This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I am just wondering what the relevance is of breaking down educational achievment by religion and race?
A few years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a show called Engineering the Impossible. One of the items mentioned was a bridge connecting Gibraltar to Morroco. What the show never answered was "Would anyone use it?"
Now I ask you, would such a bridge, mentioned in at least one science fiction book, be something worthwhile? Or would it be the destination rather than a route? Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But the quick answer to your question is ... NO
-- Gibnews 09:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a tunnel or bridge would naturally be used considering the millions of French, Spanish and Belgian Moroccans who take the ferry at Algeciras each summer to visit their country of origin. The number of immigrant travellers would probably increase with a fixed land link and many of the millions of tourists which go to Spain and even southern Portugal each year from Northern Europe would no doubt take the opportunity to drive down to Morocco as well. Spain and Morocco could develop a joint strategy in the tourism sector in the Costa del Sol, Costa de la Luz, Tangier and Tetouan regions and it would also make life easier for Ceutan and Melillan Spaniards who are cut off from mainland Spain, having to take the ferry (albeit, at much lower prices than other travellers). It would have long term benefits for both Morocco and Spain, in terms of commerce and Tourism. Gibraltar would also benefit no doubt, being situated near a main transcontinental axis. It would be a pity, nevertheless, if the bridge was constructed at Punta Paloma, one of the most beautiful coastlines in Spain. There are, nevertheless, other alternatives, Gibraltar never having even bee considered as a possible terminal.
I doubt very much that this enterprise would be profitable and a decision to embark on such an adventure would have to be calculated in terms of its long term positive externalities.
The main problem is technical. Although Morocco and Spain are much closer than France and England the Straights are much deeper than the English Channel. -- Burgas00 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There were rumors a few years ago about a possible stock exchange in Gibraltar, and there is a page in Wikipedia about it (GibEX). Did it materialize in the end? W2ch00 15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Apart from some members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment serving, and geting medals for bravery in Afghanistan I'm puzzled what its got to do with us ...
-- Gibnews 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not threaten me.
Can I remind you of your comment:
What are we going to have next, Spanish flags on articles about South America, and Florida because at one time Spain occupied those lands?
The Gibraltar pages are about GIBRALTAR not Spain. But if we have to debate this lets do so, in the meantime, no provocation, and please no threats.
-- Gibnews 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to continue this debate? I believe we should remove the Spanish flag but consider it essential that we gain consensus first, ie edit warring is not acceptable. This page is now unportected, please can we discuss the issue and leave the Spanish flag here in the meantime, SqueakBox 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Following my personal 1RR, instead of reverting Astrotrain's reversion of my readding of the WikiProject Spain box I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. It seems absolutely clear to be that the Gibraltar article is obviously related to the history of Spain and therefore falls fully within the scope of WikiProject Spain. Adding the WikiProject tag here does not imply anything political about the relationship between Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, which appears to be the objection of both Astrotrain and Gibnews; rather, it says merely that this is an article that relates to the activities of that WikiProject. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The history of Gibraltar and the dispute over sovereignty do involve Spain, however unless you are going to include Florida and most of South America in the Spain project Gibraltar itself should not because Spain has not involved in Gibraltar since 1704.
Adding the Spanish flag to anything to do with Gibraltar is analogous to posting images of the Swastika on the Israel page. The version by Asterion is a good compromise.
Can we leave it at that and move on.
