Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 2

Disagreements

It's being difficult to reach an agreement with regard to the dispute in Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar. I've been today in the Spanish National Library (a dark place full of francoist librarians that secretly conspire against the freedom of the Gibraltar people ;-)) and I've got some sources that, if necessary, could be scanned and uploaded to illustrate the discussion.

As there is a lot of disagreements, I propose the next method: beginning with History of Gibraltar. It shows facts so that it should be possible to get reliable sources to describe the facts and the different interpretations of a given topic. Once settled down, we can pass to Disputed status of Gibraltar.

With regard to History of Gibraltar, my proposal is as follows: given that "my" version (it can be seen in History of Gibraltar/temp) is much more longer than the current one, I'll show the points that I've removed from the current version and explain why (providing sources if necessary and available). Once agreed, we can pass to examine all my additions and a similar process (asking for sources if not clear or not agreed) will be implemented. Hopefully, it would take much more time. Unfortunatelly, I don't think that Disputed status of Gibraltar will be that easy, but fixing History of Gibraltar would be a success, wouldn't it? --Ecemaml 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement points in History of Gibraltar

By the way, the current version I'll refer to is this. Differences with alternate version can be seen here. Here there are the disagreement points with regard to the "current version":

Dubious statements from Gibraltarian

1

Current version:

• 1700 - King Charles II of Spain died without leaving an heir to the throne. He nominated Prince Philip V of Bourbon, a grandson of Louis XIV backed by France. The other pretender, an Austrian Hapsburg, Archduke Charles, supported by Austria, England, Holland and the Holy Roman Empire, did not accept the nomination. The result was the War of the Spanish Succession.

Alternate version:

• 1700 November 1 - King Charles II of Spain died. In the autumn he had made a will bequeathing the whole of the Spanish possessions to Prince Philip of Bourbon, a grandson of Louis XIV backed by France. The other pretender, an Austrian Hapsburg, Archduke Charles, supported by Austria, England, Holland and the Holy Roman Empire, did not accept the testament. The result was the War of the Spanish Succession.

Why I disagree:
Here it is quite funny. Gibraltarian changed the first version (the one I introduced and is currently in the AV) to say that Charles II didn't leave a heir but nominated Philip of Anjou. Does anyone understand what the difference is between leaving a heir and nominating anyone as heir? By the way, Charles II did leave a testament in which he entitled Philip V of Anjou as heir (in fact, as anyone who read War of the Spanish Succession, nobody questioned the testament of Charles II until 1702). My sources are, for instance, "Historia de España" (History of Spain), ISBN 84-8432-091-X, by Joseph Pérez, a prestigious French hispanist, author for example of the most reputed interpretations of the Castilian War of the Communities. In page 312, he says: "El testamento de Carlos II no suscitó en principio ninguna oposición" (At the beginning, the testament of Charles II did not meet any opposition). --Ecemaml 20:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2005: "Charles II allowed himself to be persuaded that only the House of Bourbon had the power to keep the Spanish possessions intact, and in the autumn of 1700 he made a will bequeathing them to Philip, duc d'Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV of France." It's crystal clear, isn't it? --Ecemaml 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

2

Current version:
(While merging in from Siege of Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar said that the 3-day initial siege was 3 days ending on 24 July, and Siege of Gibraltar said 1-4 August. Is this date discrepancy due to the change of calendars?)

Alternate version:
(There is usually a discrepancy on the chronology between Spanish and British sources. The reason is that England still used the Julian calendar. By 1704, the Julian calendar was eleven days behind the Gregorian. Therefore, the siege began on 21 July according to the Julian calendar)

Why I disagree:
I don't think this enhancement requires any explanation, doesn't it? --Ecemaml 20:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Already settled (after fifteen reversions by Gibraltarian). --Ecemaml 11:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3

Current version:

• 1729: At the end of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727-1729, the Treaty of Seville allowed Britain to keep Port Mahon and Gibraltar, and stipulated a strip of land of width "600 toises, being more than 2 cannon shots distance between the British guns and the Spanish guns" be considered "the neutral ground".

Alternate version:

• 1729 - At the end of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727-1729, the Treaty of Seville confirming all previous treaties (including the Treaty of Utrecht) allowed Britain to keep Menorca and Gibraltar.

Why I disagree:
Well, this is one of the most obvious inventions by Gibraltarian. Why?

First of all, because he did not provide any source (I'll come back on this issue afterwards).

Secondly, because I haven't found any source in google print that supports such a statement. On the opposite, the sources I've found clearly state that the Treaty of Seville just confirmed previous treaties (especifically the Treaty of Utrecht). For example, as I clearly pointed out in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1, I did find sources that stated that no specific mention to Gibraltar was made:

• In "The Speeches of the Right Honourable the Earl of Chatham in the Houses of Lords and Commons", by William Pitt (1848), it is said that ... all former treaties were confirmed... The treaty passed over in total silence the claim of Spain to Gibraltar...
• In "Historia de Gibraltar y de su campo", by Francisco Maria Montero (1860), it is said that Nothing was said in the treaty about the city of Gibraltar, however confirming former treaties

Third of all, I went to the Biblioteca Nacional de España to do a little research. I did find two that can interesting:

• "Negociaciones sobre Gibraltar. Documentos presentados a las Cortes Españolas por el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores", Madrid, 1967 (aka the New Spanish Red Book). Although this book, compiling by the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, Manuel Castiella, during the 1960s (when the francoist dictatorship begun the offensive in the United Nations for the sovereignty of Gibraltar) could be dismissed as francoist propaganda, it does comprises valuable information. Mainly the exchange of diplomatic notes between the Spanish and UK Foreign Affairs Offices between 1966 and 1967. This book has been disqualified as containing the disputable Spanish POV. However, no party has accused the book of mutilating or faking the translations of British notes (since it would be a quite easy argument for the UK government to dismiss the book). The important point here is that the Spanish allegation distinguishes between the claim for the town and the claim for the isthmus. And when the UK government refuses the Spanish claim on the isthmus, it does so with the argument of permanent sovereignty on the isthmus from, at least, 1838. No mention to the Treaty of Seville. It is surprishing since the alleged content of the Treaty of Seville would give UK a definite argument on the sovereignty on the isthmus (similar to the Treaty of Utrecht with regard to the town itself). Therefore, this lack of mention to the Treaty of Seville lead to the conclusion that it didn't say anything about Gibraltar.

• "Relaciones de España bajo Felipe V: del tratado de Sevilla a la guerra con Inglaterra (1729-39)" (Foreign Affairs of Spain under Philip V: from the Treaty of Sevilla to the war with England (1729-39)) ISBN 84-7908-408-1, by Dr. Antonio de Bethencourt (Bethencourt is a Modern History Professor at the UNED and the University of La Laguna). The book is the doctoral thesis and dates back to 1952 (that it, before the beginning of the Spanish claim at the UN and not focused in Gibraltar, but in the foreign relationships of Spain during the last part of the Philip V's kingdom). Two citations are important. The first one refers to the reactions in Spain to the signature of the Treaty. It says (pg. 60): "En los medios oficiales, [...] el tratado fue acogido con optimismo [...] Pero dicho optimismo se veía empañado por el silencio sobre Gibraltar, imperdonable para los patriotas" (In the official media [...] the treaty was received with optimism [...] But such optimism was tarnished by the silence about Gibraltar, unexcusable for the patriots). The second mention is in page 201, when refering to the presentation of credentials by the Spanish ambassador, Cristóbal Gregorio Portocarrero, Marquis of Mondejar, to the British government in 1732, October 15th. One of the instructions contained in the credentials is as follows: "La más importante [reclamación] [...] [es que] se me restituya Gibraltar [...] en la inteligencia de que no habiéndose concluido cosa alguna en el congreso de Soissons, ni hablado de la materia en el tratado de Sevilla..." (The most important [claim] [...] [is that] Gibraltar has to be returned [...] especially taking into account that no agreement was reached in the congress of Soissons, nor the matter was handled in the Treaty of Seville...". My clear conclusion is that the Treaty of Sevilla didn't do anything regarding Gibraltar but confirming previous treaties (mainly the Treaty of Seville).

