Talk:Spanish Gibraltarians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gibraltar, which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the economy, geography, history, languages, politics and cultures of Gibraltar. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Gibraltar is a territory forming part of the Iberian Peninsular which has been subject to succesive invasions from the Phoenecians, Romans, Moors, Spanish and the British. Today its people use the term Gibraltarian to describe their identity. Its use in conenction with previous invaders is historically incorrect. Spanish implies a nationality and Gibraltarians are British. In the 2002 referendum we rejected any involvement of Spain in our affairs with over 99% of the populatation united in that opinion.

If this article is going to remain it should be truthful and reflect the situation and not describe the myth of a manufactured alternative population of Gibraltar in order to show support for Spanish oppression.

--Gibnews 08:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but most of your acceptable criticisms are being taken into account and modified (e.g. John Galliano etc...) Calling Spaniards "invaders" is not acceptable. The name Spain, Hispania and the Spanish language and ethnicity predates the reconquest. Saying "incorrectly" is like a Spaniard editing the Gibraltar page saying that the current inhabitants of Gibraltar "incorrectly" call themselves Gibraltarian because the true inhabitants of Gibraltar are so and so.... that is POV. you must understand that.--Burgas00 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The history of Gibraltar is one of invasion and occupation, The Spanish are just one group that did that, however, as a concession to your sensibilities in putting your history as Conquistadors behind you we can remove that.

Surely you are not suggesting a Spaniard would edit a page saying that the true Gibraltarians were Spanish, I am shocked that you would defame them thus :)

However, having made the above small change, I trust the rest can be left alone so we can move on to creating informative pages rather than edit wars. The first visiting Spanish politicians from Madrid today had a bus tour round the rock accompanied by 200 press so you should see something of that in the media. I doubt they found any Spanish Gibraltarians hiding in the cave. --Gibnews 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the whole moorish thing, is that it suggests that Spanish muslims were not Spanish because of their religion. "Moors" in Spain were as Spanish as the Christians or the Jews. That perspective is backward and erroneous and is confined to Francoist history books. If Gibraltar was "occupied" by the "Spanish", then so was the whole of what is now Andalusia. My problem with your edit is not really related to the present-day Gibraltar dispute. Nevertheless, one cannot call Andalusians "settlers" in what has historically always been part of Andalusia (if not Spain).--Burgas00 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I think you will agree with my last edit.--Burgas00 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets try and use the talk page and be less radical in our edits, Gibnews. We can discuss differences paragragh by paragragh rather than rewriting the whole thing according to our own political point of view. --Burgas00 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of part of your edit. A part from the fact that you have destroyed the sense and meaning of the article, I explain whats wrong with your diatribe:

In 2001, the Official Census records 326 Spaniards, 22,882 Gibraltarians, who are British Citizens, and 2627 'other British'. (This article is not about Spanish national residents in Gibraltar)

Restrictions on communications, general harassment and political hostility in the latter half of the 20th century between the Spanish state and the people of Gibraltar, has reinforced a sense of identity amongst Gibraltarians, and term 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is considered politically incorrect and offensive. (Blaming exclusively Spain for political hostility is POV. It is a valid and understandble POV, but it is not for wikipedia.) (Do all Gibraltarians find this term offensive? Have you asked them? Are they all ashamed of their Spanish origin, culture, heritage and language? saying "to some Gibraltarians" is sufficient)

Gibraltar enjoys a multi-racial and multi-cultural society where ethnic origins are not particularly important and people are judged on merit. (as opposed to Spain which is not multiracial, multicultural and where people are judged on their ethnic background rather than merit?)

--Burgas00 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the root of this problem with this article is really the word Spanish

Which has a number of meanings;

• An ethicity
• an inhabitant of a particular geographical area
• A political state.

There is similarly a problem with the word Gibraltarian because it is a modern term used to describe the people of Gibraltar from the time that they consider themselves seperate from the Spanish state. Something which Tito Benady explains very well.

Blaming exclusively Spain for political hostility is POV. No its a matter of fact. Remind me of the restrictions that Gibraltar or the UK has imposed on Spain ! Indeed we offered advanced rights to Spaniards to work in Gibraltar when Spain joined the EU/EEC or whatever it was called then. Fritz and Jules still needed to apply for a work permit, but José was OK.

What is particularly offensive is attempting to Hijack the term 'Gibraltarian' and apply it to the Spanish residents of Gibraltar in 1704, an example of revisionism.

I am not comparing Gibraltar to anywhere as an example of a multi racial society that works, just mentioning that racial origin is NOT important here and immaterial. However when it comes to the Spanish state, thats another matter.

Enough of this nonsense !

--Gibnews 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are stuck with an article about Spanish Gibraltarians then it might as well be accurate. I've spent some time tidying up the result of user:vintagekits messing up the references, and have added some explanation and material about the play 'the straits'

I've also made the last paragraph more global so that there is no implicit comparison between gibraltar and the land of the inquisitor :)

--Gibnews 09:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok Im not purposefully engaging in an edit war with you. Can you first discuss the aspects you want to change one by one here and then edit the article? I will not revert any addition you make to the article without previous discussion unless it is excessively POV.--Burgas00 11:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• This page needs to have the information provided verified. Beaumontproject 12:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Which info is not verified?--Burgas00 12:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus version

As I predicted, Gibnews and me have managed to reach some consensus over the content of this page. There may be some disagreements in the future, but Im sure we will work them out. Rather than this article, I would have preferred a new article on Gibraltar-Spanish relations which focuses on the human relations between the territory and its neighbour, rather than on the (rather boring and pointless) high-level bickering over sovereignty. Perhaps this can be a stub for a much better and more interesting article which focuses on the history of these relations. (e.g. during the civil war, the migrant workers, the effect of the blockade on both sides of the border, and the wider effect of political developments)... --Burgas00 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we can come to an agreement on these things, because unlike some other disputes, locally we all get on pretty well and have very much the same outlook on life - which is the pursuit of happyness, good wine, tapas and friendship - we do not engage in revenge killings, and blowing up anonymous people visiting the market for 'a cause'. --Gibnews 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I really don't see what user:vintagekits is getting at here, despite some lengthy discussions we have arrived at a neutral or rather largely acceptable text which has references to support its argument. He previously screwed up the reference system and the text he is reverting was not acceptable to Burgas00 surely the text is more important than the cosmetics of the references which are inin any event there and comprehensive ? --Gibnews 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem putting in an agreed text, by all means go ahead. However, the referencing system is now screwed up, I have sent you messeges on this already so you are aware of the problem. If you want to make edits to the article you must edit that in without ripping out the referencing system. Infact Burgass00 actaully agrees Vintagekits 10:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Vintage, can you fix the referencing system without changing the text? Im sorry but im going to have to revert again, since you have altered the content and structure of the text considerably.--Burgas00 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well i cant be arsed with it anymore - just to say you were wrong to take it out in the first place! and it was you that took it out. You should have edited the article from that standpoint. DOnt expect anymore help from me! Vintagekits 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)