-- Gibnews 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO Gibnews is right, this is no more under the Spain project than either Portugal or France, SqueakBox 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with this last statement. Gibraltar can be both in the Spain and the UK project its not a big deal. Just as Ceuta can be in the Spain and in the Morocco project because of the political claim as well as the cultural, demographic, geographic and historical connections. I would also like to point out that Monaco and Andorra are in the France project so I believe that settles it... -- Burgas00 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not settled at all. What has Gibraltar got to do with Spain? SqueakBox 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What does the Vatican have to do with Italy? What does the West Bank have to do with Israel? What does Taiwan have to do with China? They are closely related topics thats all... Its as easy as that, France is not surrepticiously attempting to take over Andorra by means of Wikipedia and neither is Spain with Gibraltar... This is all quite childish, in my opinion. It is quite evident that it should be part of Wikiproject Spain. -- Burgas00 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought with the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim that Gibraltar is a part of Spain is itself a good reason not to. We need a compromise and to add Gibraltar to the Spanish project isnt right now that compromise, SqueakBox 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Im sure the Palestinians are quite hostile towards living under Israeli occupation but not even they would vent their anger by wanting the West Bank not to form part of Wikiproject: Israel, or Wikiproject Israel and Occupied territories. The aim of the Projects is to coordinate and cooperate in closely related articles, regardless of Gibnews' political stance. I assume you also consider that the UK military bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be excluded from a potential "wikiproject cyprus". Im serious, this is ridiculous. The whole project enterprise is about cooperation not about politics. -- Burgas00 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And to Gibnews: I understand that your knee jerk reaction was to oppose this, but have a look at what wiki projects involve (I just have) and you will see that it is only logical to include Gibraltar... This would help improve Gibraltar related articles in the long term and Wikipedia in general.-- Burgas00 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is a part of Wikiproject China, despite de facto sovereignty for many years and unlikely reunification in the near future. Why? Because they are not only historically intertwined, they are politically intertwined today. Taiwan is an important issue for both Taiwan themselves and China. Western Sahara would be part of Wikiproject Morocco if it existed, Ceuta and Mellila would fall under Spain and Morocco, and so on. Certainly this doesn't fall under the Portugal or France Wikiprojects, Squeakbox. But it certainly does fall under Wikiproject Spain. Your note that the banner removal is due to "the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim" clearly shows that you're forgetting the fact that this is a project coordination issue — NOT the heated political issue you're making this out to be. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What about Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar and Talk:History of Gibraltar? Gibnews is substituting the Wikiproject Spain templates to remove the Spanish flags due to the "sensitivities of others". Though I won't comment on the flag issue here again, I'm not sure substitution of widespread templates subject to change is such a good idea. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is pointless and paranoid behaviour. Please Gibnews I ask you once more not to make a political issue out of this. In any case there is no other way forwards although I agree that Gibraltar can be subject to multiple wikiprojects including a UK one, of course.-- Burgas00 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok removing the flag is just plain silly but I'm fine with it as long as it solves the problem.-- Burgas00 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think removing the Spanish flag would resolve the problem, SqueakBox 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree on that. But its not really worth the effort of having an argument over...-- Burgas00 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your examples are in the main space whereas this flag isnt, which I think makes a difference, SqueakBox 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, complete with template, userbox etc. Everyone with an interest is invited to sign up and start tagging the Gib-related articles. I've already tagged Talk:Spain, by the way... -- ChrisO 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Gibnews that the Olivenza article (a Spanish town claimed by Portugal) is part of wikiproject spain and wikipedia portugal and, yes, the Portuguese flag is present on its talk page. As far as I can see no Spanish wikipedians are going ballistic over this affront to their sovereignty... so please reconsider. -- Burgas00 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to reconsider. Olivenza is a totally seperate issue, my understanding is that Spain annexed it, and defaulted on an agreement to return the territory to Portugal - however as the people living there are not concerned either way, its a non-issue.
Gibraltar is not Spain. When Spain allows the Gibraltar tourist office to put up a Gibraltar flag on its premises AND Gibraltarian athletes are allowed to flay the Gibraltar flag in Spain, lets discuss it again.
Sticking a small Gibraltar flag and a template on pages is not the answer. A plain template on the pages previously mentioned is a good compromise, and the template was created by Asterion not me.
But never mind Olivenza, put a Spanish flag on the Portugal talk page and see what they say. Then try Florida. -- Gibnews 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is this about Olivenza being completely different? Olivenza is a town on the Spanish/Portuguese border owned by Spain since the Spanish war of independece and claimed by Portugal. Its people are very concerned about which country they belong to, as would anyone. Gibraltar is a town in Southern Spain conquered by the United Kingdom in the 18th century, and under British sovereignty, and its people are also concerned over which country they belong to. What is the difference? I dare say the only difference, for Wikipedia at least, is User Gibnews. I'm sure that if the inhabitants of Olvenza spoke English and contributed to wikipedia, they would not object to the presence of the Spanish or of the Portuguese flag on the talk page of the article for the town, since (as is the case of Gibraltar), their culture, history, heritage and day to day life, is intrinsically tied to both countries.
