Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Things to do

I'm not re article:

1. A summary of the different periods. At the moment, just a timeline is usually provided, which miss an overall perspective for sure.
2. A more verbose description of the internal evolution of the Gibraltar politics. IMHO, a description on the development of the politican consciousness from the 19th century, when all the power was in the hands of the governor and Gibraltarian workers received a smaller salary than UK workers, to the 20th century, when a number of different political parties were created.
3. Photos. A picture of the Moorish Castle would be nice to illustrate the first stages of the Gibraltar history. With regard to the 20th century some good elections could be (as long as a free or fair use picture is available): the visit of Elisabeth II to the Rock in 1954, any of the Chief Ministers speaking at the UN General Assembly, the opening of the fence in 1982, the Tireless...

--Ecemaml 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have most of the above things and will add them shortly.--212.120.227.226 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing semiprotection

This article was semiprotected about three weeks ago to deal with dynamic IP vandalism. Hopefully the vandal has gotten bored and gone away so I've restored full editing to this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

SP has been restored by Woohookitty. --TML1988 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian strikes back

By means of sockpuppets such as Calpe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Tobaila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gibraltarian goes on claiming that his editions are NPOV.

Some clues:

• Removal of sourced statements (references are far from being pro-Spanish, as long as both are British sources and one of them comes from a very British Governor of Gibraltar, also a military historian?)
• Inclusion of a very funny POV analysis (with regard to the demolition of the Spanish forts) when the current version (according to a relevant source) states that there is no record about the issue and many different POVs could be valid (as conclusion I removed all, since all of them could be speculation; take for instance saying that Spanish authorities didn't complain because a) the complain has been lost b) they couldn't complain since they were being protected by the English themselves or c) they didn't complain because they didn't see any problem in removing anything that could be used by the Napoleon troops. As long as neither Gibraltarian nor me are reputable historians or lawyers, the most neutral way is leaving as Hills explained.
• Faking a UN Resolution text claiming that it sais what it doesn't say. He replaces "explicitly accepts the Spanish position on the territorial integrity" with "refers to UN Resolution 1514(XV), which guarantees the right of self-determination of all peoples". Taking into account that said resolution (2353) says that: "Considering that any colonial situation that complete or partially destroys the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN, and specifically with paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 1514", it seems strange that he says that "Ecemaml didn't like them no-one has been able to show any of them to be either factually incorrect or POV"

--Ecemaml 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is YOU who is faking a UN resolution..........the UN has NEVER said what you claim it has, quite the opposite. The UN res can be seen at the UN website. The first thing that Res states is "Recalling Resolution 1514(XV)....", which is precisely the one that guarantees the right to self-determination of ALL peoples. No-one disputes that spain is entitled to its territorial integrity, which it already has. The territory of spain is already intact. Gibraltar is British territory (ceded in 1713), and a colony. As a colony, by definition it is NOT a part of any other state, therefore nothing that occurs in a colony can affect the territorial integrity of a country of which it does not form part. The spanish government knows this, which is why they refuse to have the case referred to the ICJ, as they know they will be laughed out of court. The UN and the ICJ have repeatedly stated that "In the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination". The principle of territorial integrity has ONE application only (not because I say so, the UN & ICJ do).....preventing integral parts of a state from seceding, e.g. preventing Liverpool or Valencia from declaring independence. It has nothing to do with decolonisation, and certainly cannot override or displace the inaliable right to self-determination that ALL peoples enjoy. Ecemaml we are used to the spanish govt, and you distorting the truth.........but your arguments are simply absurd.

You are apparently calling for the forced annexation of Gibraltar against the clear democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar......yet you do not seem to think this is fascist doctrine?? How can you possibly claim that ignoring the democratic rights and wishes of 30,000 human beings simply in order to satisfy your desire for annexation is right in the 21st Century?

