Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 8

Mountain of Tāriq?

I have just made a bit of a discovery... According to this source, Jabal Tāriq would not mean Mountain of Tāriq but Mountain of the path. It states that Islamic law forbids the naming of things after people or animals. I have never before heard of this and found it very interesting. If this is correct the etymology of Gibraltar included in the article would be inaccurate. Gibmetal 77^talk 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The etymology of Gibraltar is a very interesting subject. It universally acknoledged that when Tariq ibn-Ziyadd invaded, they called the rock Jabal Tariq, or Tariq's Mount - this eventually changed to Gibraltar. However, when Tariq landed in Gibraltar in 711, the Rock was named Jabal Al Fath and the town Medinat Al Fath, which meant the Mountain of Victory and the City of Victory respectively, just like you said. The thing is that this idea is more of a hypothesis or speculation as opposed to having actually been proven. I remember Clive Finlayson from the museum having mentioned all this to me some time ago. The Encyclopædia Britannica notes it as Mountain of Tāriq, but then again just have a look at WP:EBE. -- Chris.B 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I too find the subject very interesting. Maybe we could get a specialist in Islamic law involved... Gibmetal 77^talk 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a specialist in Islamic law would be much use. Islamic laws have been historically flouted throughout the Muslim world. You only have to look at the paintings of Mohammed in 12th and 13th century Persia. Wine, for example, was widely consumed by muslims and non muslims alike in Al Andalus.

I guess we just need an authoritative etymology. In the arab world Gibraltar is known as the mountain of Tariq (Jebel Tariq) so I dont think there is any need to question its etymology. Tariq does not mean path in Arabic as far as I know... --Burgas00 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone could confirm that it was forbidden to name a place after a person in those days it would be useful. Are you fluent in Arabic? Gibmetal 77^talk 06:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some notion of Arabic, but obviously not enough. Tariq does mean road. :-) http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82 --Burgas00 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't read your link but I've researched the word elsewhere and it does indeed mean road, street or path. Possibly where the word for road or street Triq in Maltese comes from. We might be getting somewhere eventually... Gibmetal 77^talk 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in Arabic, as in Maltese the word for road stresses the i (there is no vowel for a), its tareeq, or treeq) whereas the name tareq stresses the A as in Taareq. Since in Spanish its GibralTAR (stressing the last syllable) this would imply that it originates from Taareq as opposed to Tareeq. I hope Im making sense. No backing for this theory, I just thought it up right now... :-) --Burgas00 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another valid theory I guess. I wonder if we'll ever get passed theories though... Gibmetal 77^talk 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish general PUBLIC stance?

In the article it mentions the political relations and gvernment opinions on the matter, but what about neighbouring Spanish general public like La Línea de la Concepción and the Cádiz (province) in general? Are they indifferent and have no hostilities towards British people based on the situation of Gibraltar? - The Daddy 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose a vox populi? Chris.B 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'the situation of Gibraltar' might mean but at latitude 36.12 North and 5.35 West its as permanant as the cliche 'Rock of Gibraltar'. --Gibnews 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter what the Spanish public's stance is? It's nothing to do with them! YourPTR! 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid bias. An unbiased observer would feel that the public deserves to know Spain's justification. Why not include it? In particular, why was my reference to Treaty of Utrecht removed? Many Spaniards feel that Great Britain violated this treaty by granting Gibraltar more sovereignty. The treaty did stipulate that if Britain were to give away Gibraltar, Spain would be preferred as its recipient

And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others [1]

Why don't anglophones deserve to know this fact? I think the english Wikipedia page for Gibraltar does a good job of present the British or Gibraltarian perspective, but there is no real justification for Spain's point of view here, which is a real problem for students like me who are tasked to RESEARCH both points of views. Don't people deserve to know both perspectives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogdeniam (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah the republicans have finally got a grasp of the situation ... whatever the problem may be the only solution is a matter for the Gibraltarians, we are united on that. --Gibnews 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Would that be a republican or a Unionist? It seems to me he is a Unionist/Imperialist. :-) I didnt know there were people who wanted to bring back the British Empire...

As for the position of the general public in Spain, I have mentioned this quite a few times (I happen to be in Spain at the moment), no one really gives a damn about Gibraltar. Most Spaniards (at least those who have ever given the issue any thought) will favour Gibraltar returning to Spain on principle, but will be easily swayed simply by informing that they can buy cigarettes and alcohol cheaper there...