Well I deont think we can speak for the people of Olivenza though I note that while the en and pt versions mention the dispute in the opening the es version only mentions it way down. If Gibnews is the difference between Gibraltar and Olivenza then we are lucky to have him, SqueakBox 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really quite get you squeakbox. I believe you have lost track of what we are arguing about. We are talking about whether the article on Gibraltar can be linked to the Spain project. It is a silly argument because from any rational and logical position the answer can only be yes. I have no time for Gibnews' personal phobias which he wrongly attributes to the whole of his town and his discriminatory claim that "Spaniards" are inherently biased and must be discouraged if not barred from editing this and other articles. There is no rational argumentation here and we are just wasting our time and obstructing the normal self-improvement of wikipedia.-- Burgas00 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil as your comment could easil;y be interpreted as a personal attack against Gibnews and that kind of thing wont resolve the problem whereas removing the Spanish flag from this page would do so, SqueakBox 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about Gibnews, he is pretty thick skinned. :-) -- Burgas00 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
While I hear that I am concerned that incivility will discourage new editors from wanting to contribute, SqueakBox 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 09:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I leave it to other users to deal with Gibnews.-- Burgas00 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Gibnews perhaps you should learn a bit from this fellow Gibraltarian who has Spanish flags posted all over his user page
-- Burgas00 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, some doubts got my mind by assault...The main is "why those evil spaniards want Gibraltar back?" The gibraltarians love the Union Jack, they form a human chain around the rock dressed in shorts, they vote NO in the referendum for the shared sovereignty by a 103% ehh excuse me, by a 99%, and furthermore Spain protects pederastians, and systematically cut off the relevant investigations of the Gibraltarian police about criminals going into Spanish borders, spanish fishermen having illegal campaigns in such a rich waters of Gibraltar, and they also restrict the human rights...Why I have not a clue about why the Spaniards are so shameless to claim Gibraltar?
Maybe, because in article dont appear words such as "drug traffic", "tax free", "western mafia", "washing money" or "fiscal paradise".
Well, maybe the most of the gibraltarian populacion have nothing to do with such bussiness (despite Gibraltar has more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants), but what is clear is that it should be great take the car and get loss into Spain ussing Spanish hospitals, highways, parks, beaches, international airports, and all kind of public services without-paying-a-cent-in-taxes Hey, each month 300 Euro of my salary go to the damn Government! I also wanna be British!
I am not telling that as an absolute truth, it is just my point of view, but the fail to show in the article something about the Spanish view of the problem makes the article partial, unclear and, in one word: BAD. Is somebody going to correct it?
Kiko 11/3/07
Why do we need to consider the 'Spanish point of view' if its nonsense and lies ?
1. There is no mention of 'Drug traffic' because the flow of drugs is from Spain (where drugs are legal) to Gibraltar where they are not.
2. Gibraltar is not tax free, income tax is quite high, higher than in Spain for instance.
3. Money laundering? what money laundering ...
Let me quote from the House of Commons report 1999
(7) We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively. (Paragraph 57)
4. I believe the Mafia are a sicilian organisation and do not have a representative branch listed in the Gibraltar telephone directory.
5. Quite what a 'fiscal paradise' might be is a mystery - it seems to be a phrase used by very ignorant people about things they do not understand.
6. Gibraltarians do indeed use Spanish hospitals, and British hospitals on a commercial basis reports indicate that the Spanish ones are often better equipped than the UK ones and can be accessed without flying. They encourage paying patients which helps to subsidise the service they provide to Spaniards.
7. Spanish fishermen are a plague all around the world and are driving fish into extinction. However if caught fishing with illegal nets in Gibraltar waters they end up in court.
8. No, Gibraltar does NOT have more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants Thats what we call a lie.
Yes there is something wrong with the popular Spanish view of Gibraltar IF that was an example.
But you know I thought we were compiling an honest reference work, and those untrue allegations belong on a page 'false propaganda the Spanish Government propagate about Gibraltar in support of its outdated territorial claim' and it becomes very tedious to continually have to refute this sort of nonsense.
-- Gibnews 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The article does have some whiff of bias though. Do we really care what Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell has to say about "the Gibraltarian People's pride in being British?" Villamota 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your sentiment is noted. --
Gibnews 01.34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I am just wondering what the relevance is of breaking down educational achievment by religion and race?
