Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Original discussions 2 Last colonial people? 3 Is overall tone neutral? 4 Calpe 5 Motto 6 New picture - NPOV? 7 Territorial waters 8 Stories planted by Spain Government 9 Language 10 Territorial waters and economy 11 Map 12 Population density 13 Motto 14 The Spanish 15 Reference desk 16 Unexplained deletion and/or vandalism 17 No dispute 17.1 Spanish claims 18 Burgas00 19 Official Gibraltar Homepage 20 Outdated Spanish claim 21 Death on the Rock 22 Turkmenistan 23 New edits 24 Tax section 25 Yanito/llanito 26 Gibnews 27 Vandalism by Farouk yalla 28 Is Gibraltar a Tax Haven? 29 Ismael76 30 Dispute 31 anon 32 Ecemaml 33 Referendum 34 Gibnews

Original discussions

The Spanish version of this page contains many false and inflamatory statements. It has been locked by the powers that be, but the insults to the people of Gibraltar remain for all to see. What can be done about this?

A Gibraltarian

---

EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP:

I've posted this comment in Talk:European Union:

"Gibraltar Bearing in mind thes sections of the EC Treaty:

'Article 299' 3. ... This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list [annex II of the Treaty]. 4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. [...] 6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs: (a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands; (b) this Treaty shall not apply to the sovereign base areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus; (c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

Wouldn't Gibraltar be considered a part of EU? Because: (a) In spite of being excluded since it is not mentioned in the list of Annex II quoted in the above section 3, it is included in EU by section 4 (in fact, Gibraltar is one of the few territories that this section seems to apply). (b) Gibraltar is NOT mentioned in section 6., which excludes some European territories from EU membership, which would be granted under section 4. So Gibraltar is considered part of the EU by section 4. of art. 299. Moreover, Gibratarians will vote in the next European Parliament elections. So, why is Gibraltar considered not part of EU in this article of Wikipedia? If no good answer be posted here, I'll take the responsability of changing the article my self in a few days. Cheers to all! " Marco Neves

---

Just check the Special member state territories and their relations with the EU wiki . I'm afraid that the new EU constitution will not solve this issue, just to avoid clashes between Spain and the Uk.

theWikipedian

---

It's possibly worthy of note that Gibraltar is voting in the 2004 European Elections (to the European Parliament this month, as a part of the UK's South-West region. The colony could well prove decisive in one of the MEPs elected from that constituency. -- OwenBlacker 23:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Last colonial people?

The article currently says:

Also, it is worth mentioning that nowadays Gibraltarians are the last colonial people in Europe.

By what definition is this said? Many parts of Europe have changed hands back and forth over the centuries, and Gibraltar is hardly the only one to be contested. By such a definition of "colonial people", one could argue that France's control of Brittany is colonial, or the UK's control of Northern Ireland, or Russia's control of Kaliningrad, among many other candidates. So I removed this, unless someone can explain what this meant. --Delirium 08:27, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

The UN regards Gibraltar as a colony, and it is listed on its Decolonisation Committee's list of 'non-self-governing territories'. By contrast, Ceuta and Melilla, Spain's North African enclaves, claimed by Morocco, are regarded as part of Spain, just as Brittany, Northern Ireland and Kaliningrad are officially regarded as part of France, the UK and Russia respectively.

Is overall tone neutral?

I've just had the pleasure of a weekend in Gibraltar and came here to see if there were any photos were required. However as I read the article I got the impression that its POV is much more allied to that of the typical Gibraltarian view than being NPOV. Am I right? If so, does anything need to be changed? Pcb21| Pete 18:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're mostly wrong, and you were wrong to remove the politics article. I am not Gibraltarian, and there are many things about the place that infuriate me, but is a fact that Spain refuses to recognise the +350 dialling code, tries to prevent Gibraltar to join international sporting bodies, bans direct flights and ferry services, causes long delays at the frontier, and is perfectly open about it. Spain has also openly stated at the UN that the 'present inhabitants' (its words) are not a colonial people.

I also replied at Talk:Politics of Gibraltar. NPOV is about more than just being factual (although that is critically important of course). An entirely factual rant about what an ogre Spain is not neutral. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I may have moved this information to relevant sections on transportation, communications, history, etc, and I removed the comment about 'pure colony', which was originally used by the Government of Gibraltar, and references to harrassment, However, your claim that it is a 'rant about what an ogre Spain is' is missing the point. I have also said why Spain thinks these restrictions are justified- hence reference to availability of telephone numbers.

I'm Spanish, so I'm very likely biased 8-). That said, the article shows mainly the UK/Gibraltar view of things. We might need to add something about the aiport, built on spanish ground never part of the Utrecht treaty, for example.

The fact that both UK and Gibraltar are ambiguous about the status of the rock whenever suits them also may be mentioned (if it's part of the UK, which I may agree, why be recognized as an independent country? If it wants to be an independent country, it must therefore be a colony now...)

But in any case, it's a fun to read article. English people tend to get very emotional about Gibraltar, what with the rest of the colonies gone, and all... ;-) User:JopeMoro

There's already an article called Gibraltar controversy that covers the dispute. This page is specifically about Gibraltar itself. The dispute is mentioned (as it has to be in an article on Gibraltar), but we don't want this article just turning into a discussion of the dispute. As far as emotions are concerned - can you explain what Spain is doing holding onto Perejil, the Chafarinas Islands, Penon de Velez de la Gomera and Penon de Alcucemas, with particular reference to Spain sending in the army to recapture Perejil from the Moroccans? jguk 21:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have a separate article, as it leaves a NPOV article on gibraltar as the main one. Not sure what Perejil et.al. have to do with the Gibraltar situation, unless it's used to justify it... But, hey, as I said: English people get very emotional with Gibraltar... 8-) User:JopeMoro

My only point is that the Spanish are (and always have been) attached to their overseas territories. I can't think of any example where they have voluntarily given up the whole of a colony. You Spaniards seem to be even more clingy than us Brits:)

Naah, we gave up Guinea Ecuatorial, Fernando Poo, Sahara Occidental and at least a couple of small other ones, all in Africa if memory serves... ;-) And no, your point is that the article should not reflect the conflict and be kept without any POV that is not the UK one, all I'm saying is that that is inherently POV... But, hey, who cares, I mean, really... 8-)

I don't really care - only pointing out. I don't know much about Equatorial Guinea's independence, but the Spanish government took an interest in it again now it has oil: Spain sent a warship towards Equatorial Guinea just prior to the attempted coup! Spain gave up Western Sahara and Rio del Oro as they had no natural resources and a guerilla campaign for independence: it was uneconomic and militarily problematic for Spain to keep them. Sidi Ifni was only given up after an economic blockade from Morocco too. I'm confused though - are you claiming the article is POV or NPOV? :) jguk 19:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article is not neutral and very POV... (corrected above, also. Note to self: don't wikipediate late at night 8-)

Which bits do you claim are POV? jguk 11:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, i must say about your post about spanish colonial interests in Africa, being a person with a quite good knowledge on history and geography i become surprissed by your statements. No natural resources in Western Sahara! (by the way, Rio del Oro and Western Sahara are the same thing, but you probably dont know), my god, what would you call then to one of the world bigest produccers of phosphates, or the rich saharian fishing bank. Economic blockage at Sidi Ifni? This is offtopic but i am angry that such iliteracy... never heard of the Sidi Ifni war? It happened after spain and france granted independence to Morroco. And you probably dont know that if have been long since it is well known that there is oil at Guinea Ecuatorial. Also, last time i checked there was still a dicator rulling such Guinea Ecuatorial. And yes, the article is POV, just al little example:

"The notion of accepting an arrangement with Spain was resoundingly rejected by the population in two referenda held in 1967 and in 2002, the latter just months after the joint sovereignty principle was accepted by the British government."

It does NOT explain that gibraltar became british due to the Utrecht treaty, and is still british thanks to the Utrecht treaty, and it is stated very clearly:

"And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others."

By the way, the Utrecht treaty was forced into spain after UK and France invaded spain to decide which king should rule spain, quite unkindly, invade our country and as their candidate failed decide to hold a bit of spain, without war declaration. Tipical british.

Calpe

Either Calpe is a Phoenician name or it is Greek.

And there is another town Calpe in the Spanish Mediterranean, famous by the Peñón de Ifach, another rocky mountain by the sea.

Motto

What authority is there for the authenticity of the currently quoted motto "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti"? I haven't seen this anywhere else. Admittedly, the inscription beneath the arms of Gibraltar -- "Montis Insignia Calpe" (Badge of the Rock of Gibraltar) -- is more of a label than a slogan... -- Picapica 08:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The official Gibraltar government website - www.gibraltar.gov.gi - gives authority for this Jongarrettuk 18:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The label on the Coat of Arms is "Montis Insignia Calpe" meaning "Mountain named Calpe". The motto of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti" meaning "Never defeated by the enemy"

New picture - NPOV?

The newly added picture implies that usually there are amounts of british flags in Gibraltar's buildings, and although there might be some during normal times of the year, it can be clearly seen that this photo's flags are in commemoration of the tercentary, fact that is not stated in the picture's text.

I would either strongly NPOV the photo's text or remove the picture itself.

What does everybody else think?

xDCDx 10:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the caption rather than the actual picture is the problem. With it suitably reworded, I think the picture would be fine. (And note I have been arguing that the article has a pro-Gibraltar-is-British-and-look-at-those-evil-Spainards POV). Pcb21| Pete 10:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have slightly edited both the image text, and the image foot. I think that now is more factual, hope nobody gets angry with the change. xDCDx 14:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too bad if they do.