--Burgas00 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's so true, you summed it up well. -- Chris.B 09:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

Visiting Spain regularly, things are very friendly. Its just a few relics from the past fueled up with propaganda who want to argue endlessly about 'Gibraltar espanol' Spain has enough problems not to worry about little Gibraltar prospering by doing its own thing.

Suggest you look again at that user page - but remember the politics of Ireland are quite different to those of Gibraltar where we are united. --Gibnews 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the Campo region (which is the Spain you visit I guess) such feelings remain among some due to proximity and historical envy towards their "rich cousins". But I personally have never heard the expression "Gibraltar Español" used ever in Spain, except in jest. (See Torrente 2, where Gibraltar is blown up by the main character).

I looked again at this guy's userpage, unless my understanding of British politics is completely wrong, he is a Unionist right??? --Burgas00 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you search for 'Gibraltar espanol' in youtube you will have plenty to watch. And funnily enough, David de Maria shared the same thought some months back in one of his concerts. -- Chris.B 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about that editor, I looked quickly and saw 'a united Ireland' didn't read the bit about it being re-united ... thats about as likely as the Spanish reclamation of territory lost in 1704. We do get visiting groups of children singing songs about 'Gibraltar Espanol' their teachers are not doing anyone a favour, but these days its all laughed off. Occasionally a yacht flies a red and yellow flag and is not immediatly sunk by naval gunfire. The Spanish media are claiming the "New Flame" is in Algeciras waters (its grounded just off Europa Point) however if it leaks oil the betting is the newspapers will blame Gibraltar :)

See: http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?GPIX070821_1.xml

youtube seems to be the best place to taunt the less well informed who have rather strange views and think Franco was a pretty cool guy. Please do not encourage them to join us, or I'll have to invite user:Gibraltarian to return to deal with it ... --Gibnews 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Spaniards are the biggest hypocrites in Europe, yeah even worse than the Irish that want to reunify with PART of the UK rather than ALL of it. No can do, the UK won't be divided any further you either unite will ALL of us or NONE of us! Now Spain with its illegitimate claim to British territory (dont cede territory to another state if you want to keep it...like DUH!), wouldn't be clinging on to territory in North Africa like some sort of fascist? Ceuta and Melilia belong to Morroco!!! Gibraltar belongs to Britain as PART of Britain and the 26 counties belong in the UK alongide the rest of the nations that make up the British Isles. A united Ireland through the reunfication of the United Kingdom that is the key. YourPTR! 10:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem for Gibraltar is to be part of a modern Europe despite the UK and Spain, I think we are doing rather well, but if you want to discuss the details and politics involved, this is not reallty the place. Gibraltar is however focused on the future - people know what they want, what they don't want and are united in purpose. The Spanish are free to think whatever they like and as noted generally there are no problems on a personal level. Its amusing that the Spanish workers here now complain that benefits are not as good as at home, where they cannot find employment. --Gibnews 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish workers should be finding work within their own country and jobs in Gibraltar should be filled by local residents. The best way to secure Gibraltar's Britishness and also end colonialism in Gibraltar is to integrate the territory into the United Kingdom as a self governing nation with representation at Westminster and the same status as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A referendum should be held on this issue and I see no reason why a large majority would not be in favour of such a proposal and vote YES, do you? YourPTR! 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it is interesting to note that Gibraltar already has many similarities to a UK nation. I would consider a inhabitant to be Gibraltarian-British, just like I am myself personally English-British. It has a flag that is befitting of a UK nation rather than the style used traditionally by overseas territories which consist of the colonies coat of arms in the right and the UK flag in the canton. Gibraltar is unique amongst the overseas territories in this regard! It even has a local national anthem just like the nations that make up the UK! It also uses its own local version of the pound just like England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the crown dependencies which are similar to Gibraltar in several regards but are not overseas territories and also have developed more of a sense of nationhood over a longer span of history). I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those are some of the more obvious ones I can think of. It would make an ideal nation within the UK and I think this is where it belongs, providing that's what its inhabitants want of course and why wouldnt they? They overwhelmingly consider themselves British, they completely reject any integration or shared sovereignty with Spain and they seem to want an end to the colonial situation (as does the UN). Independence is not only impractical it is something they don't want. Devolved integration with the UK seems to be the most logical and best solution that meets all of Gibraltar's needs. :) YourPTR! 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly that cannot come about due to Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht.