Furthermore, the official documentation of the UK government on the management of British overseas territories says, when refering to Gibraltar that "Our title to the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain is based on continuous possession over a long period." ([1]). No mention (again) to the Treaty of Seville as title justifying the sovereignty of the isthmus.

Finally, as Gibraltarian hasn't provided any source, I've done a search myself. There is one source that mentions the Treaty of Seville [2]. Only one. It's Gibraltarian (not British) and has been authored by a so-called Europa Historical Society (with no other mention in the Internet).

The Europa Historical Society is well established and has a website here they kindly allowed me to republish a short explanation of the history of the isthmus

Yes, it is a well established society with a lot of publications and quotations in other publications ?? I recommend to you the reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It will be quite useful for you. Having a web site doesn't establish any kind of reputation. --Ecemaml 13:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the link, I've seen it and it provides statements that oppose to other from much more reputed historians such as William Jackson. The apocryphal mention to the Treaty of Seville doesn't make it seem more serious as a source of anything. At most, it can be regarded as the Gibraltarian POV (since not even the UK support such position, since they don't talk about any treaty supporting the occupation of the neutral ground; just "continuous possession over a long period") --Ecemaml 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have talked to them and the president promises more information in the new year, however in the meantime your attention is drawn to the publication 'Almoraima - Revista de estudios campogibraraltarenos' describing the convention of Soissons (1927).--

Gibnews 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have access to the issue of Almoraima (BTW, which reference it has?) you mention (you can scan and publish it), but mind that this situation is a typical example (similar to that of the Tireless). First a dubious statement (here the Treaty of Seville). After refuted, a new argumentation (now the convention of Soissons (1728)). Tomorrow what will be? --Ecemaml 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a conclusion, it can be said that no credible source supports the claim that the Treaty of Seville did more than just confirming the Treaty of Utrecht. Any pretension to make it the title to support the claim on the isthmus can be considered as baseless. --Ecemaml 23:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, George Hills, in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar", Robert Hale & Company, London. 1974, ISBN 0-7091-4352-4, states that (p. 283):

On 9 November 1729, Great Britain, the United Provinces, France and Spain, signed at Seville a Treaty of Peace, Union, Amity and Mutual Defence. It had no clause, no proviso, no reservation on Gibraltar: its very name was not mentioned, except by inference:

Article I: There shall be henceforth and for ever a firm peace... There shall likewise be forgetfulness of all that is past; and all former treaties and conventions of peace, friendship and trade concluded between the contracting parties shall be and in effect are renewed and confirmed in all their points (such as be not revoked by this present treaty) as fully as if the said treaties were here inserted world for world ... (Official text in Dumont, Vol. VIII, Part II, Doc. LXIV. English version from A Collection of All the Treaties between Great Britain and other Powers from 1688 till 1771 (London 1772)

I think that the conclusion is crystal clear: no mention to Gibraltar was made in the Treaty of Seville. No support (for or against) and statement on the sovereignty of the isthmus can be infered from such a treaty. --Ecemaml 09:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then Publish it, and take care as there is more than one --Gibnews 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Me? You're claiming that the Treaty of Seville said something. So it's up to you to prove it.

On the other hand, I don't have the text of the treaty, but I do have a lot of documentation talking about such treaty and stating that nothing was said about Gibraltar. Now you talk about the Congress of Soissons. Nice try, but both the Congress of Soissons and the Preliminaries of El Pardo were just negotiation talks that predated the treaty. And as long as you're able to prove that the treaty "stipulated a strip of land of width "600 toises, being more than 2 cannon shots distance between the British guns and the Spanish guns" be considered "the neutral ground"" (and mind the quotations that Gibraltarian wished to inclide), you'd better use other arguments. --Ecemaml 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

4

Current version:

• 1810 February - The Anglo-Spanish alliance gave the Governor of Gibraltar the opportunity of removing the Spanish forts of San Felipe and Santa Barbara, located on the northern boundary of the neutral ground. Claiming that the forts might fall into French hands, Lieutenant General Sir Colin Campbell instructed Royal Engineers, at the behest of the Spanish authorities to blow the forts up. Such a task was carried out on February 14 together with the demolition of other fortifications of the Spanish Lines.

Alternate version:

• 1810 February - The Anglo-Spanish alliance gave the Governor of Gibraltar the opportunity of removing the Spanish forts of San Felipe and Santa Barbara, located on the northern boundary of the neutral ground. Claiming that the forts might fall into French hands, Lieutenant General Sir Colin Campbell instructed Royal Engineers to blow the forts up. Such a task was carried out on February 14 together with the demolition of the rest of fortifications of the Spanish Lines.

Why I disagree:
Here the new addition by Gibraltarian was the phrase at the behest of the Spanish authorities. It seems quite strange since, as usual, no source of such statement has been provided.

None of the sources I've read talk about such a requirement. For example, in "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza" (Gibraltar. The reason and the force) (by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar) is available here. Isidro Sepúlveda Muñoz is a Contemporary History Professor in the UNED ("Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia"), the biggest Spanish university) it is said (pg. 178): "El teniente gobernador de Gibraltar, el general Colin Campbell [...] a diferencia de otros oficiales, no despreciaba a sus colegas españoles, lo que le permitió mantener unas magníficas relaciones... El control de la situación permitió a Campbell demoler todas las defensas españolas..." (The liutenant-governor of Gibraltar, General Colin Campbell [...] unlike other British officials, did not despise his Spanish colleagues, what allowed him to keep excelent relationships... His control of the situation allowed him to demolish the Spanish defenses...).

Other sources such as [3] state that:

1810 February: British Sappers sent to blow up the old Spanish forts of San Felipe and Santa Barbara fearing a French advance on the Rock during the Napoleonic War. Contingents from the Gibraltar Garrison are sent to aid Spanish resistance to the French at Cadiz.

Other, such as [4] (go to Other sections -> History -> Overview including prehistoric and recorded history), say: In 1810, the Anglo-Spanish alliance against Napoleon gave the Governor of Gibraltar the opportunity of eliminating the Spanish forts of San Felipe and Santa Barbara on the northern boundary of the neutral ground. Announcing that there was a possibility that the forts might fall into French hands, General Campbell instructed Royal Engineers to cross the zone and blow them up, a task which was duly carried out on February 14 together with the demolition of other stone banquettes and guard houses of the Spanish Lines.

No mention to a Spanish request, but to an English opportunity...

Not only this. Which Spanish authorities could allegedly have requested the demolition of the Spanish Lines and why? The Spanish power structure had been disintegrated with the beginning of the French invasion and the arrival of the emperor to the peninsula after the defeat in Bailén. Only the Central Junta has took shelter in Cádiz, where it was besieged by the French. Why should they worry about the destiny of the Spanish Lines in Gibraltar (when they were fighting for their very lifes) and request the Gibraltar governor to please remove them? Quite unlikely, I'm afraid. --Ecemaml 12:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, George Hills, in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar", Robert Hale & Company, London. 1974, ISBN 0-7091-4352-4, states that (p. 367):

At Castaños's request [Castaños was the General Captain of Andalusia], in January 1809, all stores and light guns had been removed from the Spanish Line; 700 men from the [Spanish] garrison had done the work and shipped them to Valencia and Barcelona. On 20 January 1810, the Chief Engineer, Colonel Holloway, was instructed by the Liutenant-Governor, General Colin Campbell, 'to prepare for destroying the Spanish Lines, Forts and Batteries in the vicinity' (from Holloway's report to Campbell on 18 Feb. 1810. PRO Col. Office, Series 91, Vol. 51). On 2 February, Campbell gave the further order to proceed.

