say the section should be divided in three subsections: 1) The time when it serviced the Navy 2) Its development as an offshore centre in the 80s and 90s and 3) all the changes which have occured since the 90s and the challenges for the future.

I say we work out a real quality section here on the talk page without arguing. It could then be used to help improve the Economy of Gibraltar article. This is a longterm proposal since I wont be around for the next couple of weeks... --Burgas00 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However as we have decided there is no way of knowing the number of exempt companies and that whatever it is its not 20,000 I've reverted the item in the main article to its previous overview and look forward to what we can produce to enhance the article on the economy.

I can obtain the document about the proposed 'low tax' system. This is beginning to be implemented, with changes to the social insurance contributions paid next month introducing an earnings related basis. --Gibnews 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will help work on it at some time in the future. Perhaps a good start would be to begin compiling sources here. By sources I mean quality sources discussing Gibraltar's financial, economic and legal development, rather than short point-making sources on Gibraltar's slease or on its squeaky-cleanness. The vote by readers of best financial centre of the year in an online journal is an example of a useless source. --Burgas00 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me, after all the article should be about the economy rather than scoring debating points one way or another. When are you going to come here ? I'll introduce you to the FSC and some others who can give you the inside story on money laundering and drugs smuggling. Email me --Gibnews 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Consistent with the view that less is more there is no need for a template about trolling on this page at present. However, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick continues to make personal attacks and to post annoying messages on my user page, despite being asked not to do so. Having altered two highly contentious items on the Gibraltar page, that seems to be the limit of his contributions and one might wonders why he is obsessed with trolls.

--Gibnews 11:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:TROLL

• "trolls will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise."
• "The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise."

The fact that you claim my corrections of "UK Overseas Territory" and "Pound Sterling" are "highly contentious" (only you found them highly contentious) only serves to emphasise the point I am making. And stop claiming I am making personal attacks: I am pointing out the problems with the contributions not the contributor. Read WP:NPA (and WP:CIVIL, seeing as you rudely said to me on your talk page "if you read my contributions you might learn something useful. The reverse is not true.") The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Before my addition is removed, the views of others should be heard as to whether there should be a trolling warning on this talk page. If the consensus is no, I'm OK with that. However, I'm not OK with Gibnews dictating anything on this talk page. Note the Falkland Islands has a troll warning, and a similar set of sentiments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are good reasons for all sorts of warnings on the .fk page, however nobody else has found the need here. You seem to have an agenda of arguing with everything I say and do. But if you think that threating me and picking on me is going to do you any good, think again because that is not what wikipedia is about. If others think that a troll warning is appropriate wait for them to put it back instead of YOU dictating things. And the currency in use in Gibraltar is STILL the pound sterling and nothing else. I'm going out now to spend some. --Gibnews 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like people simply keep on adding fuel to the fire. If you want consensus you can have my opinion - remove the trolling warning. I am sure you can agree that it is only going to start another squabble. Chris Buttigieg 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the advice very applicable to this page though? "Before you post a reply, consider the effect your comments may have. When you do respond, remember that a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not." I'm not excluding myself as someone who should heed those words, either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only person going on about trolls is yourself, none of this has anything to do with creating articles about Gibraltar. I suggest you let it go and IF user:ChrisO, who watches these pages closely thinks the page needs a troll warning he can put it in and it will be left alone. However it seems your intention is simply to target issues which are contentious, and to provoke disputes and attack other users. None of this is productive. --Gibnews 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a useful template here - it only seems to be stirring up controversy. I think the participants on this talk page are well aware that trolling isn't encouraged. -- ChrisO 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that Chris Buttigieg and ChrisO think a warning is unnecessary, fair enough. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