Although your viewpoint is appreciated, this is really not the place to discuss such issues. See WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." -- Chris.B 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris B that this is not a place for debate, however, I would not agree with you that the ToU has any application to modern life - it does not constain us anymore than Article IX guarantees that Minorca remains British forever.

User:YourPTR you make some sweeping assumptions about what the people of Gibraltar want. Although its well established that joint sovereignty is unwelcome, and some here sleep in union jack pyjamas with a picture of the queen over their beds dreaming of union with Britain - they are also a small minority. yes we are British, sadly more so than many people who live in Britain. Political union with the UK? Not today thanks.

--Gibnews 16:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So what status would be preferred by a majority of Gibraltarians? Something like Monaco or Andorra?

--Burgas00 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has asked them, but it seems at present the preferred option is the 'Status Quo' which perhaps gives us more freedom than either Monaco or Andorra. You need to read the question in the 2002 referendum carefully as it is often missreported in the media. --Gibnews 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to everyone: Wikipedia is not a forum. You can express your views on the subject elsewhere. The only thing that fits here is reliable second-hand sources. Thanx. Schizophonix 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You may find this article useful. --Gibnews 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Utrecht

This remains the oldest cited treaty by the British, however most of it has lapsed, and the remaining Article X would not stand up to a review my the ECHR as it is in direct conflict with todays Human Rights law.

Like many of the treaties of the day it a historical anacronism, which in any event was swiftly broken by Spain despite being confirmed under subsequent agreements.

The full text is included in Wikipedia and it serves no purpose to include bits of it in the article about Gibraltar. --Gibnews 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Links to the entire text are provided, and regardless of whether it is obsolete or not, there is really no need include random fragments of it to reiterate a paragraph. In any case Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris B • talk 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If I misquoted or misused the text of the Treaty of Utrecht, by all means your deletion of that was appropriate. But don't you think English speakers deserve to know why Spaniards feel Britain violated this treaty by granting Gibraltar home rule? My personal opinion is that they have a somewhat weak case, because the treaty did not oblige Britain to return the land to Spain, but rather preferred Spain to any other entity. Nevertheless, I think it's worthwhile to explain Spain's justification, if for no other reason than to understand their motives. I write this as an Anglophone who was forced to go to Spanish Wikipedia to pick up this fact about the Treaty of Utrecht. Why does the English wikipedia not include it? Don't people deserve to know both perspectives?

Once again, the treaty says the following regarding Gibraltar:

And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others. [2]

As you put it, "Who Cares What Spaniards Think?" Well, anyone doing any sort of research regarding what Spaniards think would want to know this fact. I was unable to find it on the English Wikipedia, so I was forced to find it on the Spanish one, but not everyone is bilingual. Any anglophone who researches this topic deserves to know Spain's justification. Politics and Nationalism should have nothing to do with it.

--Ogdeniam 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The ToU is a historical curiosity which has no application to Gibraltar today, and anyway the Spanish Government does not respect it.

The topic is covered in depth in the article about the sovereignty dispute and there is no need to include quotes in the main article. However you are wrong in your assertion that 'Britain violated the treaty by giving Gibraltar 'home rule' The ToU simply says that in the event that Gibraltar ceases to be British that Spain should be offered the territory. Today Gibraltar is more British than Birmingham. It reads better in the original bad latin;

Quod si vero Coronae Magnae Britanniae commodum olim visum fuerit, donare, vendere, aut quoquo modo ab se alienare dictae Urbis Gibraltiricae proprietatem, conventum hisce concordatumque est, ut prima ante alios ejus redimendae optio Coronae Hispanicae semper deferatur.

So even under article X of the ToU, which would not stand up in any modern court, providing the Queen of England remains the head of state of Gibraltar the reversion option is not available.

The Spanish wikipedia is full of nonsense, it makes them happy, but what they think is of no importance.

--Gibnews 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say the spanish wiki is full of nonsense. The article on Gibraltar is very similar to this one!--Burgas00 00:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would. [3] That was on for nearly a year. -- Chris B • talk 06:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The editors there fiercly protect their beliefs, like The Airport where they insist that its built sobre territorio controlado por el Reino Unido which is nonsense - its an integral part of Gibraltar and controlled by the Gibraltar Government. --Gibnews 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar photo galleries

Any reason why these have been removed from the external links section? There's a link to wiki commons but there aren't many pictures on there. I know one can search on Flickr etc but I think there should be at least one good quality gallery of images linked from the article. Alexander-Scott 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

good point, put them back I say ! --Gibnews 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar -v- Gibraltarian

I have just moved the pages describing elections from Gibraltarian to Gibraltar which is the correct term.

