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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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 main article on Wikipedia is called however, God Save the Queen. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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:
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)
..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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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 main article on Wikipedia is called however, God Save the Queen. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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:
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)
..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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)