I just reverted an anon IP who blanked the article to "Gibraltar is a city in Spain" and changed the infobox to a spain-centric one. I also notice in the history there has been repeated anon vandalism. Given the obviously contentious nature of the article (based on talk pages), should I request semi-protection to prevent sock puppets and anons? CredoFromStart 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warned. Low rate of vandalism which doesn't warrant a semi-protection for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It happens from time to time, the more subtle vandalism is worse. --Gibnews 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still getting a feel for when protection is warranted. Good article, too, to all you heavy editors! CredoFromStart 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Colosseum for an example of when semi-protection is warranted. I SP'd it indefinitely a few days ago - a very rare step, but unfortunately one that's necessary for a small number of high-profile articles (United States and George W. Bush are similar examples, for obvious reasons). Fortunately this article isn't quite in that category. We do have one obsessive repeat vandal, but other than that it's pretty good. -- ChrisO 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Falkland Islands would benefit from semi-protection as most of the vandalism comes from anon editors, often very repetetive however the temperature of the dispute over Gib is a lot lower than in the past. --Gibnews 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mosque removal

Its a nice building in a great setting, looks better than any of the cathedrals which do not lend themselves well to photography. Gibraltar is one of the few places where there is no religious conflict - there is no reason to pull this picture. --Gibnews 09:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith instead of accusing others of islamophobia. You don't know that was the motive. It may just have been thought to be a bad photo or irrelevant. I agree with you though, it shouldn't have gone. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of jumping to critise me take a look at his page which says: I joined wikipedia to mainly fix the biases of Islam-related articles and make them more NPOV The Mosque is a building we are all proud of in Gibraltar and removing it for 'religious' reasons as stated is not acceptable. Nor am I accusing anyone but stating that there is no Islamophobia in Gibraltar. --Gibnews 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree w/ his plea to keep the pic though i don't agree w/ him for mentioning the term Islamophobia. However, the excuse/motive of Sefringle (declared at the edit summary) has no grounds neither in logic nor in wikipedia guidelines or policies. We all know about Gibraltar majority being Christians but showing a mosque is as much encyclopaedic as showing a cathedral because few people know about the presence of a small muslim minority.

P.S. Please have a look at their contribs for to get a better picture behind the removal of the pic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Tetouan article. I've just put a church picture myself a couple of days ago as it is very encyclopaedic. Showing a mosque in a non-muslim place is very encyclopaedic, the same as showing a church in a muslim place. It is history. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting Indentation

I'd be curious to know what others think of Gibnews' response ("Do NOT edit my comments, its rude") after adjusting his posting [by merely adding an extra level of indentation [8]? I feel it is bad form to add a post to a talk page in the middle of others' comments, without appropriate indentation, as he often does. [9] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand threading. Both subsequent comments were in reply to your message and should therefore be at the same level. However can I suggest you spend more time in creating articles and less in trying to police what I do and provoking dispute over trivia. I asked you NOT to edit my contributions, please respect that request. Nor do I wish to argue further about this. --Gibnews 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your opinion, and that wasn't addressed to you. I've given up trying to reason with you. You now just blank my messages on your talk page with the rude comment "not interested". If you're not interested, don't bloody reply then! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 07:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try and be more civil. This is a page for discussing material for the Gibraltar article, not for pointless arguments. Its bad practice to edit other peoples comments, particularly when asked not to do so.

The original threading was correct, as both the comment from myself and that from FayssalF were in response to your message and therefore at the same indentation level;

This is all very trivial and can I politely suggest you find something productive to do rather than follow me around and critisise everything I do, and leave discussions like this to the 'style police' rather than assuming that role and getting it wrong. --Gibnews 10:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you use the same level of indenting, you shouldn't jump above others' replies. You replied AFTER them, so your post should come AFTER theirs. If you must interrupt out of sequence, make it obvious from the indentation level. And if anything, YOU are following me. For example, yesterday I posted a simple, polite question on the Talk:Falkland Islands page (to the community, not to you), and you couldn't resist baiting me there too with a very uncivil response. I would try and hold these "trivial" conversations on your talk page to not bother others, but you very uncivilly blank my messages there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have now even added a warning on your talk page. "Messages from users who have been asked to desist from posting here will be deleted without reading. Life is short and there are other things to do than argue with trolls." I think a request for comment on your behaviour on WP might be in order. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Das Boot

This is arguably the best film made about life on a submarine in wartime, and a mention of the tense scenes on passing throught the strait of Gibraltar is appropriate and highlights the practical aspects of naval control of Gibraltar for Britain which is a topic not explored in the history of Gibraltar here, despite its considerable importance.

It is also a true to life depiction of what U boat crews experienced in the strait.