Gibraltarian refers to the people, a general election is specific to the territory and not the people, and indeed non-gibraltarians resident can participate and vote.

Perhaps someone who is a whizz with wiki can use a tool to fix all the links to 'Gibraltarian elections' and 'Gibraltarian constitution'.

--Gibnews 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose we ought to move Gibraltarian cuisine as well. -- Chris B • talk 14:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a valid use of the word, but not the election, and as I explained to someone before I know a Gibraltar lawyer who is Irish and lives in Spain - he is not a Gibraltarian lawyer. --Gibnews 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I named Gibraltarian cuisine like that as it the cuisine belongs to the place (e.g. Maltese cuisine). So as Gibnews says I think it's in valid use. But feel free to correct it if you find a source that states this is wrong. Gibmetal 77^talk 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ok then -- Chris B • talk 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

Changed to "God Save the King" due to being part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Dependencies. Source being [4] Sammy Jay 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The monarch is currently female. --Gibmetal 77^talk 09:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

that bears no relation to the name of the song. Only the words with in it. For all dependencies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the name of the Anthem remains "God Save the King" although the issue of the "Royal Anthem" for other Commonwealth member states still lies unresolved. Sammy Jay 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As Gibraltar is not a dependency we can call the tune whatever we like.--Gibnews 00:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar is however a British overseas territory, and as a result shares the Same name for the Royal Anthem as other members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Much like the Royal Anthem for Scotland is called "God save the King", although different to the national anthem I agree. I do not deny you may call it what you want. However I am allowed to call a raspberry a "Bubbly Strawberry" people may know what I mean, but it is still the wrong name. [5]Sammy Jay 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the programme to the recent ceremony of the keys, which is an official function organised by the Governors office and the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, I note that its described as 'the National Anthem'. As HE is the representative of HM, then thats the official name used for the tune here. Others can call it whatever they care, it sounds the same, and I'm happy to stand up in respect. Should anyone wish to replace it with the Marcha Real, they might not manage the full six bars, which is all that is played of the British one. --Gibnews 11:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The main article on Wikipedia is called however, God Save the Queen. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the biggest load of rubbish I think I've ever heard. For starters it is not the 'Royal' Anthem because Gibraltar is NOT a Commonwealth Realm. Secondly, as has already been pointed out, the main article is called God Save the Queen and with very good reason. It has been decided at that article to call the anthem after whatever gender the reigning monarch is, regardless of the official name of the song. In the same way the official name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the article is still called "United Kingdom".

Going round changing the name all over the place is completely absurd and pointless. Though all respect for picking up on it. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

so we are sticking with something, which although not wholly accurate, is just simpler because more people understand... It might therefore be easier to Call the British flag the "Union Jack" because most people understand that. But I will give up for now on trying to be exact. Sammy Jay 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I too prefer to be exact whenever possible. But there are good instances where one has to deviate. I think this is one. Union Flag and Union Jack is actually a lot more grey than this debate. As you say, quite rightly, the song is called "God Save the King". But you've got to remember this site is mostly for Americans, and they might be confused. That's assuming they actually take any interest in other countries, of course... Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty

The following sentence is inaccurate: "(Spain requests the return of) sovereignty, ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713". Spain did not cede or lend the "sovereignty" of Gibraltar, but the property of the "city and castle", meaning it gave Britain the ownership of the land, like a piece of property, not sovereignty. The Treaty of Utretcht states:

The Catholic King... in virtue of this Treaty cedes the complete and full ownership of the city and castle of Gibraltar to the Crown of Great Britain, together with its port, defenses and fortresses... it must be understood that this property is transferred to Great Britain with no territorial jurisdiction whatsoever and with no open connection by land to..