A few years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a show called Engineering the Impossible. One of the items mentioned was a bridge connecting Gibraltar to Morroco. What the show never answered was "Would anyone use it?"
Now I ask you, would such a bridge, mentioned in at least one science fiction book, be something worthwhile? Or would it be the destination rather than a route? Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But the quick answer to your question is ... NO
-- Gibnews 09:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a tunnel or bridge would naturally be used considering the millions of French, Spanish and Belgian Moroccans who take the ferry at Algeciras each summer to visit their country of origin. The number of immigrant travellers would probably increase with a fixed land link and many of the millions of tourists which go to Spain and even southern Portugal each year from Northern Europe would no doubt take the opportunity to drive down to Morocco as well. Spain and Morocco could develop a joint strategy in the tourism sector in the Costa del Sol, Costa de la Luz, Tangier and Tetouan regions and it would also make life easier for Ceutan and Melillan Spaniards who are cut off from mainland Spain, having to take the ferry (albeit, at much lower prices than other travellers). It would have long term benefits for both Morocco and Spain, in terms of commerce and Tourism. Gibraltar would also benefit no doubt, being situated near a main transcontinental axis. It would be a pity, nevertheless, if the bridge was constructed at Punta Paloma, one of the most beautiful coastlines in Spain. There are, nevertheless, other alternatives, Gibraltar never having even bee considered as a possible terminal.
I doubt very much that this enterprise would be profitable and a decision to embark on such an adventure would have to be calculated in terms of its long term positive externalities.
The main problem is technical. Although Morocco and Spain are much closer than France and England the Straights are much deeper than the English Channel. -- Burgas00 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There were rumors a few years ago about a possible stock exchange in Gibraltar, and there is a page in Wikipedia about it (GibEX). Did it materialize in the end? W2ch00 15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Apart from some members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment serving, and geting medals for bravery in Afghanistan I'm puzzled what its got to do with us ...
-- Gibnews 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not threaten me.
Can I remind you of your comment:
What are we going to have next, Spanish flags on articles about South America, and Florida because at one time Spain occupied those lands?
The Gibraltar pages are about GIBRALTAR not Spain. But if we have to debate this lets do so, in the meantime, no provocation, and please no threats.
-- Gibnews 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to continue this debate? I believe we should remove the Spanish flag but consider it essential that we gain consensus first, ie edit warring is not acceptable. This page is now unportected, please can we discuss the issue and leave the Spanish flag here in the meantime, SqueakBox 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Following my personal 1RR, instead of reverting Astrotrain's reversion of my readding of the WikiProject Spain box I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. It seems absolutely clear to be that the Gibraltar article is obviously related to the history of Spain and therefore falls fully within the scope of WikiProject Spain. Adding the WikiProject tag here does not imply anything political about the relationship between Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, which appears to be the objection of both Astrotrain and Gibnews; rather, it says merely that this is an article that relates to the activities of that WikiProject. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The history of Gibraltar and the dispute over sovereignty do involve Spain, however unless you are going to include Florida and most of South America in the Spain project Gibraltar itself should not because Spain has not involved in Gibraltar since 1704.
Adding the Spanish flag to anything to do with Gibraltar is analogous to posting images of the Swastika on the Israel page. The version by Asterion is a good compromise.
Can we leave it at that and move on.