Arbitary removal because one editor considers it 'trivia' is wrong.

Because of its location, Gibraltar has affected many things, and has had a much larger impact on popular culture than other places its size, and that is refected in the section describing this, which is NOT trivia. Editors with no connection to the territory may not appreciate this.

--Gibnews 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The film is relevant to the Strait of Gibraltar, not Gibraltar itself. The U-boat doesn't go to Gibraltar (how could it, in the circumstances?). If this bit of trivia is relevant anywhere, it should go in Strait of Gibraltar, not this article. -- ChrisO 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, its relevant to Gibraltar because HM Navy based in Gibraltar controlled the strait. It was them that U boat crews feared, not the water. --Gibnews

Agree with ChrisO. Although I'm vehemently opposed to these "popular culture" sections and think the whole section should go, as per the recommendations at WP:IPC ("Officially, such sections are discouraged but not forbidden"), if it really must go somewhere it is at Strait of Gibraltar. I'm removing it from this article, Gibnews, add it at Strait of Gibraltar if you really must. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Germans were scared of HM Navy not the strait. Wether the item is trivia or not is a matter of opinion and at present it seems two all. So I suggest we leave it in until someone who knows something about Gibraltar comments either way. --Gibnews 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing about its worthiness of inclusion. Must Aqaba have a sentence "A pivotal moment of the film Lawrence of Arabia was when Lawrence commanded an army of Arabs to capture the Akaba from the Turks."? What is more important to mention - the event itself, or the fact that a film was made about the event? And given that most films have pivotal moments, and any films based on true stories must occur in real places (and many fictional ones too), must every geographical Wikipedia article list every pivotal moment in film that took place there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That would actually be more relevant to Aqaba, as the town was the site of the incident in question and is shown (in fictionalised form, anyway) in the film. I've just had a look at my copy of Das Boot to refresh my memory and it doesn't depict Gibraltar at all - it only shows the lights of the British ships in the Strait. Not only is it not set in Gibraltar, it doesn't even show it! -- ChrisO 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but passing through the straits was a very anxious moment for all U boat crews because of the presence of HM Navy in Gibraltar. --Gibnews 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Google gives 31,600 English pages for 'das boot gibraltar' so others see a connection. --Gibnews 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. A Google search for "Gibraltar pink monkey balls" gives 145,000 hits. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the pages that are turned up by the former search you would find they are genuine links, because there is an association. Perhaps you should spend more time creating content and less removing other peoples contributions and trying to justify your opinion. --Gibnews 23:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't own this article. I have as much right to my opinion and my edits as you do. Stop acting like a sore loser and grow up. You win some and you lose some: get over it. A very reasonable compromise was offered to you (add it to Straits of Gibraltar) but no, you must have your way. Tantrum tantrum tantrum! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please desist from being rude and insulting others; again I suggest you spend some time creating articles instead of arguments. --Gibnews 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There's only one topic I'd go to you for advice on, it's the one on which you claim on your user page to have reached level 5. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this issue but Gibnews, I suspect you are a real fan of that movie. Am I wrong?:-)--Burgas00 23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its an excellent film and close to reality unlike for instance U-571 and most of the British war films. Not to be confused with Dos Boot a product of Microsoft :) --Gibnews 09:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Atlantic Ocean in Popular Culture: The crossing of the Atlantic Ocean was a pivotal scene of the movie 1492: Conquest of Paradise." Ridiculous or what? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum - I smell matching herrings on your hat. --Gibnews 09:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:NHA (No Hat Attacks), please comment on the contribution not the hat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are introducing spurious examples unrelated to the discussion at hand, but as I note there is no article explaining what a red herring is, you might care to create one as you seem to have a grasp of the sublect. --Gibnews 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have knowledge of Gib and Das Boot, not that it matters, since Wiki policy specifically states that local knowledge is not a sufficient basis for referencing articles. You do not own this article, Gibnews. Das Boot is a good film, although I would point out that the author of the book was scathing about its realism, saying that the director sensationalised everything and made the film very unrealistic. If you wish to keep the Das Boot trivia in, then it very obviously belongs in the Straits article. U-96 tries to transit the Straits, is attacked in the Straits, hits the bottom of the Straits, and rises to the surface of the Straits. The crew do not go for a drink in Casemates, nor do they go for a jolly up the cable car or visit the Mosque. There are tens of thousands of words to be written on (and have been written on) the value of Gibraltar's fortifications, against those, a few words about a film pale into insignificance. Chrisfow 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your point - however if you know something about Gibraltar's fortifications, perhaps you might write an article about that and do something productive. As for 'Das Boot' the crew were not afraid of the straits, but of the Royal Navy based in Gibraltar, and in that context it has some point, although it seems others seem to feel differently. --Gibnews 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do, and I am being productive by helping to keep this article mercifully free of trivia which belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, if it belongs at all. As for the fortifications, go into the excellent little bookshop on the pedestrianised bit of Main Street where it meets Governor's Lane and get one of the many books on them. If you don't want to write the article yourself, you can always find the best looking of the bunch and send it to me :) Chrisfow 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The other bookshop next to M&S is currently on a closeout sale so I might go there instead of the Gibraltar Bookshop to which you refer. I'll look for a book about the U-boat menace. If anyone complains about the trivia relating to the ficticious Molly Bloom, there is a statue to her in Alameda Gardens. --Gibnews 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think of trying to integrate the "in popular culture" section into the rest of the article, as per WP guidelines at WP:IPC? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its better 'as is' --Gibnews 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Twin City