I have some sympathy with the Spanish point of view as an Irish person. I see some parallels with Northern Ireland. However a major difference is that there isn't even a large minority in Gibraltar seeking union with Spain, unlike in NI regarding the Republic. Still I find it difficult to understand why Gibraltarians want to remain under British rule. In NI, those wanting to stay in the UK are overwhelmingly Protestant, whereas in Gibraltar most people are Catholic. I'd appreciate an explanation. (Ronan)

A quick explanation is that Gibraltar and Ireland are different and historically Irish politics have been driven by sectarian differences, in Gibraltar there is unity across religious groups. Its also wrong to assume that we want 'British rule' in practice Gibraltar is self-Governing and I certainly want a government that is accountable to the electorate. Spain has been seen as an unfriendly neigbour and has not made any efforts to improve. As the standard of living is higher in Gib than either the UK or Spain, we are doing something right and 'more of the same' is a good formula. In order to justify the annexation of Gibraltar Spain makes unfounded allegations of criminality and attempts to neutralise any projection of Gibraltar internationally. Its bullshit. Hope that explains things. -- Gibnews

Unfortunately

I had to re-SP the article. The bank of IPs is a little different than what Gibraltarian was using before but he's blanking the exact same material. *sigh* Hopefully it'll be brief. I'll leave Disputed status unprotected for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Having had a look, there are things that can be improved, the reference to Joe Bossano is nonsense - Gibraltar did not have the status of a colony until much later like 1830? As Joe is normally well informed, the source needs to be checked.

There are a lot of references to Hills as a 'British source' he was half Spanish and a friend of Franco, thus his POV is hardly sympathetic to Gibraltar or to be trusted.

He's listed since he was not only a British subject, but also a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, which makes him much more reliable that any of the usual Gibraltar propanganda. The problem, as usual is that, only if a historian supports the current Gibraltarian POV, he's NPOV. Otherwise, he's POV. Any other argument? --Ecemaml 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'a British Subject' As I say, Hills was half Spanish, a friend of Franco and his view on Gibraltar although presented as 'British' is tainted. Further the book was written in the sixties and things have moved on, there have even been changes in Spain.--Gibnews 09:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the language needs to be changed into English.

But not today.--Gibnews 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

• I met Albert Risso and he did not call himself 'Alberto' nor is that his usual name - for instance in Dr Garcia's book.

• During the WW2 Spain was nominally neutral, however there were German agents near Gibraltar in Algeciras and Guadarranque. Spain allowed Germans to build an shipping observation station in Spanish Morocco which MI5 is alleged to have blown up.

I've tried to include a reference to Joseph Garcia's book, which describes the 1967 referendum but the wikitrickery has me baffled - maybe a competent C programmer can correct the Syntax.--Gibnews 13:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse anyone, you should refer to the time of your posting: You reverted my edits at 12:58pm with no mention whatsoever in the Discussion page. I then proceeded to revert yours as they are factually incorrect, excluding Albert Risso, for which I take your word. You only wrote your reasons twenty minutes later after my edits went live. Therefore, who does need to take a moment regarding the Talk Page then? Also, Franco's Spain was not neutral or nominally neutral, but declared itself nonbelligerent and proceeded to give aid to the Axis (hence, not neutral) [1]. I will then proceed to reinstate the wording and hope you will abide. Regards, Asterion 13:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a matter of timing, I was editing the talk page at the same time as you were reverting my edit and complaining of a lack of explanation.

If non-belligerent means that there were a SS spies in the campo area and that Spain allowed the use of its North African assets by Germany on a covert basis, then thats correct. I went to see where they lived last week and am informed they were 'nice young men who were very well behaved'. I've included a link to Lionel Crabbe, who pioneered underwater diving in Gibraltar, and incidentally went on to work with the Italians he fought when they changed sides. There is still a guy walking around here who trained under him.--Gibnews 10:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now. Please accept my apologies. Franco never said he was neutral. He simply said Spain would not enter the war. It was crystal clear what side he was on. The same one that has helped the butcher in the Civil War. "Non-Belligerent" is the right term. Asterion 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have found something we can agree on here; Apologies for being a bit aggressive - I thought you were trying to minimise things, whereas the reverse it true. There is an interesting account of the Germans attempting to monitor shipping movements with an IR beam across the straits in R V Jones book 'Most Secret War'.

Anyhow, the current German presence on the beaches and their bases of LIDL and ALDI is more welcome :) --Gibnews 10:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

--212.120.226.157 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)== Gibraltarian is back ==