(Spanish) ""El Rey católico, por sí y por sus herederos, cede por este Tratado a la Corona de la Gran Bretaña, la plena y entera propiedad de la ciudad y castillo de Gibraltar, juntamente con su puerto, defensa y fortalezas, que le pertenecen ... y se ha de entender que la dicha propiedad se cede a la Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna territorial y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país circunvecino por parte de tierra." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk • contribs) Nov 3, 2007

For starters your quotations are wrong. "The Catholic King does hereby [...] yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town [...]." The distinction between the concepts of "Territorial Sovereignty" and Crown's Property were hardly recognised in 1713 and both terms were used interchangeably. Cessions of Territorial property normally included cessions of Sovereignty. Thus by ceding the full and entire propriety of Gibraltar to the Crown of Great Britain, the King of Spain transferred Gibraltar's sovereignty. -- Chris B • talk 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and 'Territorial Jurisdiction' simply means that Gibraltar has not control over the neigbouring part of Spain. However this is not really the place to have a debate about an antique treaty which has been made obsolete by developments in human rights, concepts of nationality etc. --Gibnews 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'll allow me, the quotation in English is my own translation of the Spanish version of the text. It may not be exact, but the content is the same. In any case, the point is that the text says: "without territorial jurisdiction" (my translation) which clearly refers to the sovereignty of the rock. (Please reproduce the original English version to see the exact wording). Many history books support this claim and it is one of the points the Spanish government has made to the British government for a very long time. This is an important point that the article cannot ignore. The article should at least read:

Spain requests the return of the territory, the property of which (and arguably its sovereignty) was ceded by Spain in perpetuity in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what it says, your translation is flawed. The term 'territorial jurisdiction' means that Gibraltar was not longer the regional capital controlling the area still known as 'El Campo Gibraltar' it may be convenient to translate the word Propriety into Property however its not correct. The MAE accepts the principle that sovereignty was transferred to Britain in 1713, although they may dispute the actual area involved. Neither party to the ToU are willing to argue the case in an international court. Attempting to rewrite history to extend a an irrelevent claim here when even the Spanish Ministry does not support it, is a waste of time. Looking at more recent agreements, for example the Cordoba agreement signed by Spain it says sovereignty is an issue between the UK and Spain. One holds it and the other would like it. --Gibnews (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Above all, let us not make this a political discussion. Let us stick to the objective facts. Spain does not recognize the British sovereignty over Gibraltar. That's why it is a disputed territory. Spanish governments since the 18th century have specifically claimed that Spain did not cede the sovereignty (territorial jurisdiction) under the Treaty of Utretch, only the property of the rock (and castle). If you say my translation is flawed then let us have the original English version of the Treaty, please reproduce it here. Another issue is the actual territorial area in dispute (that neutral land was occupied by Britain, or the runway was built on Spanish waters) but that is secondary. Spain primarily disputes the sovereignty of Gibraltar because the Treaty does not mention transfer of sovereignty (jurisdiction) to Britain. This is not an irrelevant claim. It is precisely the core of the historical dispute.62.15.140.66 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to you or anyone to analyse a three hundred year old antiquated treaty. The treaty does mention transfer of sovereignty in that it ceded the "entire propriety of the town". There was no distinction between "Territorial Sovereignty" and "Crown's propriety" in 1713, and for one to make assumptions on that based on a hairsplitting scrutiny of the text will yield a misguided view, just like that of the Spanish claim. -- Chris.B | talk 12:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point of view seems at varience with the official statements of the Spanish Ministry, like the following:

Comunicado sobre la titularidad española de la soberanía sobre el istmo de Gibraltar.

"La Oficina de Información Diplomática del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores hace público el siguiente comunicado:Con el pretexto de responder a un artículo sobre Hong Kong, el Embajador de S.M. británica ha realizado en una carta al diario ABC afirmaciones que el Gobierno español no puede aceptar ni pasar por alto.España no reconoce al Reino Unido más soberanía sobre Gibraltar que la que se deriva del Art. X del Tratado de Utrecht. etc.

Spain haggles about the Istmus and the land reclamation, but recognises that the main area became British in 1713. The much quoted principle of territorial integrity would prevent those other integral parts of Gibraltar passing to another state. Further discussion here is pointless. --Gibnews (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The question of soverignty is an explicit point of the Treaty and not at all a a "hairsplitting" exercise. The text clearly and specifically differentiates between "property" and "territorial jurisdiction". Even after 300 years the meaning of this sentence is understandable and clear! The translated version of the text (not original) says:

it must be understood that this property is transferred to Great Britain with no territorial jurisdiction whatsoever and with no open connection by land to..