No mention to a request by unknown and unexistent Spanish authorities. --Ecemaml 09:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

5

Current version:

• 1815 April 20 - The British authorities at Gibraltar constructed an isolation camp to prevent the spread of the epidemic outside the fortress walls. The Spanish government was informed of this for reasons of public health and courtesy, but this has been interpreted by revisionist historians as requesting permission for this. As far as the British government was concerned, the area is British territory so no permission was required. This fact can be tracked as the beginning of the present-day dispute with Spain over the isthmus sovereignty.

Alternate version:

• 1815 April 20 - An isolation camp to prevent the spread of the epidemic outside the fortress walls ([5]) was set up in the neutral ground. This fact can be tracked as the beginning of the present-day dispute with Spain over the isthmus sovereignty (see Disputed status of Gibraltar#The isthmus). General Sir George Don, Lieutenant-Governor of Gibraltar requested for permission to the Spanish authorities of the Campo (which was granted). Although such communication is recorded in the Colonial Office records, modern-day Gibraltarian sources claim this as a mere information for reasons of public health and courtesy, since, according to them, the area is British territory so no permission was required.

Why I disagree:
This one seems again a clear evidence of what Gibraltarian understands as NPOV: removing the sourced POV and leaving only the one without any source (claiming that it is the real NPOV).

With regard to the Spanish POV ("a request for permission"), there are plenty of sources. Isidro Sepúlveda states in the page 194 of "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza" that "... el general George Don ... tomó una decisión innovadora: solicitar a las autoridades españolas la instalación de campamentos..." (... General George Don ... make an innovative decision: to ask the Spanish authorities the setup of isolation camps...). One of the web sources quoted previously also make similar statements:

[6] (go to Other sections -> History -> Detailed chronological history including dates from 940BC to present) says that: 1815 The beginnings of the present-day dispute with Spain over Gibraltar stem directly from the yellow-fever epidemic of 1815. The Spanish authorities agreed on April 20 of that year to allow the British forces to construct an isolation camp outside the fortress walls.

Furthermore, according to the same arguments collected in #3_2 (that is, the UK statement "Our title to the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain is based on continuous possession over a long period." in [7] and to the documents included in the New Spanish Red Book, that cite 1838 as the beginning of the continious possession), the statement by Gibraltarian "As far as the British government was concerned, the area is British territory so no permission was required" seems scarcely solid. However, I'm not requesting the removal of the statement (even if no source supports it), but just the maintenance of both versions as I've redacted them. --Ecemaml 12:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, George Hills, in his book "Rock of Contention". A History of Gibraltar. George Hills, Robert Hale & Company, London. 1974, ISBN 0-7091-4352-4, states that (p. 374):

Governor Sir George Don obtained the agreement of the Governor of the Campo, General Alos, to the settlement of 'a large proportion of the inhabitants who... [had] not had the fever, to establish themselves temporarily on the Neutral Ground as near as circumstances would admit to the front of this Fortress' (PRO Col. Off. Series 91, Vol. 65. Don to Bathurst, 26 July 1815). Alos agreed that these people should be supplied from the hinterland. Don for his part extended his authoridty over them, justifying his action on the grounds that to have left 'wretches of the worst description... in their village... equally removed from the jurisdiction of Spain and Gibraltar.... without the restraint of laws and regulations, would have been exposing it [the village] to every evil of licentiousness prejudiced as well to it as to the troops encamped in its vicinity' (ibid.) Don was referring here to the continued presence oin Gibraltar of troops temporarily there pending posting elsewhere. Those troops occupied huts build in 1812 since when Gibraltar had been a staging post in the transfer of troops from one point to another in the joing Anglo-Spanish pursuit of Napoleon's retreating armies.

Therefore, the paragraph has been changed according it --Ecemaml 10:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is also a mention on the new occupation of the Neutral Ground in 1854 (p. 379):

This year before his recall, 1854, saw yet another yellow fever epidemic.... Once again the Spanish authorities consented to the construction of a village north of the 1713 limit of cession for troops and civilians. When the epidemic came to an end, some barracks were dismantled, but the guardrooms, sentry boxes and a collection of wooden huts about 600 yards from the Spanish line were retained, and, by November 1863, Spain protested to Britain that 'this new township [had] been converted into a veritable camp, permanently occupied by a Regiment of the Fortress garrison' (Spanish Minister in London, Comyn, to Secretary of State Lord Russell, 13 Nov. 1863. Red Book, p. 2002). There was nothing Spain could do to challenge Britain further.

According to it, the description of the relevant item will be rephrased also. --Ecemaml 10:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

6

Current version:

• 2000 May - 2001 May: the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, which expressed its concern about the effective safety for the inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland -some 250,000 people (Press conference of the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pique in London, of 2001 January 24). The inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar government has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar and pointed out that as Nuclear propelled submarines regularly visit Spanish ports, there should be no reason for Spain to object to visits to foreign ones.

Alternate version:

• 2000 May - 2001 May - The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar. This caused diplomatic tension with Spain, which expressed its concern about the effective safety for the inhabitants of Gibraltar and those living in its hinterland -some 250,000 people (Press conference of the Spanish Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Pique in London, of 2001 January 24). The inhabitants of the area saw this repair as a precedent of future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar government has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar.

Why I disagree:
It seems pretty obvious. The official Spanish complaint relates to the use of the Gibraltar harbour as nuclear submarines repair station. Gibraltarian talks about "Nuclear propelled submarines regularly visit Spanish ports". What has the Spanish position with the Gibraltarian annotation? The former complains about repairs, not visits, so that stating that the latter talks about visits makes no sense. --Ecemaml 12:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why you disagree is because this shows the sheer hipocracy of the Spanish Government position; It allows repairs on American nuclear submarines in Rota without a whisper. The reason for this concern - which does not extend to record mortality in the area due to pollution from the refinery and other industries, as confirmed by a Spanish expert - is the simply because it embarasses the British Government. HOWEVER that the Gibraltar Government made that statement and you wish to supress that FACT to support the dubious territorial claim and make the Government of Spain look less cynical in its actions. That is not expressing a NPOV

Reference: Professor Joan Benach, acclaimed public health scientist and principal author of the “Atlas of Mortality” Details Here

--Gibnews 15:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. The reason to disagree is pretty obvious as you implicitly recognize. Gibraltarian said "pointed out that as Nuclear propelled submarines regularly visit Spanish ports". Now you says "It allows repairs on American nuclear submarines in Rota without a whisper". At the beginning, it was nuclear submarines visiting Spanish ports. Now, it's nuclear submarines being repaired in Rota. The problem, as usual, I'm afraid, is that in your search for proving that the Spanish government is cynical and hypocritical, you change the argument whenever it's refuted, even if you want to make you POV as if it were a fact. Spain has said that she doesn't want Gibraltar to become a repair station for nuclear submarines. First, Gibraltarian says that that's hypocritical since Spain allows other nuclear submarines to stop over in Spanish ports (??). Now, you say that it's hypocritical since American nuclear submarines are repaired in Rota (without a source, as usual). I don't think you understand what a encyclopedia is. But that's not a forum.

BTW, professor Benach talks, in the reference you provide, about pollution in the Bay of Gibraltar due to heavy industries, and not about the claimed repair of submarines in Rota. So, please, don't mislead readers when providing references --Ecemaml 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice try; Firstly there is no evidence that repairs to nuclear submarines in Gibraltar represent a danger. The reference to it by the Spanish Government and politicians is simply to beat up HMG and Gibraltar. What is a real environmental issue, demonstrated by the source I quoted, is pollution caused by badly run industrial plant in the bay area. This has been the cause of the ONLY recorded release of radioactive material here. However if you want to discuss the 'Tireless' situation, by all means lets do so; if you wish to include statements by the Spanish Government fine, but lets not supress what the Government of Gibraltar ACTUALLY said about [rota] in response to Spanish Government hipocracy just because its inconvenient to your position.