It seems our old friend Gibraltarian is back. This time avoiding setting up any sockpuppet, under the IP address 212.120.226.60. He just reverted this article and tried to erase any mention of his permanent block from his former user page. Any friendly administrator willing to take care of him before this escalates once again? Thanks, Asterion 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. Its a pity as I thought things were reaching a level of co-operation and the edit wars had moved to the South Atlantic, Did you see the quote about the Maldives ? --Gibnews 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The mistake in the American newspaper? Yes, I did. Absolutely delirious indeed! Asterion 23:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that particular IP for 24 hours, but I don't want to restore semi-protection to this article unless the problem escalates again. Vandalism now and then isn't cause for semi-protection, but if it becomes more regular as it was in the past, I'll semi-protect. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Next time Spangineer, I'd suggest 3 hours. 24 hours is completely pointless since he uses dynamic IPs. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken; unblocking... —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know it's hard. Always the urge to block it indefinitely. :) Trust me I know. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen - there is simply NO point in blocking any IP in that block for more than a few hours as its a dynamic pool and the user gets a new one every time he logs in. Please do not do this as it potentially causes a problem. Carry on with reverts as appropriate - there are enough of us watching these pages regularly and if the problem persists, it will be resolved. Thats what I do best.

Apart from this minor problem, we seem to be improving the wording in this set of articles and achieving some agreement on matters between Gibraltar and Spain even if our politicians are failing to manage the same. --Gibnews 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AND if Gibraltarian wishes to discuss things with me, I am available most days in Main Street -or- in +other+ places. My policy is simple - accept no shit from anyone.--212.120.226.157 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right; that's why I unblocked that IP after a few hours. I normally block vandals for 24hrs, and so I did the same thing here out of habit, not remembering that this is a special case. Sorry. You're right about these articles—this discussion has come a long way in the past few months. Thanks for your efforts. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against blocking whole IP ranges and/or permanent blocks, as this would certainly mean many other people from Gibraltar would be blocked as a result. I am for the temporary 90 minutes block if deemed necessary. This way things seem to calm down a little bit. Cheers, Asterion 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats a sensible time.--Gibnews 09:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

foreign vandalism

160.83.32.14 = proxy0-hh.uk.deuba.com, Deutsche Bank NJ

--Gibnews 18:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User Gibraltarian removals

I've noticed that Gibraltarian [2] successfully removed the items he didn't like. I'm restoring them. Best regards --Ecemaml 13:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It may have been him, although he has not been very active of late.

I have removed some of the stuff about 'the true Gibraltarians driven out of their homeland to lamant in the hills, pineing for the fjords' Once they left they are no longer part of the history of Gibraltar, which is what this page is about. The Spanish period ended in 1704. Also the word 'occupation' in relation to British control of the territory sounds as if they were there to keep the natives down.

--Gibnews 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a quite valid oppinion. But only your oppinion. If you're interested in not allowing the reader to know where the Gibraltarians went... --Ecemaml 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a section about San Roque where the history of Spaniards living in Spain is appropriate. This article is about Gibraltar. I have not removed the details of the losers leaving, but the detail of what they did next is irrelevent and manufactured to bolster irredentist nonsense.

--Gibnews --Gibnews

Again, it's your oppinion. If you think that a reader shouldn't know that most of the inhabitants of Gibraltar settled down in a near chapel (by the way belonging to the country of the city) it's up to you, but it seems as if you want to censor such information. And even if there is an irredentist nonsense, the reader deserves to know the excuse of such irredentism. Please, don't attempt to impose your own POV as usual. It's better to have too much information (especially if it's relevant to the topic of the article) that having too few. What is not fair is censoring true information on the ground that it could be used by people that hate Gibraltar. It's as if a Spaniard wishes to censor information about the Inquisition. Best regards --Ecemaml 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the Spanish Inquisition was Spanish so its something appropriate for Spanish pages. I do not expect them.

However, stuffing an article about Gibraltar with myths about 'the lost tribe of Gibraltarians' sitting in San Roque awaiting the return of Gibraltar to them only encourages loonies.

The people in question were Spanish and they are also dead and burried. At the point they left Gibraltar they ceased to be part of its history.

Please do not shove your propaganda down peoples throats - of late its been possible to create some real articles without this sort of nonsense and continual interference from rabid Spaniards and equally Gibraltarians. It would be nice if you did not rekindle this dispute by including unsubstantiated inflamatory NONSENSE about 'British occupation' and 'Gibraltarians' in San Roque.

Indeed today there are lots of genuine Gibraltarians in San Roque, many of us buy second homes there as its a nice area. Those who went there in 1704 got a better deal on the real estate.

There is a whole article about san roque.