In Gibraltrar we can fly whatever flags we like, whenever we like. These days its considered politically incorrect to wave the union flag in the UK, not so here. There is a large yellow and red flag at the frontier on the Spanish side. I have no objections to it remaining there.--Gibnews 10:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Territorial waters

This section seems long in comparison to the rest of the article. It's interesting in the context of the territorial dispute of Gibraltar, but it seems strange to devote so much space to a side issue (bearing in mind that Spain claims all of Gib, not just the territorial seas). I propose deleting, or moving to a new page dealing with Spain's claims to Gibraltar. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 07:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stories planted by Spain Government

I've edited out The Spanish Government, as part of its campaign to reclaim the Rock repeatedly plants. This is a very seious allegation; some sources are needed here

Ejrrjs 23:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Fourth Report Published 22nd June 1999

7) We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively. (Paragraph 57)--212.120.227.226 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Language

The one and only official language of Gibraltar is English. Gibraltarians, when speaking amongst themselves, often speak in Spanish (the local dialect is called Llanito, which has been influenced by English, but is intelligible to all Spanish speakers. To refer to Spanish as a vernacular language first sounds silly, second, it is unclear as to what it really means, and third is tautologous since Llanito is already referred to in the article. Jongarrettuk 06:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Territorial waters and economy

I've decided to be bold and delete the territorial waters section - it seems out of place here and is rather an arcane subject. It's also, imho, too long in comparison to the rest of the article. If someone wants to start a page on Spain's claim on Gibraltar, it can go back in there. Please don't revert without making comment on here as to why you disagree with me.

I have also deleted two paragraphs in economy, which seemed more to be discussing arguments between Spain and UK rather than Gibraltar itself.

By the way, these changes have meant I've had to move the piccis and delete the last one of the 1939 map so that the article still looks ok. Jongarrettuk 06:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created Gibraltar controversy with the text you removed, and added a wikilink to it in Gibraltar and another in Politics of Gibraltar, I also replaced the text-stamped and low resolution image of the article by the, in my opinion neater, 1939 map. If somebody has high resolution text-free images of Gibraltar, feel free to add them. --xDCDx 15:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've carried out quite a significant rewrite - I'm sure people will tell me what they think and improve upon it further (In particular I'd like to find some up to date economic statistics to add.) I'm also moving quite a bit to the [[Gibraltar controversy page, which will need some significant tidying up. 20:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)~

Map

Can someone find a decent map? As I read the article, there are no maps giving even a general idea of the layout of the country. P3d0

• If somebody wants to process it, there's a satelite pic on the NASA site image PIA03397

Population density

|1| True density

Data from the article (and the CIA factbook)
Area = 6.5 km²
Population Total (2003 E) = 27,776
Density = 4270/km²

Anyway, let's do the math: 27,776/6.5 = 4273,2307692307692307692307692308
Why do you think it is approximately 4,800?

Ejrrjs 20:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|2| Density ranking

According to List of countries by population density: Monaco (16,000/km²) leads followed by Singapore (6,430/km²)...but these are sovereign countries, not "territories".

How about Hong Kong (6,771/km²) ?
Or Macau (18,182/km²)?
Why does it matter being the *most* something, anyway?
Please, clarify.
Ejrrjs 21:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I got this from the Guinness World Records website [1] (see Modern Society, then People and Places). This disagrees with the size given on [2], which is a Gibraltar government website. Guinness are obviously excluding Macao and Hong Kong and all sovereign states. jguk 22:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, why should wikipedia exclude Macao and Hong Kong? Their status as Special Administrative Regions of China are more or less similar to G. status within the UK (i.e. some degree of self-governance but not full sovereignty). What other non-sovereign territories are you thinkging of as having less density than G.? Ejrrjs 22:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motto

If the motto is "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti", why does the picture have "Montis insignia Calpe" ("Sign of Calpe mounts"?)? Is it the Spanish coat for Calpe?--Erri4a 17:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

> The Motto of Gibraltar is indeed Montis Insignia Calpe and Nullis Expugnabilis Hosti is that of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment EREVAN

The Spanish

Just who exactly do they think they are? Spain hasn't had that land in a long time I can't blame the British Military keeping bases there Dudtz 7/21/05 6:15 PM EST

How does your very POV statement contribute to anything? Surely you can at least understand why they claim the land, SqueakBox 22:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

No squeakbox, I cannot understand why they claim the land any more than I understand why Hitler claimed Austria and Poland, or Saddam claimed Kuwait. Modern spaniards may regret the decision of their King in 1713, but that does not make it invalid. Gibraltar is next to spain, not a part of it. In 2005 Democracy must be paramount anyway. 27/8/05

---

Why spain claim the rock? I think you miss the historic background in wich the rock was invaded, after the death of the last Hausburg, the two powers of europe (United Kingdom and France) started a fight to decide who would be the king of spain, after the defeat of the UK candidate, the UK demanded gibraltar as compensation for not keep suporting the "rebels" at catalonia who were favorable to the defeated rival. Thus a treaty was signed giving the fortress of Gibraltar to U.K. it says it clearly, only the "fortress" and city (plaza) is to be given to UK. But as usual the british, given the hand, takes the arm, and not only the fortress but also the surrounding lands where taken. Those are the points of Spain:

1) UK fail to folow the guidelines of the treaty (extending the territories of gibraltar to the surroinding lands).

"quiere el Rey Católico, y supone que así se ha de entender, que la dicha propiedad se ceda a la Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna territorial y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país circunvecino por parte de tierra."

"and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about." 

2) The injustice of the treaty, as there was no declartation of war between spain and UK at that time, in fact there were two external powers fighting in spanish lands, making the ocupation of gibraltar and ilegal act

---

> Excuse me but this is incorrect there was an actual declaration of war dated 15 May 1702 given by the allied powers (Great Britain, Holland and Asutria as principal components) to Felipe V. Therefore were is the illegal act mentioned here. To my understanding all war is intriniscally wrong but we have them and we surround them in themes of legality whether there is a declaration or not. Has anyone considered the wishes of any inhabitant of any territory whether or not there is a history behind the land they now inhabit. We are no in the year 2005 and our world is powder keg full of the most tremendous problems. If we forget the wishes of persons towards how they wish to live in the land that they have occupied for centuries then I submit that we deny the supposedly modern ethical mores of our age proclaiming the UN ideals of freedom of territories and inhabitants and subjugate ourselves for mere nationalistic expediency to pre 1900 ideals of detaching the land from the people that have through there sweat and work inhabit the same. We revert to the old mores of the Kings of old that saw all as mere chattels. Well I guess this is my opinion EREVAN

Reference desk

Editors of this article may be interested in the following which was posted at Wikipedia:Reference_desk#Gibraltar_Article_on_Spanish_verson_of_Wikipedia :

---

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my indignation at the complete misrepresentation of facts seen in the article on Gibraltar in the Spanish version of Wikipedia.

With its half-baked assertions and its thinly-veiled insinuations about political malpracticse, the article in question is no more than cheap Spanish propaganda aimed at discrediting the Rock of Gibraltar and should simply not be allowed to figure on your pages.

It is no right, in my view, that articles on Wikipedia should be based on unfounded and wholly unsubstantiated allegations which are evidently politically-motivated and have little educational value.

I urge you to remove the offending article as soon as possible and allow a Gibraltarian (as opposed to a Spaniard)to produce a more objective and accurate article regarding Gibraltar.

Best wishes

Anon

---

With its half-baked assertions and its thinly-veiled insinuations about political malpracticse, the article in question is no more than cheap Spanish propaganda aimed at discrediting the Rock of Gibraltar and should simply not be allowed to figure on your pages.

Would you be so kind as to point at the so called half-baked assertions? Having read the spanish article and being well known on the history of the treaty i see none, in fact is probably more neutral than the english counterpart.

Unexplained deletion and/or vandalism

There is someone using the IP address 212.120.225.253 and similar sort, who insists in deleting other people's paragraphs. I would appreciate if this individual have the courage of signing up as a full member. At least this way we would know who is the culprit. Asterion 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the culprit has been identified as Gibraltarian. The same person has been vandalising the Spanish language wikipedia for weeks. He is not interested in facts, unless these reflect his own vision. I have recently added new historical details to this article, only to have them deleted by this full-time vandal. Asterion 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the Spanish WP. Gibraltarian has been blocked because of his vandalism on the Spanish article about Gibraltar. If any of you are interested in the topic, and you can understand written Spanish, please visit the Spanish discussion page, particularly the lasts headlines. Here you can find out the causes of this blockade.

Sorry for my English if it's not good enough. See you! [OrlandoSM http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/usuario:OrlandoSM] --62.81.214.70 08:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, OrlandoSM, the whole of Gibraltar has been blocked from spanish WP. This is due to abuse of position by some Admins. The article is being used by many as a vehicle for spanish anti-Gibraltar propaganda, lies and insults. I have been ammending these and making the article truly NPOV, a concept which most of those taking part do not appear to understand. Most ppl there are obsessed with blackening the name of Gibraltar......and are not interested in truth or neutrality. Asking 20 spaniards and 1 Gibraltarian to come to a consensus over Gibraltar is like asking 20 wolves and 1 turkey what they would like to eat. The poor turkey would not have much of a future. Ammending POV edits, and deleting bits which are either lies, or pure propaganda is NOT vandalism. But the Admin 'Dodo' has no concept of fairness which is why he has blocked the whole of Gibraltar. They have abused the fact that they outnumber me....and are behaving like playground bullies. I have vandalised nothing........but I will not allow these guys to use the Gibraltar article to spout their anti-Gibraltar rubbish. --Gibraltarian 18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, dear Gibraltarian, I really don't know why you usually write "spanish" or "spaniard" instead of "Spanish" or "Spaniard". I thought that the second form was the correct one in English, but you could know it better than me.