--Gibnews 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very nice, but indeed not nicer as yours. First of all, Gibraltarian claims that nuclear vessels visit Spanish ports. Secondly, as you notice that it doesn't have anything to do with it, you say that it's not a real environmental issue and that in Rota nuclear submarines are repaired (but without forgetting that the real problem is the hypocrisy of Spain; and you say I think Spain is the center of the world, cheers). But you don't provide any source regarding the Gibraltarian government position. Did the Gibraltarian government state that in Rota nuclear vessels are repaired (I hope it did with better arguments as those of the link you provide, where just generic description of "maintenance facilites" are available)?. If you want a paragraph saying something that "The Gibraltar government has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay [8] and American nuclear vessels are allegedly repaired in Rota without any complaint [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/rota.htm", I've got no problem, since it at least say anything related to the first part of the paragraph (and I use the term allegedly since the link you provide doesn't say anything about that). If you have an official statement of the Gibraltar government, it'd be good to be here. --Ecemaml 07:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What Gibraltarian keep on removing

The following items has been added by Ecemaml and are constantly removed or modified by Gibraltarian. I encourage him to say why he disagree:

However, the Gibraltar area, such as the rest of the South Iberian Peninsula was part of the Byzantine Empire during the second part of the 6th century (reverting afterwards to the Visigoth Kingdom).

• 1704 ...

The exact beginning of the English/British occupation of Gibraltar has been over the time imprecise. Sometimes, even the British or the Gibraltarians date the beginning of British sovereignty in 1704 itself (for instance, in its speech at the United Nations in 1994, the Gibraltar Chief Minister Joe Bossano stated that "Gibraltar has been a British colony ever since it was taken by Britain in 1704" [9]). On the other hand, even from the 18th century, Spanish sources recorded that immediately after the takeover of the city, Sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own initiative caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession of the Rock in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation (the story is told by the Marquis of San Felipe, who wrote his book "Comentarios de la guerra de España e historia de su rey Phelipe V el animoso" in 1725, more than twenty year after the fact, as quoted in "Historia de Algeciras. Moderna y Contemporánea", pg. 17, Mario Ocaña, Diputación de Cádiz, Cádiz, 2001. Such story is widely spread, not only in Spanish sources but also in Gibraltarian ones (see History page in the official Tercentenary web site: "He [Rooke] had the Spanish flag hauled down and the English flag hoisted in its stead" or BBC Radio 4's "The Sceptred Isle: Empire, a 90 part history of the British Empire", that accounts that "Rooke's men quickly raised the British flag (not yet the Union Flag) and Rooke claimed the Rock in the name of Queen Anne"). However, it is accepted by present-day historians that this version is possibly apocryphal since no contemporary source accounts it. What seems proved is that the British troops who had landed on the South Mole area raised their flag to signal their presence to the ships, and avoid being fired upon by their own side. Furthermore, if such a fact had actually happened, it would have caused a big crisis in the Alliance supporting the Archduke Charles (see "Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 90, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, in Spanish). (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

• 1704 August 7. According to mainly Spanish sources ("Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza", pg. 91, by Isidro Sepúlveda, Ed. Alianza Editorial, 2004, ISBN 84-206-4184-7; "Ceuta, Melilla, Olivenza y Gibraltar", by Máximo Cajal, Ed. Siglo XXI Editores, Madrid, 2003, ISBN 84-323-1138-3; "Atlas de Historia de España", pg. 341, by Fernando García de Cortázar, Ed. Planeta, Barcelona, 2005, ISBN 84-08-05752-9; all in Spanish, which account the memories of what happened in Gibraltar between 1704 and 1714, by the priest Juan Romero de Figueroa (the priest in charge of the Gibraltar Cathedral)), a large column of inhabitants of the city (4,000 according to [10]), led by the Spanish Governor, Diego de Salinas, the garrison and the members of the city council, abandoned the city. Most of them took refuge in the proximity of the chapel of San Roque, possibly waiting for a near reconquest of the town, where the Gibraltar council was reestablished two year after, founding a new town named San Roque (therefore San Roque official motto is "The town of San Roque, where that of Gibraltar lives on", in Spanish: 'La Ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar', see San Roque Council Web site, in Spanish). Considering themselves the real Gibraltarians, those who left took with them the symbols and objects of Gibraltar's history: the council and ecclesiastical archives, including the historical documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502, granting Gibraltar's coat of arms, the statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the city's banner (also granted by the Catholic Monarchs). These objects (see San Roque Council Web site, in Spanish) remain nowadays in San Roque. Other settled down in what today is Los Barrios or even far away, in the ruins of the abbandoned city of Algeciras. Only about seventy people remained in the city (most of them religious or belonging to the Genovese trader colony; see list in [11]). The traditions of the villages that received the refugees still talk of this departure as the "Exodus of Gibraltar" ("Éxodo de Gibraltar"). (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

• 1706 February - By a special decree, Queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port (upon request of the Sultan of Morocco, to be allowed to supply the town) (while the Catholic Encyclopedia provides this date, the Gibraltarian government dates it to 1705). Spanish sources points out that, at that very moment, the English monarch lacked of de jure titles to do so, since Gibraltar was yet a possession of one of the pretenders to the Spanish Throne, not ceded by any Spanish power to England.

• 1854 - Another epidemic led to more barrack huts being erected on the claimed British end of the neutral zone. This time, the huts were protected by a line of sentry boxes. When the epidemic was over, the sentry boxes remained ([12]).

• 1942 - Spain "occupied" the remaining of the neutral zone.(map). The Spanish government states that it does so to prevent further British annexation.

• 1967 - A referendum was held on 10 September, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished to either pass under Spanish sovereignty, or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government.

The Spanish claim had few chances to be accepted by Gibraltarians, even having promised that Gibraltarian could keep their British citizenship and the town would retain a special status. At that moment, such a claim was being made by an extreme right-wing dictatorship who had arised from a bloody civil war (neutral but alligned with the Axis powers in the Second World War) which did not allow its own citizens the civil liberties that the British government guaranteed to them. Furthermore, the Spanish economy, though beginning to grow, was still very backward (especially compared to the living standard the Gibraltarians had achieved), while at the same time working class people across the frontier were living in a state of great poverty. The idea of Spain participating in any way the sovereignty of the Rock was surely completely unacceptable for the Gibraltarian public oppinion.

Not surprishingly, Gibraltarians ignored Spanish pressure and voted overwhelmingly by 12,138 to 44 to remain under British sovereignty. Although the Spanish goverment got a diplomatic triumph in the United Nations (since the resolution 2353 states that the holding of the referendum [...] to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2231 (XXI)), it has virtually no effect in the politic evolution of Gibraltar. (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

• 1969 June 8 - In response, Spain closed the border with Gibraltar, and severed all communication links. The closure affected both sides of the border. Gibraltarians with families in Spain had to go by ferry to Tangier in Morocco, and from there to the Spanish port of Algeciras, while many Spanish workers (by then about 4,800; sixteen years before, about 12,500 Spanish workmen entered Gibraltar every day [13]) lost their jobs in Gibraltar (this fact is another disagreement in the present-day relationships with the Spanish government, since a solution for the pensions corresponding to the period of time those Spanish workers had worked in Gibraltar is pursued).

The closing of the border was a severe shock for the Gibraltarians, who got aware that across the frontier there was a hostile and threatening foreign power. The close of the fence would last thirteen years and was considered the Gibraltarians as the last in a series of sieges held by Spain to attempt to surrender the town. (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

• 2002 - The Gibraltar government organised a referendum on 7 November. The voters rejected shared sovereignty by 17,900 votes to 187 on a turnout of almost 88%.