--Gibnews

Nobody has talked about any lost tribe. That's your biased interpretation. In the same way, saying that "at the point they left Gibraltar they ceased to be part of its history" is your opppinion. An axyom that you take for granted but that I don't accept. And please, take care of your way of talking. Using ad hominem arguments such as "rabid Spaniards" and generic loud words such as nonsense (stop crying), unsubstantiated, inflamatory and so on doesn't make you be right (and by the way are a violation of wikipetiquette). Have a tea and relax. It will be good for you. ----Ecemaml 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I was in the kitchen making tea I formed a Spanish Government, which makes as much sense as a 'Gibraltar council' in San Roque.

--Gibnews

Apart from being so ocurrent, have you got any real argument? The Spanish Gibraltar council was formally re-established. Same guys, same name, same archives, same symbols, same flag, same coat of arms ... The king refererred to them as My Gibraltar in its Country (the Campo de Gibraltar). If you want to hide that San Roque was the seat of the "exiled" council (BTW, the council in Gibraltar was re-established in.... the XIX century?) and that most of the Gibraltar population settled down there, you'll have to give better arguments. And yes, as long as this is not a San Roque article there is no further mention to it in the whole article, so therefore, is there any problem beyond your own POV? --Ecemaml 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the page is about the history of Gibraltar, and after the Spanish left, what they do in Spain does not matter. They could dress up in gorilla suits and call themselves King Kong, but it would not make it true nor part of Gibraltar history.

However, your present wording is not offensive, and I trust the small changes I have just made to improve the English will close this particular edit war.

On another part the long ramble about raising the British flag need shortening, but I leave that to you.

The Alternative Spanish Government will reward you for your efforts.

--Gibnews

It's obvious :-) You can't help spending most of your argumentation in ad hominem comments? :-) Have a tea and relax! It'll be good for you. :-) Best regards --Ecemaml 13:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm actually paid with the gold from Moscow.

As long is its not Gold Blend. However as the grant of arms was given to Gibraltar and is in use, it really should be returned to the Government here who have a reproduction of it on display in the entrance to the Chief ministers office. Generally Gibraltar flags are considered highly dangerous in Spain, and indeed Spanish ones here are an endangered species. Its time someone at the top decided to call it a day and engage in normal relations, with the upcoming uefa debacle its unlikely to be this year.

But look, we have achieved a consensus - I think. It remains to be seen if the UK will hand over 200m euros as a sweetener to sort out the telephones.

--Gibnews

Telephones

Maybe the UK could provide you directly with the telephone lines and through the British area code. It definitely will sort out the problems. --Ecemaml 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doing that, which has been suggested before, is simply not practical and is certainly not cost effective. Gibraltar already has an IDD code of 350 which works from every country in the world apart from Spain. All that is required is a small programming change to the Spanish network, similar to that which was effected when Czechoslovakia split into two states, each with their own telephone code. Nor does the use of an IDD code have sovereignty implications, as Canada and a number of offshore islands use the +1 prefix without any problem.

What you may not realise is that call revenue is shared between the carriers and if our calls terminated in the UK rather than Gibraltar they would get half the income and not Gibtelecom.

In some ways the pressure on numbers is declining as VOIP starts to take off. This already gives me both a UK and US local incoming number on my switch in Gibraltar and if I needed it, a Spanish one. It also allows me to call Spanish mobile numbers, although none of this technology allows my mobile to work in Spain, despite it working everywhere else in the world I've been.

Part of the pressure on numbers will also reduce as fax machines begin to become obsolete and dialup lines for Internet are phased out by ADSL. A quick check last night showed some 14 wireless access points within range of my residence, so technology is on the move away from 56k modems.

see - http://www.gibtele.com/freewow

However, the phones are a clear demonstation of the 'head-in-the-sand' view of relations between Spain and Gibraltar by one party.

--Gibnews 09:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions to 1802 and 1842

I have mentioned about the first merchant token in 1802 and the Gibraltarian Real in 1842. --Chris Buttigieg 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of vandalism

Although the history of Gibraltar has been subject to edit wars between Ecemaml and the banned user called Gibraltarian and his anonymous socks, that does not mean ALL edits are vandalism and on some things the 'banned user' has a point.

• The page is called the history of Gibraltar, there is a page about San Roque and after the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar left the territory, they no longer participate in the history of Gibralatar and their inclusion is inappropriate.

• In relation to the change in wording regarding Queen Anne to she has not a de jure title from she has no powers to do so the latter wording is clear English and the actual wording taken from the source.

• Mr Hills was very close to Franco and this affected his view of Gibraltar.

These things are fact, please leave them alone.

--Gibnews 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)