Dear Gibraltarian, you haven't been outnumbered. The page was blocked because there was no consensus in the content of the Economy headline. I searched for some backing about what I think is the NPOV, and you didn't. Instead of that, you called me "flojo" ("lazy") and denied your chance for looking evidence of your vision of NPOV. Your lack of reasons was overwhelmed with our links to several pages proving what is thought to be the NPOV. So, this version remained.

Later, you VANDALIZED the Spain and the San Roque (Cádiz) articles in response, and then you became blocked. Please don't change the story.

I suggest you one thing. Paste here all the links we (you, me and others) used in the Spanish discussion about Gibraltar Economy , and then, let the rest decide about them. Do you agree?

Again, sorry for possible mistakes in my English. See you. --62.81.214.70 08:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/usuario:OrlandoSM

I thank you for your offer, but since the block is unjustifiable in the first place and WP is a FREE encyclopedia I should not have to use an intermediary. I did not "vandalise" anything, unless of course you take the view (like Dodo) that anything that dares to contradict or disagree with his almighty wisdom is vandalism.

It is clear that with some people there can never be consensus. See my analogy above. Many people seem intent on blacking the name of Gibraltar. That seems their only purpose in posting. E.G. one individual claims that Gibraltar is a "paraisco fiscal", which he claim transaltes as "Tax haven". It does not. The term "paraiso fiscal" has particular conotations in the spanish language which include illegality, illicit activity, and lax financial controls. This is not the case, and cannot therefore be applied to Gibraltar. Not only that but he insisted that the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) had "declared" Gibraltar to be so. This is simply untrue, the OECD has never said such a thing. Not one OECD document says "Gibraltar is a paraiso fiscal".

The OECD, IMF, FAFT and Egmont Group all have declared that Gibraltar has comprehensive anti-money laundering legislation and resources, however this apparently seems "prohibited" information.

There are also statements to the effect that Gibraltar has "stolen" land and waters from Spain, and that Utrecht did not cede the area of the Isthmus. It is stated as a fact but is also simply untrue. It is merely a warped interpretation of the Treaties. Utrecht clearly says something quite different. These are just examples of the extreme POV of the article.

However, the fact remains that the bloack is comletely unjustifiable. Dodo does NOT "own" the article, nor WP. This is a FREE, I repeat FREE encyclopedia, and open to editing by ALL. Not just those who Dodo or whoever deems "worthy" of editing. The post of admin is not one of deciding whether he likes or agrees with what someone has written. There has been a clear and gross violation of NPOV, and also a clear and gross violation of the post of Admin by Dodo. Nothing can alter that reality.

There can clearly be no consensus while the page is infested with closed minded people, whose sole purpose is to blacken Gibraltar. I am outnumbered.....so whatever I say which does not conform to the version as dictated by Dodo, Ecemaml or Hispa will be overruled. "The Gospel according to St Dodo" is apparently sacred, and no other opinions than his are valid. He is the self-appointed Dictator of the Gibraltar page. --Gibraltarian 11:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2074555_1_1_1_1,00.html

The OECD is pleased to announce that Gibraltar has made a commitment to improve the transparency of its tax and regulatory systems and to establish effective exchange of information for tax matters with OECD countries by 31 December 2005. Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. As a result of having made a commitment in accordance with the OECD's 2001 Progress Report on the OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices, Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly. The OECD looks forward to working with Gibraltar and encourages other jurisdictions to come forward with similar commitments.

And yes, tax haven is translated as "paraíso fiscal" (http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=tax+haven) --Ecemaml 14:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, your obsession with attempting to blacken the name of Gibraltar is well known. As you will see from the text you quoted, Gibraltar was REMOVED from that list in 2001. And NO, "paraiso fiscal" is not an accurate translation for tax haven as it contains particular connotations of illegality, illicit activity, and lax financial controls none of which apply in Gibraltar. In any case Gibraltar was REMOVED from the list of NCCT's in 2001.

I quote again: "Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven" and "Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens". In plain English this means that Gibraltar is a co-operative tax haven. It doesn't mean that it's not a tax haven. And if you don't like the translation of tax haven into Spanihs, you can complain to the Real Academia Española. They'll be glad to hear from you. For sure. --Ecemaml 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Either way nothing even remotely justifies blocking the whole of Gibraltar from editing .es, WP is a FREE site, for editing by ALL, not just when you find it convenient, or they happen to agree with your version. You & Dodo have self-appointed yourselves as Dictators of WP.es, and are abusing your position there. --Gibraltarian 09:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss about es.wikipedia. --Ecemaml 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC) PS: and remember, don't make personal attacks. It violates wikipetiquette.

You have a cheek to talk about wikipetiquette! After your obsessive harrassment of me, and your abuse of power in .es you have no right to lecture anyone. And pointing out that you and Dodo have self-appointed yourselves as dictators in .es is not a "personal attack" it is merely a statement of fact.--Gibraltarian 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

>>> By all that is good not even here in wilepesia is any political references kept out. I would ask the moderators to leave political discussions to other organisms. I would exhort them to refer only to third party identifiable facts. ie from verifiable sources other than those coming from the persons who are in dispute. In this case I would not let Gibraltarians or British or Spanish write on this subject as none of them, even though they may think so , can be impartial. Moreover I would exhort the Spanish Wikepedia not to write the Gibraltar references by themselves as any writing they put in would be suspected regardless as to how impartial they consider it to be. In any case I have found that some of the references of certain people put in the Spanish Wikepedia were well known comments in a totally bombastic site in "lycos" called Gibraltar Español. It needs impartial entries. This is the geography, this is the population , this is the historical facts captured on such and such taken on such and such there have been x number of referenda, became member of EU on x and with y conditions, just refer to "there is a dispute between Spain & Britain over Gibraltar" Period. This would end this eternal squabbling that does Wikepedia no good. Anything would be viewed as insulting to either of the camps. Wikepedia is an encyclopedia (i.e. facts not opinions)political discussions should be kept to political arenas. Sorry Eceaml but perhaps you should be very careful in your wikepedia site as I think you ar being duped by those that post in that Gibraltar Español site both Gibraltarian and Spanish. They are using Wikepedia .es which I find to be quite invaluable in my research of Spanish and Hispanic themes. I do question not the impartiality of the moderators as if they are Spanish they are not by the simple reason of being of that nationality. And in the same way that I refrain other than by mentioning facts to edit this site for the mere reason that I am Gibraltarian and not the A. Gibraltarian. Then again you may all now think this edit I have done suspect * shrug * it is no concern to me if the good name of the factual wikepedia which I have adored since its inception is maintained. Whether the moderators will hear me is another matter. Erevan

Hi Erevan. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. Especially in the point in which you say Wikepedia is an encyclopedia (i.e. facts not opinions). Just the opposite. The WP:NPOV states that when there are contradictory POVs all must be shown. Of course that wikipedia is not a forum nor a place to prove who is right and who is wrong. But it's the place for all POVs be described (beyond the pure facts that you mention). The British position is this: bla, bla.... The Spanish position is this... The Gibraltarian position is this one... Moreover, pure facts should not be invented. I'm trying to refer only to third party identifiable facts, as you can see in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. If you're interested, it would be invaluable to share your points of view and sources and produce some high-standard articles about Gibraltar. User:Gibraltarian has proved beyond any doubt that he's not able to play that game, so, if you're interested in improving such articles, you're welcome. --Ecemaml 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No dispute

I altered the reference to spain disputing the sovereignty as, although it may be neutral is inaccurate. Spain fully accepts British sovereignty over Gibraltar, and has said so repeatedly. However they do request that sovereignty be returned to them, or alternatively in the case of decolonisation they should be given the right of annexation.

The version I pasted is both neutral and accurate.

Also it is not true that anyone was expelled from Gibraltar in 1704. The terms of surrender were quite clear in that thos who wished to stay were welcome to do so. Rather than support Archduke Charles in his attempt on the throne some decided to leave, but many others remained.

A Gibraltarian

You know this is true but it is quite clear that your intention is to get rid of anything you dislike, treating this page as your personal fiefdom.

For your information:

On 17 of July of 1704, the Anglo-Dutch Navy began the siege of Gibraltar. They demanded the unconditional surrender and a forced oath of loyalty to Carlos III. The Gibraltarian city council replied on 1st August, refusing the ultimatum. During the nights of 3rd and 4th of August, heavy shelling took place, targeting the castle and the town itself. Next day the Spaniards surrendered the town to the Prince of Hesse. The Gibraltarians were made to choose between being expelled or remaining in the Gibraltar on condition of recognizing the Hapsburg as their new king. At the same time, the invading armies started a campaign of looting and plundering, together with desecration of local Catholic chapels. Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay. Among the things the native population took with them were a statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the historical documents signed by Catholic Monarchs in 1502 for with Gibraltar's coat of arms was granted. The expelled ones took refuge in the chapel of San Roque. Asterion 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian. Your edits doesn't mean that they are not somehow true but you have you abide by Wikipedia rules about the "Point of view", WP:NPOV. Discussing the issue here is the right way to get your point of view heard and maybe you'll be right at the end of this discussion. Reverting for the sake of proving your point is just not the right way. Cheers -- Svest 21:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

---

Asterion, your post is little short of a pack of biased inflamatory lies, and a clear attempt to portray the British as pirates, and the poor spanish inhabitants as victims of wanton barbarity. It has little resemblance however to reality. Gibraltar wasn't invaded for the glory of the British Empire, but on behalf of a valid contender to the spanish throne. Warfare by it's nature is barbaric, but your post is far from neutral. WP is NOT a discussion forum, and not your own personal "Hate British" board.