A group of Spaniards, claiming to be the descendants of some of the population that left the town after the takeover in 1704, asked for the right to vote also in the referendum [14] (in Spanish). They were not allowed to do so. (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

• 2004 August - Gibraltar celebrated 300 years of British rule. Spanish officials labeled this as the celebration of 300 years of British occupation [15] (since soveraingty on the colony was not ceded until 1713). (in green what is removed by Gibraltarian)

--Ecemaml 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You really suffer from the view that Spain is the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago my ancestors lived in Ulster, that does not give me the right to vote there today. I don't live in Ireland, nor do I pay taxes there. Get real, Gibraltar is not part of Spain and the only people allowed to vote in Gibraltar are its residents. Including fictious claims has no place. In 1991 I applied to vote in EU elections and was refused. It was documented. Lets see some proof that the people is San Roque applied to vote in the referendum and were refused. If they have a case, take it to the ECHR as we did. but you know its nonsense. --Gibnews 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Gibnews? Where did you get your degree in psychology ;-)? I'll do the same. I think that your main problem is you unability to understand the Spanish position (I'm not talking about agreeing on it, just understanding). Not understanding that a small town in the cost of a European country conquered by other will be always a problem is just being too naive. I couldn't imagine Britain giving up Plymouth if it had been conquered by, let's say France, in support of a Jacobite pretender. But as we're not going to agree on this issue, let's go on talking about the article.

You're right. I do not have other sources that those in the source I've provided. I do not know if they really applied to Britist authorities or not for the right to vote in the referendum, so I don't see any problem to remove them (curiously, it seems as if I'm the only one that has to provide sources, but that's other issue). --Ecemaml 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Why not admit it? The only reason you disagree with anything is because you are an obsessed troll, whose sole agenda is causing discord.--Gibraltarian 12:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy. Your insults won't prevent all the Gibraltar-related articles to be enhanced. I'm gathering my sources (BTW, I don't know whether I'm an obsessed troll or not, but at least I don't introduce quite dubious statement, without any source). --Ecemaml 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If by 'enhanced' you mean the addition of Spanish propaganda designed to insult and marginalise Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians then keep it to yourself, the world has no need.--Gibnews 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, "enhancing" means trying to identify what is propaganda and what are real historical facts (see for example points 3 and 4 below). Enhancing means, in points with different interpretations, showing which is the source of each of them, without removing one of them. Enhancing means that you, or your friend Gibraltarian, have no veto power about the wikipedia articles. Enhancing means following wikipedia principles (such as those in WP:NPOV or WP:CITE; I strongly recommend you their reading).

And sorry if you feel insulted, but it doesn't prevent a topic from being covered. It's as I'd say that as long as I feel insulted, wikipedia shouldn't talk about the Spanish Black Legend; or a German about the Holocaust, or an Israeli about the Palestinian refugees. You'd better read the guidelines I've mentioned above and once you understand what wikipedia is and which its aim is, we'll be able for sure to discuss these articles. Otherwise, it will be the usual edit war: "I feel insulted", "Spain is evil" and "the world has no need of knowing the Spanish POV". --Ecemaml 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion with Gibnews

/a more reasonable explanation is that Ecemaml is funded by the MAE given the depth and style of his propaganda supported by sources like Hills and the El Pais style book. Perhaps he might include a section on how much the Spanish Government pays journalists every year to spread false stories about Gibraltar.

Generally I find the information about Gibraltar to be accurate perhaps Ecemaml should restrict himself to writing a section on why an aledgedly modern nation persists with a 300 year old dubious claim totally rejected by 99% of the people living there.

This message posted by the webmaster of www.gibnet.com who has no idea who Gibraltarian or Ecemaml might be on 5-DEC-2005/

Cheers, I was looking for more intelligent arguments from the other side, and now I've found them ;-))

Have you got sources about how much the MAE pays Spanish journalists? If so, it would be a quite good story to talk about? On the other side, I don't know the exact reason of the claim (it's difficult to know the exact position of the government since the approach from a left or right-wing government usually is different). But maybe you could write a section yourself on why a modern nation was keen to propose a shared sovereignty over such a territory ;-)

Anyway, that's what I'm trying to do. As with User:Gibraltarian, you've kindly requested to add the information you have and to illustrate the Gibraltarian POV. However, removing the statements you don't like is not usually the wikipedia way (see WP:NPOV). Best regards --Ecemaml 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the 'disputed status of Gibraltar' is an emotional issue for those on the receiving end of the nastyness of the Spanish state, but this is not the place for a lecture.

I have been trying for some time to get a source of the UN resolutions and will now republish the scruffy scanned PDF's as text. The reference to 2231 supporting 'territorial integrity' has been removed as it does not mention it. It is the resolution which contains a mild rebuke of the original referendum.

As regards payments by Spanish Government see [[16]]

I've been editing the page on Gibraltar communications for some time but now have a username.

Hi Gibnews. Happy to hear you.

With regard to the payments, feel free to add such information to the article. I'll try to look for Spanish sources that corroborate the fact.

With regard to your statements I fully agree on the status of Gibraltar being a quite emotional issue. But wikipedia is not a forum, nor a propaganda site (coming from any side). What I think is not acceptable is removing information about any of the sides of the discussion (even if we don't like it). Showing each side official position is just that. Is it the territorial integrity appliable here? Well, I would say no, but the traditional Spanish position (the current position seems to have given up such argument) is that it applies. Just that. Is the self-determination right the prime issue to take into account? Possibly, but the Spanish government keeps on talking about the resolution of a colonial situation and only from the times of this government has accepted the Gib government even be present in the talks regarding Gibraltar. What I mean is that wikipedia does not take part (it's up to the reader to take part). It just shows the different opinions about an issue (and here, unfortunately, there are at least three official opinions). I'm also trying to look for any survey about the Spanish people opinion on the Gibraltar issue (I'd dare that beyond the usual right-wing movements, the Gibraltar issue does not worry Spanish anything at all).

Finally, with regard to the first disagreement point, the article History of Gibraltar, I've detected at least two unsourced statements (I wouldn't say false) that need to be solved: the one related to the Treaty of Seville (no source mention anything related to it with regard to Gibraltar, even "Rock of Contention" and "The Rock of Gibraltarians", by a former Gibraltar governor) and that stating that the forts in La Línea were demolished in 1810 upon request from Spanish Authorities (no source again). The same applies for the rest of the points.

I'd prefer to start with History of Gibraltar and go on afterwards with Disputed status of Gibraltar. Anyway, I don't have any problem with your current editions. Anyway, see please History of Gibraltar/temp and Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp. The reason to start with "History..." is that it's difficult to separate propaganda from actual and current positions from the Spanish government. Besides, the structure of "Disputed..." is awful and should be improved. Talk to you soon. --Ecemaml 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What I've found about "fondos reservados" is this link. However, dates do not match, so that they cannot be the same. I keep on looking for. --Ecemaml 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All disputes give rise to lies and deception;

I would be very interested to know how the locally available Spanish language newspaper 'El Faro' is financed without any Gibraltar advertising and distributed free. Apart from supporting the official Spanish line on a couple of occasions it provides a resaonable coverage of news in Gibraltar.--Gibnews 16:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really know. Although I applied for the MAE funds, I didn't receive any, nor any information about other guys in the secret services payroll. Sorry again. --Ecemaml 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I'm protecting the page for now. I'm also going to block Gibraltarian for 48 hours. Looks like he's now using IPs to essentially vandalize the article again by removing an agreed upon tag. Protecting the page so he won't go crazy on that. Same thing he's been doing since he arrived. He'll still be able to discuss things on here using the IPs. If he comes back and is the same or worse, it will probably mean an indefinite ban. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof that it is that particular person as the IP's are in a pool. Most of his comments here are valid, and as the saying goes, "you are not paranoid if they are really out to get you." In the case of Spain and Gibraltar the truth is out there.--Gibnews 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said Gibnews. "Agreed tag"?? Surely you mean "insisted upon by a malicious troll"? Ecemaml has been deliberately causing discord, in order to further his anti-Gibraltar propaganda campaign, and now appears to be pulling Woohookitty's strings. Ecemaml is an obsessed troll who has been following me around WP reverting almost anything I edit, irrespective of merit or truth. He not only has a chip on his shoulder over Gibraltar but an entire potato plantation! It is high time he grew up, got over the fact that Gibraltar is not, and never will be spanish, gave up his fascist inspired campaign to discredit Gibraltar, and got a life. There is only one way to deal with this kind of person, which is to treat him with the contempt that he deserves. His intention has been all along to get me banned so he can continue his campaign unimpeded. I will NOT allow it. No way. Gibraltarian.