-- Gibnews 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO Gibnews is right, this is no more under the Spain project than either Portugal or France, SqueakBox 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with this last statement. Gibraltar can be both in the Spain and the UK project its not a big deal. Just as Ceuta can be in the Spain and in the Morocco project because of the political claim as well as the cultural, demographic, geographic and historical connections. I would also like to point out that Monaco and Andorra are in the France project so I believe that settles it... -- Burgas00 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not settled at all. What has Gibraltar got to do with Spain? SqueakBox 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What does the Vatican have to do with Italy? What does the West Bank have to do with Israel? What does Taiwan have to do with China? They are closely related topics thats all... Its as easy as that, France is not surrepticiously attempting to take over Andorra by means of Wikipedia and neither is Spain with Gibraltar... This is all quite childish, in my opinion. It is quite evident that it should be part of Wikiproject Spain. -- Burgas00 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought with the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim that Gibraltar is a part of Spain is itself a good reason not to. We need a compromise and to add Gibraltar to the Spanish project isnt right now that compromise, SqueakBox 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Im sure the Palestinians are quite hostile towards living under Israeli occupation but not even they would vent their anger by wanting the West Bank not to form part of Wikiproject: Israel, or Wikiproject Israel and Occupied territories. The aim of the Projects is to coordinate and cooperate in closely related articles, regardless of Gibnews' political stance. I assume you also consider that the UK military bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be excluded from a potential "wikiproject cyprus". Im serious, this is ridiculous. The whole project enterprise is about cooperation not about politics. -- Burgas00 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And to Gibnews: I understand that your knee jerk reaction was to oppose this, but have a look at what wiki projects involve (I just have) and you will see that it is only logical to include Gibraltar... This would help improve Gibraltar related articles in the long term and Wikipedia in general.-- Burgas00 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is a part of Wikiproject China, despite de facto sovereignty for many years and unlikely reunification in the near future. Why? Because they are not only historically intertwined, they are politically intertwined today. Taiwan is an important issue for both Taiwan themselves and China. Western Sahara would be part of Wikiproject Morocco if it existed, Ceuta and Mellila would fall under Spain and Morocco, and so on. Certainly this doesn't fall under the Portugal or France Wikiprojects, Squeakbox. But it certainly does fall under Wikiproject Spain. Your note that the banner removal is due to "the hostility shown by Gibraltareans towards the Spanish claim" clearly shows that you're forgetting the fact that this is a project coordination issue — NOT the heated political issue you're making this out to be. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What about Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar and Talk:History of Gibraltar? Gibnews is substituting the Wikiproject Spain templates to remove the Spanish flags due to the "sensitivities of others". Though I won't comment on the flag issue here again, I'm not sure substitution of widespread templates subject to change is such a good idea. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is pointless and paranoid behaviour. Please Gibnews I ask you once more not to make a political issue out of this. In any case there is no other way forwards although I agree that Gibraltar can be subject to multiple wikiprojects including a UK one, of course.-- Burgas00 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok removing the flag is just plain silly but I'm fine with it as long as it solves the problem.-- Burgas00 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think removing the Spanish flag would resolve the problem, SqueakBox 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree on that. But its not really worth the effort of having an argument over...-- Burgas00 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your examples are in the main space whereas this flag isnt, which I think makes a difference, SqueakBox 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, complete with template, userbox etc. Everyone with an interest is invited to sign up and start tagging the Gib-related articles. I've already tagged Talk:Spain, by the way... -- ChrisO 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Gibnews that the Olivenza article (a Spanish town claimed by Portugal) is part of wikiproject spain and wikipedia portugal and, yes, the Portuguese flag is present on its talk page. As far as I can see no Spanish wikipedians are going ballistic over this affront to their sovereignty... so please reconsider. -- Burgas00 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to reconsider. Olivenza is a totally seperate issue, my understanding is that Spain annexed it, and defaulted on an agreement to return the territory to Portugal - however as the people living there are not concerned either way, its a non-issue.
Gibraltar is not Spain. When Spain allows the Gibraltar tourist office to put up a Gibraltar flag on its premises AND Gibraltarian athletes are allowed to flay the Gibraltar flag in Spain, lets discuss it again.
Sticking a small Gibraltar flag and a template on pages is not the answer. A plain template on the pages previously mentioned is a good compromise, and the template was created by Asterion not me.
But never mind Olivenza, put a Spanish flag on the Portugal talk page and see what they say. Then try Florida. -- Gibnews 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is this about Olivenza being completely different? Olivenza is a town on the Spanish/Portuguese border owned by Spain since the Spanish war of independece and claimed by Portugal. Its people are very concerned about which country they belong to, as would anyone. Gibraltar is a town in Southern Spain conquered by the United Kingdom in the 18th century, and under British sovereignty, and its people are also concerned over which country they belong to. What is the difference? I dare say the only difference, for Wikipedia at least, is User Gibnews. I'm sure that if the inhabitants of Olvenza spoke English and contributed to wikipedia, they would not object to the presence of the Spanish or of the Portuguese flag on the talk page of the article for the town, since (as is the case of Gibraltar), their culture, history, heritage and day to day life, is intrinsically tied to both countries.