The fact remains that no-one was forced to leave, and therefore your comment that "22 were allowed to stay" is nonsense. Of course I abide by the NPOV rules, but so must everyone else. Look up the word "neutral", it may enlighten you.

Gibraltarian. The problem I talked about above concerns only the edits about requests often the return Vs disputes. Obviously, the request version is POV if compared with the disputed version. I am not into pirates stuff and obviously I am not reverting the page for that reason. Cheers -- Svest 10:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The word "disputes" may indeed be neutral, but is inaccurate. The government of spain does NOT in fact dispute British sovereignty over Gibraltar. They accept it, albeit grudgingly, and have said so repeatedly. They do not dispute the fact that they ceded sovereignty to Britain under Utrecht 1713, nor that they confirmed this cession under Versailles 1783. They do however request it's return, and also demand the right of annexation if UK were to give up sovereignty. But the sentence as you write it is neither neutral or accurate, and my version is. Neutrality is not the sole criteria, accuracy must also count.

Cheers, A Gibraltarian

---

Gibraltarian, I have some problems understanding your English, but will not be correcting it. Maybe you should stick to Spanish then. Every single one of the words I used is true. Maybe you should just cross the border and check out the original historical documents in San Roque Town Hall Museum. At the end of the day, you are just a few miles away, much closer than me certainly. Love thy neighbour. Asterion 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Asterion, there is nothing wrong with my English, which is my first language, and I have good 'O' & 'A' level passes in the subject. If you lack sufficient command of the language to understand it then you should take lessons. Your post is politically motivated, politically charged, inflamatory nonsense. I have little faith in spanish "historical" documents considering the lies that they constantly spout regarding Gibraltar. I am just a few miles away, and know more about Gibraltar and its history than you ever will. WP is NOT however a discussion forum, nor a forum for political sniping. It is an information page, and the information displayed must be accurate and neutral. Yours is neither.

P.S. If my neighbour were to leave behind their macho posturing, and fascist inspired policies towards my homeland, and behaved as modern democratic Europeans, then it might be possible to love them. While they continue with their illegal restrictions and attempts to force the annexation of my home then it is not possible.

Regards A Gibraltarian

---

Asterion and Gibraltarian - please refrain fron constant reversion; please see Wikipedia:1RR and Wikipedia:3RR. Now I've just done some brief research, and have made a small rewrite of Asterion's addition to the Gibraltar history - i've omitted parts of the text that need to be substantiated with references (preferably neutral). I have also found a link detailing the articles of surrender at http://www.gibraltar.freeuk.com/docs/1704surr.htm. What do you guys think? SoLando (Talk) 17:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten text: During the Spanish War of Succession, on 17 July 1704, the Anglo-Dutch Navy began the siege of Gibraltar. They demanded the unconditional surrender and a forced oath of loyalty to the Habsburg pretender to the Spanish throne, Charles III. The Governor of Gibraltar refused the ultimatum on 1 August. During the nights of 3rd and 4 August, heavy shelling took place, targeting the castle and the town itself. The next day the Governor surrendered the town to the Prince of Hesse. The Gibraltarians, if they wished to stay, had to recognise Charles III as their new king.

Many important objects of Gibraltar's history were taken by the inhabitants that left, including a statue of the Holy Crowned Virgin Mary, and the historical documents signed by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs in 1502 for which Gibraltar's coat of arms was granted. These objects remain in the nearby San Roque chapel.

Text omitted:

At the same time, the invading armies started a campaign of looting and plundering, together with desecration of local Catholic chapels

Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay.

I have no objection to your amended text but considering Gibraltarian's previous behaviour, I still think he would delete anything about the subject as soon as we turn around. Best regards, Asterion 19:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Only 22 were allowed to stay" is a bit harsh - "only 22 chose to stay" (under the conditions set out) is more to the point, jguk 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What about "Only 22 did stay"? Your thoughts? Also, I do not think this is strictly correct ("...nearby town of San Roque, which those that left took refuge in...") as the town did not actually exist before that date Asterion 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I automatically assumed there had to be some settlement, as your version states that they took refuge in the chapel of San Roque. By the way, have you got any references to substantiate the omitted text? SoLando (Talk) 21:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find something in English. However I am satisfied with the omisions. Once I get the chance I will start working on the article called Exodus of Gibraltar, where the full details (with references, of course) would be better placed. Off to bed now! Asterion 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

There is no reliable accurate historical record on how many left, and how many stayed. No-one was forcibly expelled, so those that stayed did so out of choice. Also calling them "Gibraltarians" may not necesarily be correct, as there were not too many permanent residents at the time most being traders of a transitory nature. Again there is no reliable historical evidence on precisely how many or who left, nor how long they had been established in Gibraltar. A more neutral version perhaps would be "those that were in Gibraltar at the time". "Forced" an oath of loyalty seems rather harsh, it is natural that they should expect people to do so as he was a claimant to the Spanish throne. This whole editing issue only come about because of the Spanish obssession over Gibraltar, and their refusal to accept democracy. This is just sour grapes surfacing. The article as originally written was both accurate and neutral, and this latest addition is unnecessary. Also the date quoted (17th July) is highly suspect.--Gibraltarian 09:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Spanish claims

As I understand Disputed status of Gibraltar, Spain claims the isthmus "neutral zone" on which the airport is built. Also the territorial waters are disputed. --Error 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, Spain does indeed claim the isthmus but has no basis upon which to do so. Also the territorial waters are British to the extent defined in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. --Gibraltarian 09:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

From a purely British point of view: We do not realy care about Gibraltar. It was not even talked about ntil we had some friends who are from Gibraltar. What is clear: they are steadfast that they are not Spanish. They see them selves as British, and wish to remain British.

After Gibraltar, does Spain wish to 'recover' Portugal? It is another bit of Europe that is attached to Spain that they can claim. Then France perhaps?

---

Clearly the Utrecht treaty states the stent of british possesion: "yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". It does NOT include the isthmus, and as acepted by even the british jurists the Utrecht treaty is still in vigor and is the legal motiv of the british possesion of the rock.

Also states that Gibraltar wont have Territorial Waters. "...that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about."

So clearly the above users are ill informed and making unsuported statements as spain have NEVER claimed Portugal--Ercid

At the time the Treaty of Utrecht was signed, the concept of territorial waters had not been imagined, so it is quite immaterial to their introduction. For a map and a legal opinion on the issue see this--Gibnews 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00

I have erased the section: Spain claims gibraltar despite the fact that "it mantains enclaves in northern africa, Ceuta and Melilla". Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies but are an integral part of spain (just as the Sinai is part of Egypt although it is in Asia and European Turkey is Turkish). This irrelevant comment has the sole purpose of undermining the spanish claim on Gibraltar. According to the UN Gibraltar is a colony (perhaps unfortunately because it IS a colony)in the same way the Hong Kong was a colony in China. It is in my opinion a lie to attempt to deny this fact. Just for the record, I live in spain and i am very happy with Gibraltar remaining British. (its kinda exotic to have a "piece of britain" so close.) --Burgas00 19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NO;

Firstly the wording the UN uses is not 'colony', it is 'non self-Governing territory' which is the same wording that is used by the MAE. However the term used by the British Foreign Office is 'British Overseas Territory' and that is the appropriate term.

Gibnews, you're definitely right, but Burgas00 is not plainly wrong. 'Non self-Governing territories' are subject to a 'decolonization' process. In fact, the resolution applied to them (1514) talks about 'the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples'. The legal figure used by the colonial power is irrelevant. For example, Algeria was a French department (three in fact) and the Spanish Sahara a Spanish province. --Ecemaml 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought it simple vandalisation but on looking deeper its a case of not understanding. However, the correct term is 'British Overseas Territory' which is defined in Wikipedia.

Yes, that's right. Nobody (at least not me) wants to replace the term. However, it's interesting to note that Gibraltar is subject to a decolonizacion process as defined by the UN. I don't know how to describe it to not be offensive. --Ecemaml 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. In many ways the deeper one looks at the behaviour of the UN committee on decolonisazation (their spelling) the less faith in the institution of the UN I have. The perverse thing is that some of the members represent territories with less democracy and freedom than Gibraltar.--Gibnews 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally a colony was a place where residents of one country went to live abroad and oppress the natives. Currently people born in the UK are required to hold a residence permit, issued by the Government of Gibraltar to reside here. Indeed Spanish nationals along with other EU citizens have more rights here than 'their colonial masters'. The term has a negative spin and does not describe the present reality. I see the polite Spanish version used in official documents is 'el territorio no autónomo de Gibraltar, cuyas relaciones exteriores asume el Reino Unido.' rather than the line about the 'British colony on Spanish soil' frequently thrown as an insult.--Gibnews 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Ecemaml 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On balance I agree that the reference to the Spanish colonies in Africa is irrlevent, although they are actually more of a colonial nature than Gibraltar, which is inhabited by Gibraltarians.

I could agree with you in defining Ceuta and Melilla as being sort of colonies (a position not very popular in Spain, I'm afraid). But what I definitely can't understand is in which way they're more colonial than Gibraltar. ?? --Ecemaml 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Were it not for the 'issues' with Spain Gibraltar would have by now achieved an independent status; the Spanish enclaves are a totally different situation, which I fear will have an unhappy ending. Gibraltar is economically self-sufficient, the North African 'parts of Spain' must involved a considerable cost to maintain, I believe Parsley Island cost 6m Euros for a start.--Gibnews 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Gibraltar is self-sufficient only because it's not a regular British territory. If it were so, it couldn't develop the investment-friendly tax environment it shows now. Ceuta and Melilla, being regular Spanish territories may not have such kind of tax framework. OTOH, the Perejil issue is not only stupid, but also expensive. --Ecemaml 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats only partially true. Ceuta and Mellila benefit from IVA exemption, as does the very successful Canary Islands which although huge compared to Gibraltar relies on Spain for defense. I can see reasons for Perejil, from both sides. It was a shrewd move by Morocco to get American aid, and also gave the Spanish military a war where nobody was killed. I can also see it from my residence on a very clear day.--Gibnews 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar shares the Iberian peninsular, but is not part of Spain which is a political region. It is similar to the situation where Canada and the US form part of North America.