Um. Gibnews? Look at this. Gibraltarian signed that and he was using the IP of 212.120.225.85, which is in the range that has been used to remove the disputed tag and cause havoc on these articles. Now unless there's an amazing coincidence and someone else from his same ISP is also hitting these articles, the IPs are most definitely him. And, as I tried to explain to him, how you say things is just as important as what you say on here. "What he says is valid" isn't an excuse for his actions. He's the troll here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed resolution for History of Gibraltar

As only Gibnews has challenged two specific points of the redaction I've proposed, I'm proceeding to update History of Gibraltar.

To avoid further edit wars:

1. I'm removing the mention to the Spaniards wishing to vote in 2002 referendum.
2. I'm including the mention to Rota-based repair of nuclear vessels.
3. I'm removing items related to the isthmus dispute. They will go to a separate article (that includes the unsourced mention to the Treaty of Seville, as discussed in #3_2).
4. I'm removing the sentence "According to mainly Spanish sources" (1704, August 7th) since all the British sources I've read, including "The Rock of Gibraltarians", by the former Gibraltar governor Sir William Jackson, account such a story, providing the 4,000 figure (George Hills gives also such a figure, including the possitility of being even 5,000).

I strongly encourage Gibraltarian or any of his alter egos to discuss concrete disagreement points here and justify his removals or additions.

I'm leaving the {{disputed}} template, until a final agreement is reached. --Ecemaml 10:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have an even better proposal, Ecemaml. GO AWAY, and forget your obsessive persecution of Gibraltar and it's people, and stop spreading fascist inspired propaganda. End of problem!

With respect, although Ecemaml may have the best of intentions, I as

a Gibraltarian do not think it is appropriate for a Spaniard to write 'the history of Gibraltar' This is due to the fact that much of the material you may be familiar with in Spain is unreliable.

A good example is that bit of propaganda you now wish to distance yourself from about residents of the Spanish town of San Roque being denied 'the right' to vote in our referendum. You need concede nothing about this, I have contacted the returning officer and will be publishing his reply.

[Read the Observers report here] This mentions the two people who applied and were refused the vote, neither were Spanish.

Please take this in the spirit it is intended, however its important that people get to see the true picture of Gibraltar and not one based on propaganda from a state obsessed with engaging in destroying our credibility and identity, including here.--Gibnews 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gibnews,

first of all, my sincere gratefulness for your polite message. It's a relief to hear anything else that hysterical shouts against me.

With regard to you request, I'm afraid that I can't fulfill it. Sorry, but doing that would mean that there are topics that do not follow the wikipedia principles. Remember that silly motto that directs the wikipedia efforts: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It seems as if you mean that only the people you decide can edit. I don't see it as a positive principle. So, in short, my answer is no. I will keep on editing any article I want as long as I follow wikipedia guidelines and policies (and have something to say).

Secondly, you claim that I shouldn't edit since my sources are not reliable. On the contrary, I'd say that I do have access to a lot of different sources, which in general, are quite reliable. Living in a large city means that I can go to a library to look for appropriate sources and even buy them if necessary. Apart from Spanish literature (which, unlike what you think, are not mainly propaganda-style, but documented books usually written by university professors), I'm trying to stick to the British sources I've got: those of George Hills and William Jackson (the former British governor of Gibraltar), since it's easier to quote them and they provide a lot of references (many of them from the very Colonial Office). I know that it's easier for guys such as Gibraltarian to disqualify sources as unreliable that making an appropriate research.

Third, your "evidence" to prove that I'm not qualified to write about Gibraltar is one of the points that I introduced and you objected to. First of all, I've to say that I removed it not because it was a propaganda piece (it was, for sure) but just because, as you pointed out, there was no source about the actual application to vote from such people. On the other hand, who is your model? Gibraltarian? I've got a not exhaustive list of inventions, propaganda pieces and pure lies that your friend (the one supposedly reliable and neutral) have introduced or tried to introduce:

• Claiming that Charles II didn’t leave a heir. Well, here I have to recognize that I’ve cut and pasted from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, of course talks about the will bequeathing all his possessions to Philip of Anjou. If that’s not a heir, what is it?
• The figure of 4,000 people leaving the town after the Gibraltar takeover. He said first that it was false and an accusation of ethnic cleansing. Afterwards, he said that the figure was much smaller since there was no permanent population in Gibraltar at the time of the conquest. Well, Jackson (the former governor, probably also in the payroll of the Spanish secret services) gives the 4,000 figure. Hills gives the same figure (although he speculates with even 5,000 people).
• The the apocryphal story of Hooke taking possession of Gibraltar on behalf of the Queen Anne immediately after the takeover was an invention by me. Afterwards, it was a Spanish invention. We know today that such invention (deliberate or not) was possibly by Marquis of San Felipe in the 18th century, but that such an "invention" is widely spread not only in Spanish sources, but also in British/Gibraltarian ones. Hills explicitly mentions (in his annex on "Two myths about the capture of Gibraltar in 1704" that British sources mention the story from, at least, 1784 (Drinkwater))
• Removing that Queen Anne declared Gibraltar in 1706 as a free port. The phrase "though she has no powers to do" (quite sensible since the formal sovereignty of the town was in the hands of the archduke) is textual from "Rock of the Gibraltarians" by William Jackson).
• The Treaty of Seville creating the neutral ground. No mention to the Treaty of Seville doing more than confirming previous treaties (the story of the Neutral Ground in rather more complex, but all the information will go to the Disputed status of the Gibraltar isthmus article, that I'm writing).
• The Spanish Lines being demolished upon request of the Spanish authorities. No mention in any source to such request. As no mention to such source is available, the only approach to this issue is considering it as a minoritary POV (if possible).
• Putting a mention of nuclear vessels visiting Spanish harbours in front of the official Spanish position with regard to the Tireless when it states the complain about repairs not visits (something that you have had to fix).
• ...

Should I go on? Is this the model of neutrality, reliability and accuracy that you propose?

I've always admitted that I can be biased and include information that can be pure propaganda. For sure. There are too much propaganda in this issue to be inoculated against it. But I'm open to discuss it and to look for facts and to define what is a fact and what is POV (which, according to the WP:NPOV is not bad, as long as it's properly identified as so). And that's the reason why I'm very happy to have a constructive discussion in order to remove propaganda and inaccurate information. But your friend Gibraltarian doesn't seem to understand that this is wikipedia, that rules are different here (although clearly defined) and that a strategy based on the insult and the constant violation of rules may be valid for an Internet-based forum, but not for wikipedia.

And sorry to say that, but your bombastic statements are a little bit out of place:

• All disputes give rise to lies and deception. For sure, but it seems as if you think that such lies and deceptions are only in one of the sides when, as my little summary below shows, they are actually everywhere.
• you are not paranoid if they are really out to get you. This is funny, especially if you're talking about Gibraltarian and his continious vandalizings as an anonymous IP address. I'll tell you why I know that he's the one that hides behind the IP address. Every time he removes the {{disputed}} template from History of Gibraltar I go to en: and verify the history of Falkland Islands and the like. With the same IP address, the articles have been also vandalized. When the vandal is blocked, Gibraltarian comes to me here and cries about having been blocked [17].

Is it clearer now? --Ecemaml 09:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

You need to take care that you are not mixing up what I am saying with Gibraltarian, and what you allege he is doing.