Please reproduce the original English version if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are selectivly quoting there. You cut the sentence off before it goes on to say:

..the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about

The territorial jurisdiction refers to the neighbouring parts of spain, as has been said before. All reliable sources state spain ceded Gibraltar in 1713, so that is what we go with, how we decide to interpret the wording of a 300 year old treaty is totally immaterial. Narson (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You can read the original version of Article X of the treaty Here plus the official Spanish and English translations. Other articles of the ToU deal with dividing up the slave trade, British Minorca and lots of things which gone past their 'best by' date. The 'Peace of Utrecht' was a milestone in settling the boundaries of Europe of the day. Trying to change its accepted meaning with a bad translation is a pointless exercise. --Gibnews (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the relevant section of the original English version of the Treaty of Utretch, and for providing a link to the full text. I don't understand your comment about "selectively quoting". My point is clearly proven in the sentence you have reproduced: "the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction". What more can be said? If the intention was to cede Gibraltar with full jurisdictional rights this phrase would not have been included. I rest my case.62.15.140.66 (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

'Selectively quoting' means you were chopping the quote off to make it clearly support your view without providing the remainder of the sentence for context. Your point goes against all the standard interpretations of the text and against (IMO) the context of the sentence. You have to remember that this is 300 year old English, the sentence structure is somewhat different. Regardless, this is all WP:OR. The realiable sources state spain ceded Gibraltar. We go with their interpretation. Narson (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up with the Spanish Foreign Office, who accept that sovereignty was transferred, when you have convinced them, return. --Gibnews (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Narson, I still don't see your point about "selectively quoting". I am quoting the entire sentence of that section in the Treaty. There is nothing to "selectively" quote. It is plain and simple: ..the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about. Where is the "selective" quote? 62.15.140.66 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into a political debate when it should be an academic discussion. The only objective point I am trying to make is that "sovereignty" was never ceded, only the "property" of Gibraltar. The Treaty clearly says it. What is the problem? If this is hard to understand or you are not used to the idea (because most books ignore this fact) please make an effort and open your minds to this simple, objective evidence. 62.15.140.66 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read above, you did not quote the sentence in full until your last response. Verifiable sources state spain ceded sovereignty in the treaty. That sentence can be read in various ways. This is not as clear cut as you seem to believe nor is yours a viewpoint backed up by any reliable sources you have brought to the discussion. Narson 14:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

which map?

Hey guys, where did my map go? I saw you put a better general map of Gibraltar in the paragraph about subdivisions: 250px|right|thumb|Map of Gibraltar. Where I had a modified general map with less detail, but showing the location of the subdivisions (Major Residential Areas): Image:Gibraltar-detail2.png. The new map has more detail, but does not show the subdivisions. That's where I have a problem. Now one could modify that map too, to place the numbers as in the subdivisions table on the map. But that highly detailed map is not that good to handle, because of its resolution. My suggestion is leave the new highly detailed map further up in the article, and restore the old subdivisons map in the subdivisions paragraph.--Ratzer (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been said before and here it is again THERE ARE NO SUBDIVISIONS in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something has been said before does not make it correct. You are right in that there are no ADMINISTRATIVE subdivisions in Gibraltar, but obviously there are statistical/census subdivisions, and probably electoral districts. The census subdivisions on the lowest level are probably similar to the American Census blocks. City blocks are also subdivisions. In the case of Gibraltar, some of them even appear to be named, such as Europa Flats. But YOU tell me more about it, you are the local.--Ratzer (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no 'electoral districts' as such, in an election there are a number of polling stations supporting the areas around them, however it has been and will be different each time. Similarly although for the purposes of a census there are different enumeration areas, they have varied and are not meaningful outside the scope of collecting that data. Nor are there 'city blocks'. Things are quite different to the US. Since the 1980's Gibraltar has seen great shifts of population and currently we have another under way. In the future there is a big development on the East side of the rock. Constant change is here to stay. --Gibnews (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are city blocks. Every city that has streets and buildings can be subdivided into building blocks. Do I need to zoom into the city map of Gibraltar on Google Maps to show you some city blocks in Gibraltar? Whether a city uses building blocks as a geographic reference for statistical data is an entirely different question. Your other argument that the enumeration areas are not meaningful outside of the scope of collecting data is in contrast to your statement that in the future there is a big development on the East side of the rock. How can you document those regionally different developments within Gibraltar if you treat the whole area of Gibraltar as one homogeneous mass? East Side is one of the "Major Residential Areas" as defined by the census. --Ratzer (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure about 'city blocks' ... much of Main Street and the upper town are a sprawling interconnected mass rather than in neat blocks. There are no administrative areas. For the convenience of the census Gibraltar may be broken up into areas but they have no meaning apart from that. The Eastside is not a major residential area as yet. Hope that clarifies things --Gibnews (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Who writes about administrative areas? Nobody. East side is a major residential area according to Census 2001 document [6], specifically the one with the least population (as of 2001) and the only one consisting of only one Enumeration Area (E.A. 1, with "Catalan Bay, Catalan Bay Village, Sir Herbert Miles Road, Both Worlds" (the latter probably the area around Sandy Bay).--Ratzer (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the word 'major' means something different to you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, however mine says that the East side currently has a low population density but in future will increase to the same levels as the rest. The development formerly known as 'Both Worlds' is currently the only residential facility at Sandy bay. Camping, caravans and sleeping on the beach being illegal in Gibraltar. Where do you want to go with this ? --Gibnews (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Residential Area (the component words should be capitalized to be correct) does not mean anything specific to me, nor do I wish to express something specific by using the qualifyer Major. It's just the term taken from the official Gibraltar document [7]. By the way, I have seen pictures of the residential units at Sandy Bay, with the very steep slope up the rock right behind the buildings, I don't see which way you could expand there, unless you make land reclamation from the sea on the East Side too. Or you build twice as high as before. Or excavate the rock. I'm certainly interested in observing this development, although from a distance (since I'm not a resident).--Ratzer (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Eastside, which unlike the phrase 'major residential area' should be capitalised (spelt correctly) consists of a large reclamation North of Catalan Bay which itself is North of Sandy Bay. There is a proposal to build on the slopes above that, but the bulk of the development will be on the reclamation with tall buildings etc. At present there are very few people living round there. Its some distance away from me too. --Gibnews (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Death on the Rock