Otherwise, welcome, but you need to tread carefully as there is a lot of sensitivity in relation to Gibraltar and any attempt to annex it by Spain, even virtually. If you really are not 100% sure about the precise meanings of things, best to leave them alone.--Gibnews 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I suggest you to read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:CITE to understand how things should work, especially in a so sensitive matter as Gibraltar is. --Ecemaml 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I see someone else inserted the word 'victim' to describe the Irish terrorists shot, its legally incorrect however regretable someone being shot might be.--Gibnews 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasons I asserted that Gibraltar is a colony whereas Ceuta is not are the following: Ceuta has a degree of geographical contiguity with Spain which Gibraltar clearly lacks.

Gibraltar is part of the same land mass as Spain, Ceuta is not, that is physical geography. In respect of distance between the UK and Gibraltar, get the map out and tell me how far away the Canary Islands are from the Peninsular, and like Gibraltar they are on a different time zone.--Gibnews 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ceuta has pretty much always been Spanish or linked to the Spanish kingdoms. It belonged to the kingdom of Castille even before Granada did and, before the muslim invasion of what is now Spain (a long time ago) it was under Visigothic and Byzantine rule. Even during the time of al andalus it belonged to the kingdom of Granada for a long time. The inhabitants of Ceuta (and the llanitos too) are on the whole Gaditanos and are not colonists of any kind. Finally, Gibraltar was taken from the existing state of Spain (by force and with the threat of force) whereas Ceuta is Spanish since before the state of Morroco or any preceding equivalent state existed.And you dont need oppressed natives for a colony to be established, specially a colony the size of Gibraltar. So I mantain my position without unilaterally altering your page: Gibraltar is a British colony in Spain and should me defined that way in Wikipedia. I repeat, i have nothing against the gibraltarians we need you now more than ever. I suspect the price of tobacco is going to rise soon!:)--Burgas00 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Burgas, you'd better be a little bit more careful with argumentations. Especially those related to Ceuta belonging to Castille before Granada did. Ceuta wasn't Spanish until 1640, when Portugal separated from Spain.

Those related to the Visigothic kingdom usually make me laugh (according to that, Portugal should be Spanish too, as well as Narbona and the rest of Septimania). I have no source regarding Ceuta belonging to Granada. On the opposite, Ceuta belonged to the Marinids (what in Spain are known as benimerines) when they got involved in everlasting fights with Castile and the Nashrid kingdom of Granada. BTW, do you know something related to the history of Morocco? Although with long periods or anarchy, different dynasties and the lack of definition of a state structure similar to those of the European nations, a clear continuity from Almoravids, Almohads, Marinids, Wattasids, Saadis and the Alaouite dynasty (the current one). I recommend you this link. It's a history of Morocco written by the Spanish embassy. Finally, Gibraltarians are not mainly Gaditanos. If any, they are mainly Genoese and Maltese.

On the other hand, Gibraltar is for me crearly a colony, with the status of British Overseas Territory. But, unfortunately, the question of being in Spanish soil is disputed. Even if the UN in the sixties backed the "territorial integrity" argument, here there are clearly two positions. Two tips: read WP:NPOV and include information about the dispute in Disputed status of Gibraltar. Best regards --Ecemaml 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently a lot of Gibraltar has been made from Spanish soil, but we have paid for it by the ship load and have no intention of returning it. see this--Gibnews 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ecemaml I am glad we agree. I guess we should not start a debate on the history of Ceuta on this page.-better do it on the caballa page. Still, have a look at what the spanish wikipedia has to say: link I was just pointing out that it has not been under muslim control for no longer than any other andaluz town. and the almohades and the almoravides are asmuch part of the history of spain as they are of morocco. As for the history of morocco, your link was very interesting although i do have some knowledge on the subject aswell as of fus7a and of the morrocan darija (dialect). On the issue of most llanitos being genoese and maltese, i take your word for it, but it is surprising after glancing at the surnames in an old gibraltar phonebook I found at home. Y en Gibraltar, que he ido en varias ocasiones, lo que hablan es gaditano, quisho! Un saludo!--Burgas00 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hola Burgas. Well, apart from gaditano, they speak English, don't they? :-) With regard to Ceuta, I have to tell you that improving the history of Ceuta in es: is one of the tasks in my to-do list (but being an adminitrator in [[:en:]], going on with the Gibraltar issue here and, last but not least, having to work to earn my living, don't leave me much time to do everything). Anyway, the history section of Ceuta in es: is awful (it seems an old Francoist pamphlet). Insert non-formatted text here

Gibnews: I agree with you that the geographical argument is a weak one in general. I understand that you are an activist on the issue of gibraltar and i ill try not to offend you. Your reference to Canarias is understandable. However, Morocco cannot validly claim the canaries because there are 2 million canarians who are neither arabs nor muslims and who are spaniards wishing to remain part of the EU and of a democratic state. Morocco has no relation whatsoever with the canaries at any level neither culturally nor historically. If there was such a relation and morroco was a functioning democracy i would be the first to support a morrocan claim on the islands. I understand, for example and contrary to most spaniards, morocco's claim on western sahara. Firstly, the saharaouis are very few and their independence would clearly have been the result of european colonialism of the maghreb and algerian expansionism in the region. I understand how countries which have been subjected to the humiliation of colonialism feel, their borders being decided by foreign powers, and i believe that the polisario should take their people out of the horrendous conditions they live in in the camps of Tindouf and move back to their land. Dont forget the history of panama which was a farflung province of Colombia: The US paid the local Firebrigade to declare independence so that they could control such a strategic region...which they control to this day. Have a good day!--Burgas00 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

so...¡Gibraltar Español! ¡Llanitos al paredón! (just kidding)

Well, I did some work with a newspaper in Tenerife and rather enjoyed the place. However the point was it took me as long to fly there as it does to London. Thus the Geographical parallel. There are 32,000 Gibraltarians who are content and don't seem to want to be Spanish despite visiting regularly for recreation and checking out those great Spanish institutions of LIDL and Carrefour.

Athbhliain faoi mhaise.--Gibnews 19:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Gibraltar Homepage

For a number of years, the tourist office have used gibraltar.gi as the official homepage, however recently this has fallen into decline and has been replaced by a new site developed by the UK representative office:

The site is divided into three chapters, dealing respectively with holidays, business and finance, and politics and international relations. Although the main website address will remain unchanged, www.gibraltar.gov.uk, a new address will take visitors straight into the tourism and holiday pages of the site. This new address is www.visitgibraltar.gi.

“The new web address for the tourism-related pages of the site falls in line with that used by many other tourist destinations,” said the Hon Joe Holliday. “Our research showed that prospective tourists were less likely to log on to a website with a “.gov” address if they were seeking holiday information. I therefore decided to introduce a second access for the web-surfers who were looking for specific holiday information.”

The website has been designed by London-based graphic design company Miura, which is headed by Gibraltarian designer Javier Garcia.

I see that someone else has other ideas about what that site is, and keeps reverting it. AFAIK its the current official homepage and covers a lot more than tourism--212.120.227.226 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Outdated Spanish claim

I have a general question to ask... To join the EU, I am pretty sure that it is obligatory not to have any territorial claims on any EU country. Spain joined in 1986. Does this affect Spain's claim on Gibraltar?--Burgas00 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a question I have asked myself, do you know where the Spanish treaty of accession to the EU can be found, as it should be covered there. If not there is a general principle involved.--Gibnews 09:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be somewhere on http://europa.eu/ - but the answer to the question is that Thatcher caved in, jguk 10:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the Accession Treaty can be emailed to you free of charge from this site. I'm giving it a go myself, I'm interested to see if it works, jguk 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I spent hours on their site looking for it last year.--Gibnews 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The UK joined at the same time as the Republic of Ireland, which had a claim on Northern Ireland enshirned in its constitution. So the issue would have been ignored. Astrotrain 15:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I see they have renounced that claim.--Gibnews 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Death on the Rock

I question the relevance of this section for the main Gibraltar page. While it was a significant historical event in the territory, it is already mentioned in the history section; and most of the section (ITV licences, court cases) have nothing really to do with Gibraltar. I took the section out when I restructured and expanded the article at the weekend, however User:Gibnews reverted, stating he believed it was relevant (see User_talk:Gibnews). Any other opinions would be useful. Astrotrain 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Its the single event which brought Gibraltar into the world news and which has persistently echoed around and which there are myths and missconceptions abound - assisted by large lies from HMG and IRA symphasiers alike. Its the #1 topic I get asked about abroad and it still echoes around the newsgroups.

Its more famous and missunderstood than the Mary Celeste Mystery, which does not get a mention :) --Gibnews 10:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

What does Gibraltar export to Turkmenistan (over $40 million according to CIA)- seems strange? Astrotrain 18:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that had me thinking too. There again until recently the CIA said we had a railway, a water shortage and a lot of other things plain wrong.

If its real, I would guess its a paper transaction on oil.--Gibnews 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Or it could have been a UK export to Turkmenistan where the payment was made to a Gibraltar bank account. NFH 21:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This CIA factbook is the most unreliable source to be found on wikipedia.