On a technical note, IP addresses are allocated dynamically to ADSL users in Gibraltar and most use the free modems provided when one gets a line. These will get a different one every time you use the Internet. Even if you use a router as I do, it changes.

without access to the ISP's RADIX server you cannot prove anything.

Of course you could get the whole IP block locked out, in the same way that Spain blocks our telephone code ... but then even I might start shouting 'fascist'.

I won't start a discussion about similarities about both situations. This is not a forum (WP:NOT).

In relation to Mr Hills book you reference, it is regarded as being pro-Spanish and not a reliable source.

It is regarded by whom? Who decides whether it is a reliable source? You? I can go on with Jackson's book (but I imagine that unless it says what you want to hear it will regarded also as unreliable).

'El Pais', like 'The Guardian' is written by people who will die and burn in hell.

Hopefully I don't believe in life after death, but I can imagine this is other proof of how open minded you are.

Because I have not disputed the rest of your article, that does not mean its correct, its been referred to a competent source as although I can say what has happened over the last 25 years and have most of the news etc on tape to refer to, my knowledge of history is patchy.

The {{disputed}} template remains. But I really expect that your competent source has better sources of information about history than the ones it uses to justify the British sovereignty on the isthmus (that providing a textual citation of a treaty that didn't say anything about Gibraltar).

You also need to be sympathetic to 'Gibraltarian' whoever he might be (I still don't know) as our perception is that not much good comes our way from Spain. --Gibnews 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I needn't be sympathetic to Gibraltarian. I do be sympathetic to you since, although suspicious about me (and I do understand why), you haven't recurrently insulted me, provided statements without any source, objected to concrete points and, generally speaking, entered a civilized discussion. As I've told you previously, the root of the problem is not only lack of empathy towards the other part, but also the inability to understand (not share, just understand) the arguments of the other party. Qualifying Spain as evil and dishonesty is as stupid (but much more easy) as qualifying Gibraltarians as drug smugglers. --Ecemaml 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that there is concrete proof of a systematic campaign against Gibraltar and yet there is no proof of anything else. Read This

---

Ecemaml, the proof that you are not qualified to talk about Gibraltar is evident almost every time you post. You claim to follow "rules and guidelines" but you have no regard to the truth in doing so.

Not agreeing with the "Gospel according to Ecemaml" IS NOT VANDALISM! You keep editing massively POV articles about Gibraltar and the Falklands, which you clearly know nothing about and then label anything which disagrees with you as "vandalism". It is clear that you have an overwhelming anti-British agenda, and your "raison d'etre" in WP is the spreading of anti-British propaganda, and the creation of discord. You then complain when you are called a troll, despite fitting the definition perfectly. (El que tenga culo de paja que se lo queme).

Shouting louder or more rudely doesn't make you be right. I'll explain to you some guidelines that determine how we deal with edit wars.

1. The first thing to notice is that the name of the article is the most common name in Spanish (if the native language of the place is not Spanish is what we name an exonym). The most common name of Stanley in Spanish is Puerto Argentino. As a special agreement and given that the exonym is not traditional nor widely accepted in the whole Spanish-speaking area, it was agreed that the name of the article and the mentions to it will be es:Puerto Argentino/Stanley. But you go on changing the name of the city.

   Reversions, especially in disputed matters, require an explanation to determine if it's accepted, not accepted, partially accepted... As you do here, you just revert. We're not so slow enforcing rules as here. Sorry.

   Personal attacks are not allowed. At all. Rude wikipedians are warned just once. The second one is blocked.

Up to five administrators have blocked you or any of your IP address so your claims of "Gospel according to Ecemaml" are simply ridiculous. Claiming that the "raison d'etre" of a wikipedian with about 12,000 editions in es: [18] is "spreading of anti-British propaganda, and the creation of discord" seems to be just paranoia. --Ecemaml 11:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An heir is not the same as someone being nominated. An heir is a descendent, someone who automatically qualifies to inherit my assets. Bequeathing assets to someone is not the same as "leaving an heir".

From the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [19]. heir: A person who inherits or is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to inherit the estate of another. Is it clear now (bold typo is mine)? --Ecemaml 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you personally invented the "flag" story, but I did state that it was an invention, which you now apparently recognise.

There is NO RELIABLE record of how many people left Gibraltar in 1704 or how many stayed. Also, everybody who left was not necessarily a "Gibraltarian" as many of them were here on a temporary basis. If someone had arrived a few days earlier to sell his produce, and happened to be here when the Anglo-Dutch fleet arrived this does not make him a "Gibraltarian". There is no evidence to support any figures, therefore none should be mentioned.

There are plenty of sources that mention such a figure (including British historians). So you mean that sourced figures should be removed just because you, with nothing more that imaginative speculations, think they're wrong. First of all, it's up to you to prove why they are not reliable. Secondly, read WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, try to understand them, and once you get it, we can talk again. --Ecemaml 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Royal Engineers simply wandered over to the Spanish lines, and blew them up of their own volition? And no-one batted an eyelid?

Yes. It's quite obvious. It was 1810. The Spanish power structure had simply disintegrated. No Spanish army remained. Napoleon has just arrived to Spain, had reoccupied Madrid and sent Soult to conquer Andalusia. If I was the British governor I'd do the same (William Jackson accounts that the demolition was accomplished just in time: The Spanish lines were levelled only just in time. The French cavalry reached San Roque a few days later). I'm not trying to say that British where evil and treacherous in demolishing the forts (I haven't said that), but simply that there were no Spanish authorities to ask for such a demolition (look it in the opposite way; it could be sensible that British asked the Spanish authorities, if existent, for permission to blow them up, but not that Spain would say "please, blow up the fortifications, as long as they are a danger for you"). --Ecemaml 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost every post you make proves your bias, your anti-British agenda and therefore your unsuitability to edit anything to do with Gibraltar. At least if you insist on doing so, you could at least try and make it ACCURATE, and NEUTRAL, something which so far you seem incapable of. Gibraltarian.

I'm making great efforts to make anything accurate and neutral when possible, but as you've indeed proved, you don't know what NPOV is, so I think that you're not the most appropriate person to request such neutrality. --Ecemaml 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have already made clear.... I DON'T GIVE TWO HOOTS WHAT YOU THINK! I will not be jumping through hoops for the benefit of a troll's amusement. Also the "Gospel according to Ecemaml" refers to your tendency to lanel anything that disagrees with you as "Vandalism". If I make edits to what you have written, and what I write is both accurate and neutral you have no right to automatically label it "vandalism" as you do. Gibraltarian

Hi, User:Gibraltarian. Unless you fix your behaviour pretty promptly, I think you are going to get sanctioned by the arbritration committee. What you are doing here is not going to work. Morwen - Talk 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (a Briton)

Well, Morwen. Irrespective of what you think about Gibraltarian I can tell you that Ecemam1 will NOT be allowed to use a page about Gibraltar for Spanish propaganda. For some background on why we are sensitive on this issue, see This - and this one (neither are mine)

I understand that you're providing concrete examples of Gibraltarian propaganda. Most of the time it seems that your problem is that you want just one type of propaganda. You'd better go an read WP:NPOV. It's a good reading. For sure.

The restictions on our telephones and Spain blocking EU measures, like the air safety agreement because of a 300 year old dispute are facts which can be established, not a 'point of view'--Gibnews 12:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

He would be better employed editing the es version, which until I corrected it recently claimed that Gibraltar was a den of thieves engaged in money laundering drug smuggling etc on stolen Spanish soil ... YAWN. --Gibnews 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I see that you go on deciding which may and which may not edit articles. I'll update the Gibraltar article in es: besides this one (not instead). --Ecemaml 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contary, feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like, there are plenty of reasonable people who will edit and delete it until you tire of the exercise. I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide.--Gibnews 11:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've decided not to enter into personal attacks. But again, you'd better look for other arguments that purely ad hominem. And I don't remember badly the last agreement between UK and Spain was related to a shared sovereignty status. If that's a "cultural genocide"... --Ecemaml 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'personal attack' simply a refutation of anyone using Spanish propaganda designed to support an attempt to destroy the territorial integrity of Gibraltar. Calm down and explain what you mean by the second sentance, as it does not make sense in English, however I can say that 'joint sovereignty' is not an option you need spend any time considering.--Gibnews 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolution of this conflict ?