The events in Gibraltar are relevant to the article, the subsequent court events are NOT and are covered under the "main" link to Operation Flavius. Just because something is sourced doesn't make it relevant. If I put "the sun is 93 million light years away from earth" into the article, with a link to a reference, that doesn't mean it should stay, does it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but the details regarding the court case go hand in hand with Operation Flavius, which we seem to have agreed is relevant to Gibraltar. Removing it cuts off the whole section quite abruptly so I really see no harm in leaving it. Had it been useless trivia, I would be inclined to say otherwise. Chris.B (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It should really be merged into the "history" section (where it is already mentioned). The military section is inappropriate: it is not as though the military in Gibraltar are engaged in a long-running and ongoing operation against the IRA, it was an isolated incident that occurred in Gibraltar's past. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, and have also readded, more succincntly, the information about the court cases. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the text in the Gibraltar article is an almost direct repetition of that in Operation Flavius. The inquest and rulings were about the SAS and the British Government, not about Gibraltar. If the IRA members had been killed in Brighton or Port Stanley, the outcome would not have been different. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The original wording was carefully chosen to describe the incident and its conclusion as an important item of Gibraltar history. It made the headlines across the world and many people look up Gibraltar to see about it. The other wikipedia pages go into more detail, but this is appropriate. It is important to keep the conclusion there as some wish to imply it was different.

I suggest that you spend more time in creating pages about a topic you understand rather than removing material and engaging in lengthy inappropriate arguments trying to justify it. --Gibnews (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. They are duly ignored, as ever. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, the fact that "words were carefully chosen" (I'm sure they were) is not a reason for them becoming permanently entrenched into the article. I moved and condensed the text to the right section - the history section. You have just come in, guns blazing, and wholesale reverted it, on no basis other than that you don't like it. Please let the revised version stand and see what others think, before reverting it out of what seems to be nothing other than spite. And remember, even if you wrote the bulk of the article, everyone has the same right to edit it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote its been there for a while and unless your aim is simply to start another edit war, please respect the opinion of others and listen to our views before trashing what is considered important content. --Gibnews (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh do pipe down. Chris B's comment referred to a previous version that I have since modified. So despite your edit comment, noone has said either way which version is better. Under the circumstances, you should really let my revised version stand.