New edits

This is a good article on Gibraltar although slightly biased towards the UK position. Faltan temas como el corruption y mangoneo que dicen los españoles que hay en Gibraltar. Even if its not true it should be mentioned. And that it is a paraiso fiscal. How many businesses are registered in Gibraltar?--Ismael76 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am not really sure what you mean? Can you be more specific? I can't see any POV in the article as it stands. Astrotrain 12:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain Why do you revert and censor the official position of the UN? --Ismael76 13:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is a Disputed status of Gibraltar page which deals with the sovereignty issue. This is an article about the territory itself. The UN has various different lists of countries and territories, it is not necessary to list all these. Offically of course the UN remains neutral in the status of Gibraltar. Astrotrain 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying Gibraltar is a colony. It is a separate issue from the anglo-spanish dispute. The UN, Spain and the UK accept this fact. The UK has never denied it. If we can call Gibraltar an overseas territory we can call it a colony, both definitions are true. The UN may be neutral and not impose any solutions (that is not its role) but it is still a colony according to the UN. Just read the link Astrotrain!

• If you read it, you will see it was made in the 1950s, and not really applicable now. In any case, in an attempt to compromise, I have moved the statement to a more contextual area- politics section- and linked to the Wiki article. I still believe it is not relevant to the Gibraltar main article Astrotrain 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure... Its not applicable for the British:-) Im sure you would find it applicable had the Spanish colonized Bristol or Brighton and were still there today. Anyways, i agree to leave it in the politics section --Ismael76 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever your personal opinions on the status of Gibralatr, it is essential that all edits are NPOV. For the main Gibraltar article, we discuss the overseas territory and leave detailed discussion of the sovereignty in the Disputed status of Gibralatr page. Please bear this is in mind when editing the main Gibraltar page. Your edits I beleive are POV by insisting on using colony, and removing a sentence that stated Gibraltar rejects Spanish sovereignty proposals. Astrotrain 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can put that sentence back if you wish. What is POV depends on ones point of view. If you say that mentioning that "the UN considers Gibraltar a colony" is related to the discussion on sovereignty, explain to me how the sentence which says that "Gibraltar rejects Spanish sovereingty proposals" is not!--Ismael76 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been hard enough to achieve some agreement and ensure that the pages are truthful and balanced - what is not needed is the addition of emotive propaganda, like the assertion that Gibraltar is part of Spain. It is not, and were that so there would be no dispute - however instead of arguing with people politely on the Internet it would require more direct means.

Currently Gibraltar has the status of a colony - that will be remedied very soon with the introduction of the new constitution. In the meantime note that the UN refers to it as a 'non self-governing territory' and nothing else. Although that may be the status on paper in practice the level of self-government achieved so far means that UK nationals have to ask the Gibraltar Government for permission to reside in the territory, so its hardly 'a colony' in the traditional sense of the word. Using the word to insult the Gibraltarians is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Those who wish to discuss 'corruption' should look to other places than Gibraltar, which complies with the highest international standards, and other media to Wikipedia which tries to be objective.-

Foreigners who wish to re-write the history of Gibraltar are advised that it is an old game and is played out. -Gibnews 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

STICK TO THE TRUTH??? REVERT TO AGREED VERSION?? Agreed by whom? by Gibraltarians with themselves? Me edits have been the following:

• I changed Gibraltar from being "south of Spain" to being "on the southern coast of Spain" for one, because this is what is in the CIA factbook and for 2, because Gibraltar IS simply on the southern coast of Spain and not south of it. The town where I am from , Tarifa, is south of Gibraltar, as are Ceuta, Melilla and other parts of Spain. This has been reverted... I dont know why. Explain this to me Gibnews please.

• Gibnews, you know better than I do (if you are from Gibraltar), that the word Yanito does not exist.It is written Llanito (since it is a Spanish word...). Why do you want this non existing spelling of the word to be included. Maybe you think that writing it with a "y" will make it less Spanish?

• The reason I erased the section on Gibraltarians rejecting Spanish sovereignty proposals, is because Astrotrain kindly pointed out to me, while erasing my reference to the status of Gibraltar according to the UN, that all arguments (on either sides) relating to sovereignty over Gibraltar are supposed to be on another page. This is clearly an argument, but for some reason Gibnews has restored it to the article. Why is this? Is Astrotrain wrong?

• I am astounded by the fact that Gibraltar's current status according to British law is that of a colony. Gibnews, I didnt even know that. And after telling me this you decide to erase my edit which simply states that Gibraltar is a colony according to the UN: 'non self-governing territory'is the UN word for colony... I imagined you would have worked it out from the fact that the committee in charge of this is called the "Decolonization committee." But then again, one reads what one wants to read.

• Your argument according to which the reason you have deleted my (undisputed/undisputable) information regarding gibraltar's colonial status is that this is considered insulting. Why is it insulting? You think people may associate you with Africa? I dont understand.

Another reason you give is that you have power to govern yourselves. Well all I can say is that so do the colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli orthodox jewish colonies govern themselves, but they are still colonies in the Palestinian territories in the same way that Gibraltar is a colony in Spain.

Colony of Spain? what are you smoking ?--Gibnews 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of these Israeli colonies (as Israelis) want to remain Israeli...so do Gibraltarians want to remain British. I dont blaim them... better being british than being spaniards from the poorest province of Spain. So this argument is not valid either.

Gibnwes, this article is very biased, I dont event ask to mention anything to do with dodgy economic issues and I understand it would upset Gibraltarians. But please answer my questions on these issues or I will also revert... since we are on a free encyclopaedia:-)--Ismael76 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Porcierto, Gibnews, broncas aparte:-), este gueb http://www.llanito.gibnews.net/ lo has montao tú?--Burgas00 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In reverse order; the above website is hosted on my server, but the content and views expressed belong to someone else - I have no control over them. This one however is mine. Burgas00 please note this is an English language site.

The Gibraltarian word Yanito exists and is well documented, indeed although there are various valid spellings, the dictionary produced locally spells it that way. see also This.

I have already explained at great length and politeness that Spain is a country which Gibraltar does not form part of. The CIA thought the Bay of pigs a good place to invade Cuba and that American soldiers would be welcomed in Baghdad. Their wording will be changed at the next revision.

Tarifa IS part of Spain, Gibraltar, like Portugal is not, write in wikipedia about tarifa and amaze us with your local knowledge and what a great place it is, avoid things you don't understand which are none of your concern.

Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians. --Gibnews 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tax section

Before anyone puts the tax section back, we need it to be NPOV and fully sourced. I do not believe that many banks knock back transfers from Gibraltar given it is a major European financial centre. Astrotrain 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok you are right... I will find a proper source before reinserting the section! I was also hesitant about including that last line.

• The tax section is too detailed for the main Gibraltar page. If you wish, create a seperate article for it, and link from the Economy section. It would be advisable to make it less long winded, and better sourced. One website is not reliable enough for such a detailed topic. Astrotrain 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think personally that fiscal policy is an extremely important (if not the most important) part of Gibraltar's economy, ignoring it on the main page would be a mistake. Recent developments and reforms should perhaps, as you say, be included in a separate and more detailed page. I think I will create it and add a link to it on the taxation section.

I already moved it there, as thats where it belongs, before reading this. Taxation is an interesting topic, however it is a technical topic and the slant was a typically ill informed one which we have all seen before and would rather not have to refute regularly.

If I live in a 'fiscal paradise' it does not show on my bank balance. Tax in Gibraltar is higher than a lot of places, however we believe we get value for money from our Government.--Gibnews 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yanito/llanito

Btw, I was reading about the Gib dialect yanito and I was curious over the arabic, genoese and maltese influences on the dialect. Could you give me any examples of these?--Farouk yalla 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not strong on liguistics, however the Yanito dictionary is in print - I saw it in the publishers shop window recently take a look at their online store --Gibnews 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews

I dont understand the position of Gibnews. Ok he is from Gibraltar and feels strongly about his home town. I am from Spain and we dont agree on certain issues related to Gibraltar. But why is he allowed to revert everyone's edits to this page.

HINT: The page is about GIBRALTAR not Spain and its about fact not your opinion--Gibnews 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Farouk Yala added a section on Taxation in Gibraltar, perfectly sourced, and it was erased because it wasnt to Gibnews liking. This page is completely NPOV. Gibnews is censoring information he doesnt like because for him any truth which goes against his vision of the world is part of the "World Conspiracy against the people of Gibraltar". He has not answered the questions I asked him (except the one on the spelling of llanito), after erasing edits to "his" page. He has erased a whole and valid section by Farouk without even discussing it on the talk page. I, for one, am not going to let this be. At the very least, I am recovering the section written by Farouk, which highlights perhaps the most important characteristic of Gibraltar: that of a tax haven. (In any case it is more important than the section on IRA terrorists being shot in Gibraltar I dont know when... not really a claim to fame)--Ismael76 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the term 'Tax Haven' is outdated, inappropriate, and ONLY included to be insulting, I note your comment Taxation: well if it wasnt for this the "people" of Gibraltar would simply be an appendix of Algeciras Are you saying we are untermenchen ?

If you want to talk about companies registered in Gibraltar, I know more than most about the subject haveing written the software for the companies registry.