Well I deont think we can speak for the people of Olivenza though I note that while the en and pt versions mention the dispute in the opening the es version only mentions it way down. If Gibnews is the difference between Gibraltar and Olivenza then we are lucky to have him, SqueakBox 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really quite get you squeakbox. I believe you have lost track of what we are arguing about. We are talking about whether the article on Gibraltar can be linked to the Spain project. It is a silly argument because from any rational and logical position the answer can only be yes. I have no time for Gibnews' personal phobias which he wrongly attributes to the whole of his town and his discriminatory claim that "Spaniards" are inherently biased and must be discouraged if not barred from editing this and other articles. There is no rational argumentation here and we are just wasting our time and obstructing the normal self-improvement of wikipedia.-- Burgas00 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil as your comment could easil;y be interpreted as a personal attack against Gibnews and that kind of thing wont resolve the problem whereas removing the Spanish flag from this page would do so, SqueakBox 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about Gibnews, he is pretty thick skinned. :-) -- Burgas00 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
While I hear that I am concerned that incivility will discourage new editors from wanting to contribute, SqueakBox 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 09:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I leave it to other users to deal with Gibnews.-- Burgas00 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Gibnews perhaps you should learn a bit from this fellow Gibraltarian who has Spanish flags posted all over his user page
-- Burgas00 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, some doubts got my mind by assault...The main is "why those evil spaniards want Gibraltar back?" The gibraltarians love the Union Jack, they form a human chain around the rock dressed in shorts, they vote NO in the referendum for the shared sovereignty by a 103% ehh excuse me, by a 99%, and furthermore Spain protects pederastians, and systematically cut off the relevant investigations of the Gibraltarian police about criminals going into Spanish borders, spanish fishermen having illegal campaigns in such a rich waters of Gibraltar, and they also restrict the human rights...Why I have not a clue about why the Spaniards are so shameless to claim Gibraltar?
Maybe, because in article dont appear words such as "drug traffic", "tax free", "western mafia", "washing money" or "fiscal paradise".
Well, maybe the most of the gibraltarian populacion have nothing to do with such bussiness (despite Gibraltar has more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants), but what is clear is that it should be great take the car and get loss into Spain ussing Spanish hospitals, highways, parks, beaches, international airports, and all kind of public services without-paying-a-cent-in-taxes Hey, each month 300 Euro of my salary go to the damn Government! I also wanna be British!
I am not telling that as an absolute truth, it is just my point of view, but the fail to show in the article something about the Spanish view of the problem makes the article partial, unclear and, in one word: BAD. Is somebody going to correct it?
Kiko 11/3/07
Why do we need to consider the 'Spanish point of view' if its nonsense and lies ?
1. There is no mention of 'Drug traffic' because the flow of drugs is from Spain (where drugs are legal) to Gibraltar where they are not.
2. Gibraltar is not tax free, income tax is quite high, higher than in Spain for instance.
3. Money laundering? what money laundering ...
Let me quote from the House of Commons report 1999
(7) We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively. (Paragraph 57)
4. I believe the Mafia are a sicilian organisation and do not have a representative branch listed in the Gibraltar telephone directory.
5. Quite what a 'fiscal paradise' might be is a mystery - it seems to be a phrase used by very ignorant people about things they do not understand.
6. Gibraltarians do indeed use Spanish hospitals, and British hospitals on a commercial basis reports indicate that the Spanish ones are often better equipped than the UK ones and can be accessed without flying. They encourage paying patients which helps to subsidise the service they provide to Spaniards.
7. Spanish fishermen are a plague all around the world and are driving fish into extinction. However if caught fishing with illegal nets in Gibraltar waters they end up in court.
8. No, Gibraltar does NOT have more anonymous fiscal societies based on than inhabitants Thats what we call a lie.
Yes there is something wrong with the popular Spanish view of Gibraltar IF that was an example.
But you know I thought we were compiling an honest reference work, and those untrue allegations belong on a page 'false propaganda the Spanish Government propagate about Gibraltar in support of its outdated territorial claim' and it becomes very tedious to continually have to refute this sort of nonsense.
-- Gibnews 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The article does have some whiff of bias though. Do we really care what Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell has to say about "the Gibraltarian People's pride in being British?" Villamota 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your sentiment is noted. --
Gibnews 01.34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)