• Current "Glibnews" State [8] - "Death on the Rock" appears in two sections (history & military). Result: subject matter is duplicated within the article, and discussed in an an inappropriate section (military).
• Proposed New "Red Hat" State [9] - text from military section is condensed, excised and unified with the text in the history section. Result: the subject is dealt with in only one place in the article, the right place (it's a historical event), and it's more succinct. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Provided that the content is there in a non-mutilated state, I honestly do not see the difference in it being at the top, bottom or middle. Having it in the history section makes it no more relevant than having it in the military section IMO. Neither does it become more appropriate. Edit-warring is not going to solve anything and with respect to being more succinct: well better succinct than verbose, but not if it entails chopping off half the incident or what have you. Chris.B (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the specifics of the ruling by the European Court of Human rights, not even located in Gibraltar, is relevant to an article on Gibraltar? Specifically, this clause: "dismissing unanimously the applicants' claims for damages, for costs and expenses incurred by the original inquest, and for any remaining claims for just satisfaction" It is a word for word copy from Operation flavius#European_Court_of_Human_Rights where it is relevant. And why is it relevant to an article on Gibraltar that the British government violated Article 2 of the human rights convention? The impact of the court decision was on the deceaseds' families, the British government and the SAS, not on Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the entire section should be trimmed down about that, we don't need to know about the inquest, we also don't need to know whether they were unarmed or whether they had a car full of explosives, we have a whole article on it. Narson (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this version then [10]? On 6 March 1988, as part of Operation Flavius, SAS troops shot and killed three members of the IRA who were planning an attack on the British Army band. All three were unarmed at the time, but a car hired by the three was subsequently discovered in Spain with 64 kg (141 lb) of Semtex explosive The ensuing controversy prompted a major political row in the UK and became the subject of a Thames Television documentary, Death on the Rock. An inquest was held in Gibraltar, with the jury returning a verdict of lawful killing by a 9-2 majority[9], and the case was later unsuccessfully taken to the European Court of Human Rights by the families of the deceased. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd trim it down to On 6 March 1988, as part of Operation Flavius, SAS troops shot and killed three members of the IRA who were planning an attack on the British Army band. The ensuing controversy prompted a major political row in the UK and became the subject of a Thames Television documentary, Death on the Rock. An inquest was held in Gibraltar, with the jury returning a verdict of lawful killing by a 9-2 majority[9], and the case was later unsuccessfully taken to the European Court of Human Rights by the families of the deceased.

The striked out bit is possibly relevent but could probably be summerised in a less convoluted manner with Despite appeals, the killings were ruled lawful in a majority verdict. Just my opinion though. Narson (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but the mentioning of the court verdict was a compromise for Chris B and Glibnews. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The referral to the ECHR was not an appeal, it was a review. Its important to state what the respective verdicts were as there is dispute on whether it was 'an act of terrorism' which the ECHR confirms. This puts whole affair into context. Its hard to get it into less words without losing something and the paragraph is quite short for what was a significant event involving international terrorism, people being shot in the street - something that otherwise has not happened and controversial and expensive inquest under the spotlight of the international community followed by a review by the ECHR.

The original wording achieved its objectives and was sufficiently NPOV that the IRA sympathisers left it alone. I think it was originally in a section on its own rather than part of the military or history because it was an event of significant importance in itself. --Gibnews (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And what, pray does any of that have to do with Gibraltar? Nothing whatsoever. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My strength of opinion on this is not amazing, just a general feeling that so much detail for what is, in my opinion, a minor part of Gibraltar's history is unnecessary, however, it is not something I would fight to keep down....if some people feel it is important, I have to admit I don't see the 'harm' either, though I prefer the much slimmed down version or the version /before/ all the editing began, the compromise text in the middle just seems half assed, lacking brevity but still lacking the detail one would expect having got so into it. Narson (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The incident has major significance in both the history of Gibraltar and British policy on dealing with Irish republicans. It showed that the 'shoot to kill' policy was contentious in the view of the ECHR although the Gibraltar Constitution has not been changed in the light of their opinion. In terms of 'things people ask about the rock' its one of the top questions, and regrettably one which some people do not grasp, as when I interviews passengers for the MV Aurora one said he did not care for Gibraltar because we supported the IRA (!)

Prior to the incident, one could leave a suitcase in the main square and expect to find it undisturbed on the same spot the next day, that changed overnight, and Governors of Gibraltar have since rightly considered themselves terrorist targets. The full truth of the incident will not be known for many years, as almost everyone involved lied to some extent. However the facts presented in the Gibraltar article are accurate and deserve to be available complete. --Gibnews (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)