I think I recall adding Gibraltar's twin city, Ballymena to the article some time ago and it was deleted. Any particular reason? Gibmetal 77 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

stick it back. (whatever happened to Goole?) --Gibnews 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just have. I never heard about any twinning with Goole, I've checked its article and it just says there was once a movement towards twinning with Gibraltar. Gibmetal 77 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember being sent the Goole times weekly, a search on Google finds this reference: Goole most definitely *was* twinned with Gibraltar, in 1969 to be precise, and you can read an account of how this came about on page 4 of the Goole Times of August 25th 2005. Further evidence of the twinning is the existence of Gibraltar Court in Goole, and two buildings in Gibraltar - GooleHouse, and George Jeger House named after the Goole MP of the time. The article mentions that the twinning arrangement faded away after a few years. So at least we now know who George Jeger was. Quite what the synergy with goole as a town was remains a mystery. --Gibnews 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I wonder what the connection might have been. If we had a date for when it officially stopped being a twin city it could be added to the artice with (1969 - whatever year this was). Gibmetal 77 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks it was one of those things that sounded a good idea to someone at the time, perhaps George Jeger had some friends or relations in Gib, but there was no continuity in the arangement. As Goole is a port, perhaps thats where the water tankers came from when we were not self-sufficient and both the Mod and Gov imported ? It was from somewhere on the north east of the UK. --Gibnews 13:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was probably due to something like that. I've read that Portsmouth was first considered by Gib due to the various connections. However, Portsmouth already had various twin cities and sister links and the government was looking for something that would stand out a bit more. Or something along those lines anyway... I've added it to the section, check it out.Gibmetal 77 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but I changed it to be more neutral. --Gibnews 22:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John and Yoko

I'm sorry but this is not relevant to the history of Gibraltar. So what if they got married there and that fact found its way into a Beatles song? Oh - and one thing Gibnews - if you really must label other editors' contributions as vandalism when they are not vandals, it's a good indicator that you should take a wikibreak, to either calm down or grow up (in your case, both is required). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not up to you to unilaterally decide what is and what is not important in history of Gibraltar and your action and comments are insulting. You did not discuss your deletion, and by suggesting I 'take a wikibreak' you are either again being rude or congratulating me on working hard. I shall continue with the latter. --Gibnews 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, who raised the issue first on the talk page? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Red hat, I have the impression that the purpose of your editing of this article is to annoy and harass Gibnews...