The concept of Wikipedia is to provide information, not propaganda, there is not a 'world conspiracy' against Gibraltar BUT there certainly is one by the Spanish Government. You are a victim of this nonsense. Go and write about the joys of Spain on a page and don't spoil the pages about Gibraltar with inaccurate insults.--Gibnews 21:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, the Spanish government has more pressing issues to worry about than the status of Gibraltar. It is true that I personally find it irritating that a shabby neighbourhood of Algeciras (lets call it occupied-Algeciras) considers itself equal to the the kingdom of Spain or to the UK. But rest assured, on the whole, neither governments really have any interest in Gibraltar. Nor do the Spanish people... As for the Brits, they seem to worry more for the Anglos in Zimbabwe than they do for your future. Perhaps its because they dont feel you are real Brits. After all, for you they are just guiris...--Ismael76 10:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being open on your opinions and giving us an insight into your personal irritations and lack of understanding of the Geography of Spain and adjoining territories.

The Spanish Government recently stated that Gibraltar was their second most important foreign affairs priority, so clearly their views are different to yours. Presumably the other is maintaining sovereignty of Parsley Island.

It is a pity that you cannot devote your time and energy into creating pages informing people about the development of Spain from a third world fascist state to a modern European democracy in the space of a few years. Simply insulting the people of Gibraltar as you seem intent on is such a worthless exercise.

Gibraltar is British in perpetuity, or until such time as the People of Gibraltar, the Gibraltarians decide otherwise. Whatever you say or do about that will not change a thing.--Gibnews 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Farouk yalla

This entity seems to have an agenda of blackening the good name of Gibraltar as an International Finance Centre.

The link he repeats refers to a story on the OECD website which actually reports that Gibraltar has complied with requests from that organsation in relation to alleged harmful tax practices. It has no application to things today, where the OECD are quite content with Gibraltar.

What would be useful is a well written and authorative article on taxation and I will source one from a professional in the field. However tax is an arcane subject which belongs in the article on the economy and not in this section or on the main Gibraltar page.

Those who agree with me can assist by removing the vandalism by mainly Spanish users, who for all I know may be sockpuppets of the same individual with an anti-Gibraltar agenda.

Where is ECEMAML when ya needs him !--Gibnews 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This title is offensive to me, I have commited no vandalism on this page.--Farouk yalla 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Gibraltar a Tax Haven?

On holidays, as you know ;-) I've just returned and seen the mess of this discusion page. I'm unpacking my luggage (and sorting my 2 Gbytes of Argentina photos) so I haven't been able to read all the stuff, but at a glance, it seems that there are some concerns about taxation in Gibraltar, as long as some discusion on the status of Gibraltar. Some suggestions:

• With regard to the taxation, it would be needed to include a description on the Gibraltar tax legislation.

  With regard to the naming... well, Gibnews, you know that not only me, but thousand of sites in the world (and even legislative organs) consider Gibraltar as a tax haven (as the very article on the topic here does). And that's because the definition of tax haven (see, for example here) simply applies to Gibraltar.

  Gibraltar appeared in the OECD list of territories with unharmful tax practices. Gibraltar commited to OECD's requests and was removed from the list (in fact, nowadays there are only three territories in such a list). But that's all. There are no direct relationship between being a tax haven and taking part in money laundering. As far as I can understand, Gibraltar is a tax haven (see for example what the Washington state thinks about it: Gibraltar is a tax haven because "Tax haven country" means a country that has no corporate income tax or an effective tax rate less than ten percent on income that does not arise in or is not derived from that country. Tax haven countries include, but are not limited to, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monaco, and the Republic of the Seychelles) but has committed to effective control practices.

My conclusion: information about the Gibraltar tax legislation is needed. Considering that Gibraltar is a tax haven is for me beyond any doubt but, at the same time, its government has committed to implement any necessary measure on transparency and control to prevent Gibraltar from being a money laundering center. Gibraltas was listed as an uncooperative tax haven but was subsequenly removed from it. There are plenty of reports on the quality of the finantial center (some of them are listed in the Spanish version of the article, here).

I'm quite busy on resuming my business, but I'll try to contribute to this discusion as frequently as I can. --Ecemaml 16:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC) PS: with regard to sockpuppetry, it could be possible to request that a CheckUser operation is executed.

The only concern about taxation in Gibraltar is that it is too high - slightly higher than, for example, Spain.

The term 'tax haven' has no legal meaning and is being used here for the purpose of abuse. According to the OECD Gibraltar is not a problem. Sadly its just another red herring used by those who would wish to undermine the credibility of Gibraltar. By co-incidence they all seem to have Spanish IP's. :)

However, as mentioned, I can get a proper article about things here from a professional in the field. The information in the .es version is slanted, although a big improvment over the description of alleged criminality noted there are one time.

The BBC have changed their article about the MV Aurora incident to fit the facts.--Gibnews 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• A tax section would belong in a seperate article or in the economy article. It is not considered an important enough topic for the main page, although a brief summary could be included in the economy section. The section added by Farouk yalla was badly written and POV (eg "There is a moderately high estate duty, and import duties are quite high on some items"). I support its removal Astrotrain 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ecemaml: it should be included in the main article. And there is a majority-held opinion that Gibraltar is a tax-haven. Why am I considered a vandal? If you want to erase the section, atleast send us something to counter the sources offered. You simply say it is false or slanted without offering any support for your claims. Astrotrain, I am afraid the same goes for you. I would appreciate it if Gibnews sent us the current tax-rates for companies incorporated in Gibraltar so we could compare them with other EU countries. ( He won't ) By the way, I am not Spanish, although I am working in Madrid since October.--Farouk yalla 12:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the description on the Gibraltar taxation regime for off-shore companies should be included either in the subarticle Economy of Gibraltar or in a new article named Taxation of Gibraltar (including information about exempt and qualifying companies). But anyway, Gibnews misses the main point. "Tax haven" is not a legal term (or not only a legal term). Again, I quote a definition: "A country offering very favorable tax laws for foreign businesses and individuals" (from the first hit in google for tax haven, in [3]. According to it, and also according to the article in wikipedia (see tax haven), Gibraltar is a tax haven. And that information should be included in the main article regarding Gibraltar (along with some figures; nowadays, according to [4], there are approximately 28,500 active companies registered of which 8,800 are exempt companies). Also that, according to all major world institutions (OECD and so on) Gibraltar meets the higher standandars on control and regulation. Both are facts (Gibraltar being a territory with very favorable tax laws for foreign businesses and individuals; and Gibraltar being a finantial center with proper regultation, control and transparency). Trying to hide that information (regardless of how inaccurate and biased the text provided by Farouk is -and certainly it is-) is not fair and goes against the very principes of wikipedia. --Ecemaml 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml, Gibnews is right in pointing out that the government of Gibraltar has gone along way in complying with its international obligations. Albeit, it is still a Tax haven, denying this would be covering up an obvious fact. Please try to convince Gibnews that he must not see the term Tax-haven as insulting or demeaning to his territory. I will try to find the source as you asked me. In any case, this is the most up to date info I could find on this issue...

In Gibraltar there is no capital gains tax, wealth tax, sales tax or VAT. The main tax for companies is income tax, and there are withholding taxes; there are also stamp duties on certain transactions, and property taxes ('rates'). Companies can take advantage of a number of offshore regimes in order to reduce taxation. Individuals pay quite high taxes on their income in Gibraltar unless they are able to take advantage of High Net Worth Individual status or gain exemption as an expatriate executive. There is a moderately high estate duty, and import duties are quite high on some items. Assessment and collection of tax is administered by the Commissioner of Income Tax; the tax year runs from 1st July to the following 30th June.

In July 2002 Gibraltar's Chief Minister, Peter Caruana announced a new corporate taxation policy setting a zero rate of corporation tax for all companies but introducing new taxes on company personnel and property occupation which will be capped at 15% of profits. The existing corporate forms which allowed zero taxation, the Exempt and Qualifying companies, will be abolished, although there is no news yet about the possible grandfathering of existing companies. The new regime was introduced as of July, 2003.

In March, 2003, the EU's Council of Finance Ministers confirmed that the reforms do not constitute harmful tax measures. However, in April, 2004, the Commission argued that the new rules would give companies domiciled in Gibraltar an unfair advantage over their counterparts in the UK, under a principle known as 'regional selectivity'. The Commission also took issue with the fact that since the taxes are based on payroll and the occupation of business premises, offshore companies registered in Gibraltar would be unlikely to incur any tax liability. The EC therefore rejected the reforms, effectively suggesting that for taxation purposes, Gibraltar should be considered part of the United Kingdom.

Chief Minister, Peter Caruana slammed the EC for suggesting that the jurisdiction is fiscally part of the United Kingdom, pointing to its 1969 constitution, which gives the territory fiscal autonomy. The United Kingdom government is said to be “100% on-side” regarding the ‘regional selectivity’ debate, and Gibraltar is challenging the EC's view at the European Court of Justice. The issue will take years to resolve, and meanwhile Brussels officials seem to have agreed that the existing situation (confusing as it is) may be allowed to continue.

Gibraltar dissolved its qualifying companies tax regime in January, 2005, as negotiations continued in Brussels. In a move that will cost the Gibraltar government an estimated £1.5 million in annual tax revenues, the remaining qualifying companies, of which there are about 80, will switch to the ‘exempt’ companies regime. “Each qualifying company has been dealt with on an individual basis and alternative arrangements made,” Caruana added.

Later in the month, it was announced that Gibraltar had been given until 2010 to phase out its exempt company tax regime after the European Commission ruled that the scheme violates EU state aid rules. The decision means that existing firms will be continue to benefit from exempt company status until the end of the decade, although it remains unclear what tax incentives the jurisdiction will be able to offer new firms seeking to establish there.

However, reports suggest that a limited number of new firms may be able to take up tax exempt company status should some existing firms leave the jurisdiction in the interim. The agreement also uniquely allows new exempt status businesses until June 30, 2006

Meanwhile, Gibraltar must wait at least two more years for a European Court of Justice decision regarding the replacement to the exempt company regime, which has also been rejected by the Commission on state aid grounds.--Farouk yalla 16:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I note that there is NO discussion about tax on the main page of

• Spain
• Great Britain
• Monaco
• Ceuta
• Tenerife

taken as examples at random.