Although it may be too much to hope that Spain might give up on its hopeless claim to Gibraltar, I trust that here we are sufficiently open minded to produce some pages which;

a) Describe the history of Gibraltar.

b) Explain to the world WHY there is a 'dispute' over sovereignty

The history of Gibraltar is one of successive sieges and occupations from the Phoenicians, Romans, Moors, Spanish and last but not least the British. However, it is complicated by the fact that the majority of the British living in Gibraltar today were born here and consider Gibraltar their home rather than those Isles North to the north of France.

I have referred the current version and the comments of User:Ecemaml to someone who understands history, but not the Internet, for comment and shortly will produce a version I hope we can agree on.

In respect of the entry 'The disputed status of Gibraltar' I propose we split this into two or more parts, with a preamble. We can have the gospel according to the Palacio Santa Cruz, the Version according to Number six convent place, and something describing the FCO position, which one suspects is 'Oh that this horrible problem would go away and we could have tea at the Spanish Embassy tomorrow'.

Within these DMZ's one would hope that combatatants would refrain from bombing the positions of the other sides in the dispute, and it would be up to the rest of the world to read and judge who by virtue of the quality of their material and supporting evidence is telling the truth, and who is not.

That is +my+ suggestion, and I invite comments from others who understand more on how these things work and indeed from Ecemam1 who seems to be the other end of the dispute.

Hopefully User:Gibraltarian will then no longer find the need to delete material and we can move on to a new article on the psycological differences engendered in nations based on their indigenous sports, or why I prefer cricket to bull fighting.

Should anyone wish to contact me privately, I'd be happy to hear what people really think, as I see a lot of good content has been added to the Gibraltar pages, and it would be nice if the ES end was developed in the same way, everyone elses grasp of Spanish is likely to be better than mine.

On the whole it would be better if we could all co-operate--Gibnews 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I coudn't say I agree most on your proposal but... does it make any difference with regard to my previous proposals (except that, not being proposed by an evil Spanish, is hopefully more likely to be accepted)? This was my first edition in this discussion and the guidelines by Spangineer (that anyone involved in this discussion must mandatorily read). If everybody is able to stick to the guidelines, I can't see any problem (I wouldn't say the same with regard to Gibraltarian) --Ecemaml 07:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC) PS: and yes, the version in es: has to be improved, but a) I don't have the time to do everything at the same time b) I prefer to proceed with the neutralization here first in a "neutral ground" (considering the manners of Gibraltarian here, expecting that he's able to proprerly behave in a wikipedia with evil, treacherous and belonging to an "unintelligent" generation is hopeless)

--

Firstly as you say you do not wish to engage in personal attacks, drop the aggression towards Gibraltarian. He is an interested party and needs to be part of any solution. If you demonise people you have to live with the devil.

Demonise people? Am I demonizing a person that in every single edition insults me?

I note (quote) "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly". The independent body monitoring the recent referendum concluded that it was fair and reasonable that although there was a NO campaign there was the abscence of a YES campaign because there did not exist a sufficient number of people in favour. So you need to accept the reality that there simply does not exist within Gibraltar a 'significant minority view' which wants ANY political union with Spain.

Your quote is right but your interpretation isn't (I'm afraid). A "view" is something that isn't reduced to a group of people. You say: "there does not exist within Gibraltar a 'significant minority view' which wants ANY political union with Spain". And that's right. A biased edition (and false, BTW) would be saying that "there exist within Gibraltar a 'significant minority view' which wants a political union with Spain". But that's not the issue. The issue is that, when writing down the article on the disputed status of Gibraltar in wikipedia, there is a 'significant view' (that of the Spanish government) that claims that Gibraltar should be reverted to Spain. And uses a number or arguments to support its claim. Such arguments could be fair, unfair, true or false, justified with legal arguments or pure emotional ones, but that's one of the significant views on the topic (regardless of the vision of the Gibraltarian population about their links with Spain). As wikipedia doesn't pretend to determine which the truth is, it simply includes such significant views, stating the supporters of each. The point that the Gibraltar people thinks such arguments are unacceptable is outside the aim of wikipedia. The referendum you mention only proves that the Gibraltarians don't want any link with Spain, not that wikipedia shouldn't mention which the Spanish POV is.

I find the idea of including downright lies rather offensive, and detracts from the value of a reference text on the subject of Gibraltar that people who know no better will read and believe.

That the Government of the Kingdom of Spain persists in wanting to occupy Gibraltar is true, however in the same way that dangerous lunatics are locked up to protect the General public, it is a view that needs to be demarcated in a general history of Gibraltar.--Gibnews 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gibnews. This is not a forum and your (lack of) arguments make me get tired. You've objected to two specific points. I've accepted them. The rest of your "argumentation" is the usual small talk: "lunatics", "downright lies", "unintelligent"... Well, I won't spent my time in such kind of useless exchange of keen and bombastic statements. If you have something intelligent to add to the articles, it will be welcome. Otherwise, you'd better go to other type of newsgroups or fora, where you'll be able to share your thoughts with a more acquiescent audience. --Ecemaml 13:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have upset you sensibilites, however some of the

things you assert are correctly described in the words used. Your desire to rewrite someone elses's history is noted. However I am not as easily wound up as Gibraltarian or so easily disposed of.--Gibnews 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In relation to the 'neutral ground' (physical disputed territory) this is of interest in the historical context, however the term has lost its meaning since the area developed from a true DMZ to what it is today. Lets not forget that as well as there area of the Isthmus, the neutral ground included an area to the north of the frontier. This now has a football stadium, a RNE transmitter site, and a building representing the evil empire (McDonalds).

There is a difference that British law incorporates the concept of Prescriptive Rights, which is missing in Spain and which causes much grief to property owners. However, the 'Neutral ground' has gone and it would be unthinkable for Gibraltar to claim the Northern bit, and likewise claims to the airport are going nowhere.--Gibnews 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And? An article about the isthmus dispute will simply show the historical evolution, the Spanish position, the British position and the Gibraltarian position. The layout would something like this:

1. Description. Which is the territory about which a Spanish claim exists?
2. Current position: UK accept that the sovereignty basis of the isthmus is different from that of the Rock and based on Prescriptive Rights; Spain does not accept such an argument claiming that it never stopped complaining about such "ocuppation" and has historically distinguished such a claim from that of the rest of Gibraltar; Gibraltarians say that...
3. Timeline: significant milestones related to the consolidation of the isthmus as Gibraltar territory (just facts and maps where available, without questioning the justification or not). 1713: the Treaty; 1728: creation of the neutral ground, Peninsular Wars: military encampments in the isthmus; 1815: sanitary encampments in the neutral ground; 1854: new sanitary encampments with erection of a sentry line; 186x: the "sunshades" incident; 1909: the border fence is set up; 1938: construction of the airport; 1942: Spain occupies the part of the neutral ground outside the fence; sixties: Spain includes a separate claim on the isthmus in his conversations with Britain; 198x: the airport agreement...
4. Arguments from each side: those of each side (developping the second item), with supportive documentation when available.

We're not here to decide or prove whether the DMZ should be re-established, left as is today, sold to the Japanese... Just showing the different points on each position. --Ecemaml 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK but there needs to be some segregation to prevent the Gibraltarians newly online next year seeing offensive material and realising they can delete it at a stroke. Perhaps we could include a health warning rather than a total ban in the wikispace :)

--Gibnews 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)