--Burgas00 11:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00, I actually find that rather rude and think an apology from you would not be out of place. My outburst above was provoked by Gibnews' reversion of my edit with the tag "rvv". He knows full well I'm not a vandal, and I don't appreciate him calling my contributions vandalistic. Even if you aren't prepared to apologise, both he and you should assume good faith. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I think we have found something we can agree about there; John Lennon was world class celeb and his marriage pivotal to the demise of the Beatles. It also makes a change to record an event totally unrelated to the usual foreign affairs topic. Removing appropriate sourced material without any discussion on the arbitary opinion of one editor sounds a good definition of vandalism to me. If the language is not to your taste you could always rewrite it instead of removing it and nothing else is recorded for 1969 in Gibraltar. --Gibnews

Acually, I think Red Hat is right on this. The history section is meant to be a precis of the longer History of Gibraltar article - it needs to be shorter than it is, not longer. The info about Lennon and Ono is utterly trivial and plainly shouldn't be in this section. The paragraph immediately below about the Prince and Princess of Wales is equally trivial and needs to come out. -- ChrisO 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If it comes out of the main article it must go in the history article. There are a number of events that happened in Gibraltar which have made world headlines and this is certainly one. Its mentioned on the Government of Gibraltar website they clearly think it important.

By way of contrast the 'Death on the Rock' fictional account of the IRA bomb plot is unimportant and was never screened here. --Gibnews 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John and Yoko were/are so notable that I would have thought this needs to gop somewhere and support its inclusion here or in the history article, SqueakBox 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Death on the Rock" was certainly very important in a British political context, even if not a Gibraltarian one, so it needs to be mentioned at that point. As for Lennon and Oko, if we're to retain it, it would probably be most appropriately placed in History of Gibraltar. -- ChrisO 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The IRA incident and its aftermath has a small section on the Gibraltar page as it is something noteworthy people refer to. There is no reason to mention the documentary in the summary of the history of Gibraltar, yes, its important in British politics but not Gibraltar history. it was not aired here as it was sub judice due to the inquest. It is mentioned in context and there is a wikipedia page about it. I got a tape of it the day after it was broadcast, which I foolishly loaned to the police. It was sensationalised nonsense. The Gibraltar Chronicle issued a commemorative poster of the John and Yoko wedding, and the picture and framed genuine copies of the certificate sell well to tourists. --Gibnews 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this being a historical event for Gibraltar but I do believe it is worth a mention in the article, probably the "In popular culture" section would be the right place for it. Gibmetal 77 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, redhat, I apologise, but the issues you are getting all worked up about are rather inconsequential so I thought it might be something personal.--Burgas00 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

UEFA

I know that you are not going to agree with me Gibnews and I am not going to push my point. But isnt the whole UEFA section a bit too much? I know it is a big issue in Gibraltar but it seems like an overly extensive exercise of Spain-bashing for the main article on Gibraltar. I really think it should simply take up a line in the politics section and a link to the article on the relevant issue.

I didnt know the yoko ono stuff was in the history section. I guess it should be in a trivia section or in the "popular culture section right? --Burgas00 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: it deserves a summary sentence in the politics section and a link to the Gib FA article discussing in more depth. At the very least, the last paragraph should go because WP is not a crystal ball. WP:NOT#CBALL - "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". ("A possible remedy is for Gibraltar to join the African Federation..." etc). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On Although it has been suggested Gibraltar joins the African football federation its not going to happen, and does not deserve inclusion; the legal action will continue as that will ultimatly get a result. Spain deserves critisism for being remarkably childish. If the faroe Islands can be in UEFA Gibraltar certainly should. There is no danger the Spanish autonomies can join in the manner of Scotland and Wales as the rules have changed, so its simple Gibraltar bashing.

But perhaps a mention in the Gibraltar article and a link to a detailed review somewhere else.

However, those events where Gibraltar has hit the international media, such as the Lennon wedding and Prince Charles's honeymoon sailing, deserve a mention in the history of Gibraltar and give some balance to the other items and are more interesting than 'The naval Battle of Gibraltar' 1607. --Gibnews

I had a stab at moving and condensing the UEFA bit. Yoko and John though really is trivia/popular culture, not history. If you insist on adding it to the article please add it there. Prince Charles' honeymoon though - I agree 100% that is history, because he's second in line to the British throne and his presence in Gibraltar is an obvious poke in the ribs to the Spanish. Where did that text go anyway? It used to be there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ps if a source can be provided that backs up the claim that JC didn't go to the wedding cos of Charles' Gib stopover. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to look for one and include it and the item. My camera jammed on the day so can't add any exclusive photos. --Gibnews