And? It only proves that they lacks such an information. In the cases of Spain and Great Britain, it's quite obvious, tax information is not possibly relevant, since they are similar to those of any other western country. Tenerife has no own tax regulation (it's only an island and follows Spain's regulations with some exemptions regulated by the EU, since Canary Islands are an EU Outermost Territory).

Ceuta and Melilla has especial regulations with regard to some specific taxes. Finally, Monaco would definitely need a proper information about corporate taxation since it's also a "classic" tax haven. --Ecemaml 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a good precedent for not having anything about it on the Gibraltar page.

Fortunately, wikipedia does not follow such a principle. Otherwise we'd got only one (or zero) articles. Wikipedia includes encyclopedic information. Is corporate tax information encyclopedic? Yes, definitely. Especially in those territories and countries where only being a tax haven makes them survive. --Ecemaml 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank heavens that Gibraltar does not rely on that then, not so sure about Ceuta and Melilla though, who exist from not being part of the VAT scheme, plus smuggling.--Gibnews 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned previously I have commissioned an original definitive article by a top accountant who is experienced in tax affairs.

You know, here we don't follow the authority argument. There are not definite articles. The article from your experienced accountant will be welcome, but it will follow the same process of every single article (remember that silly motto somewhere: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it). Especially if we consider that it will provide appreciations that comes from a directly involved party.--Ecemaml 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That will be more informative than the the ill informed prejudice, and items copied word for word from un-named sources which are probably copyright as the abouve paragraph by Farouk yalla aka Burgos00 contrary to the wiki policy on sockpuppets.

The fact of the text being copyrighted or not is irrelevant (as long as it hasn't been added to the article).

'No, its copyright and you have included it here, I suggest you delete it and replace it with a link.--Gibnews 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is much more simple: is it right or wrong? If it's right (that's why we need the sources, to follow that other stupid rule: Wikipedia:Verifiability), a simple rewriting would be enough. Otherwise, it would be discarded. On the other hand, if you really thinks Farouk and Burgos00 are the same guy, it's fairy simple: You may forward your CheckUser request to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser --Ecemaml 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term 'tax haven' is obsolete and has no meaning in the world today. Here it is simply thrown as a term of abuse and needs to be removed totally from Wikipedia.--Gibnews 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The term 'tax haven' is commonly used world wide (and also in wikipedia) today. Therefore, you'll have to make an effort to convince not only me, but to the whole community, about such obsolescence. BTW, you can try a simple google search such as this and read articles such as Economy of Luxembourg where you can find sentences like this one: "The country is a tax haven and so attracts capital fleeing from other countries so they can reduce the costs" or Bermuda with "Bermuda, as an offshore tax haven, has a highly developed economy focused on international business and tourism" (it's a pity that you didn't find them in your previous random sample). --Ecemaml 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ecemaml, here is the source as you asked:

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/gibraltar/jgitax.html

• I tried to perform a random sample aswell. I started with the Cayman islands where it is also clearly stated that they are a tax haven. Term also used in my second choice: Andorra.
• As a corporate lawyer, I am interested in Gibraltar but had my edits not been immediately erased and had I not been treated in such an aggressive way, I would probably have let it go.
• Sure 2 wiki accounts are used in my home computer (it was my girlfriend who recently introduced me to wikipedia) so what? They are not used to break any wiki rules. If ever I have used the other one its because I have forgotten to close it down.
• Gibnews, for me you are the living proof that wikipedia is a system which does not work as there are always lone obsessive indivduals who are constantly guarding it to supress any information they dont like. I, in any case, am not going to waste more time arguing. I leave this to more patient individuals such as Ecemaml. I really enjoyed using wikipedia, I hope it finds a way of protecting itself more efficiently.--Farouk yalla 12:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76

I note at 23:05, 12 February 2006 Ismael76 added a disputed template to the main article on Gibraltar, but has not posted anything in these talk pages to justify this.

Unless there is a genuine reason for this, and he can actually substantiate a case for disputing the content on those pages he should either remove the header, or someone else should.

I further note an attempt by this person on 18:48, 10 February 2006 to attack me in my personal page by falsly claiming that Gibnews a sockpuppet of another entiry. --Gibnews 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed it for now, and left a note at his page. If he wants to dispute neutrality, he has to list reasons here and allow other users to respond. If it is about the tax section, I suggest creating Taxation in Gibraltar using his existing material, then linking from the economy section. Astrotrain 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I already did that when I removed the tax information from the initial page. It now includes rates and types of tax. (Yes, I do what I promise) A professional tax advisor has agreed to expand it. On mentioning the word 'tax haven' he said it was quite inappropriate. That should resolve the issue, and further assistance from those who only experience the Spanish tax system and read slanted reports in their media are not required.--Gibnews 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "quite inappropriate"? A piece of advice: a new reading of WP:NPOV, especially that paragraph that reads "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." In fact here, the fact that Gibraltar (along with a significant number of countries and territories) is a tax haven is the most popular view (since, according to many definitions, for example that of the legislative of the State of Washington, a tax haven is a country that has no corporate income tax or an effective tax rate less than ten percent on income that does not arise in or is not derived from that country. Therefore, the most popular view is that Gibraltar is a tax haven. If you want to add that, according to a professional tax advisor, such a term is not appropriate because... (could you ask him why?), it's fine. Anyway, I'd suggest to go to the tax haven article and begin a poll for its deletion, since, according to you, it's a no-meaning term. --Ecemaml 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Those tax rates look higher than the UK to me- at least for personal taxes. Astrotrain 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Ecemaml is now an expert on international tax affairs. Whatever, all the real experts laugh about the word 'tax haven' and point out that the OECD has had to stop using it. Getting rid of obsolete items on Wikipedia is a worthwhile pursuit and in the fullness of time will be done. In the meantime, readers may speculate WHY it is so important to people in Spain to attack Gibraltar at every opportunity, and why some feel an article on an arcane subject which is already covered in detail needs to be on the main page when that is not the practice with other country entries.

On another matter, I'll source a copyright free image of Sir Francis as the system seems to have it in for the one previously presented.--Gibnews 13:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GIBNEWS, NO DISCUSSION ABOUT TAX ON THE MONACO PAGE? I paste a small exerpt from the main page: 'The lack of personal income tax has led to a considerable number of wealthy "tax refugee" residents from European countries, who earn the majority of their income from activity outside Monaco; celebrities like Formula One drivers attract most of the attention but the majority of them are business people.' The section on tax continues... GIBRALTAR IS THE ONLY TAX HAVEN IN THE WHOLE OF WIKIPEDIA WHERE TAXATION IS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE MAIN ARTICLE. ALL BECAUSE OF GIBNEWS aka. GIBRALTARIAN.

Astrotrain, have you not noticed that the neutrality of this article is challenged by EVERYONE except Gibnews?? Surely you have??? Then why do you remove the NPOV tag? I am considered to have an NPOV stance for being Spanish, of course... but is Farouk NPOV for being an arab corporate lawyer?? Ecemaml? of course he has recently spent some time in Argentina, so he must be conspiring againts the British empire to get hold of the Falklands!!!!

Astrotrain and Gibnews/Gibraltarian are on the other hand completely neutral since the former is British and very attached to the remains of the British empire (so it seems from his userpage) and the latter,ofcourse, is from Gibraltar and what he says... "va a misa".

Lets leave the article in their hands...--Ismael76 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith on the part of editors. My work on Gibraltar has been part of a wider effort to improve the pages of all the Overseas territories. I have no direct interest other than to improve the page. Astrotrain 18:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any justification for the inclusion of that template, just some personal abuse directed against myself and Astrotrain. Your comment Taxation: well if it wasnt for this the "people" of Gibraltar would simply be an appendix of Algeciras is abusive in that it implies that the Gibraltarians are untermenchen and that they are for sale. Neither is true. However the point of the exercise is not to receive insults but establish facts.

You do not provide any. --Gibnews 15:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm not Gibraltarian - vandalising my personal page is contrary to Wikipedia etiquette as is using a sockpuppet --Gibnews 15:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. If you want proof, look more closely at their editing styles: Gibnews assumes good faith with respect to Ecemaml (and admins who intervene), while Gibraltarian does not. That alone should say something. --TML1988 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much noise, but there are some things that everybody (including me) should be aware of. The principal is that related to vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, vandalism is not NPOV violations ("The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism"). So please stop labelling any edition you don't agree with as vandalism.

On the other hand, some answers to Gibnews:

1. The first is really a piece of advice. Please, stick to the questions and stop using ad hominem arguments. Arguments such as "I see Ecemaml is now an expert on international tax affairs" may be funny but doesn't add anything to the discussion.
2. Provide arguments and sources. Saying that "all the real experts laugh about the word 'tax haven' and point out that the OECD has had to stop using it" seems impressive, but again, add very little to the discussion. Which "real experts"? All real experts? In which context?
3. Avoid your constant paranoia. Sentences such as "WHY it is so important to people in Spain to attack Gibraltar at every opportunity" only seems to show some degree of paranoid behaviour. First of all, tax haven only means what it actually means (nothing more and nothing less). Secondly, is an attack on Bermuda or Linchtenstein to say they are a tax haven? Are also evil Spaniards those to blacken the name of those territories or are there others?
4. Finally, why don't you enlighten also the tax haven article. They haven't noticed that all the real experts laugh about the word. It seems that it's allowed to include Gibraltar in the tax haven article, clearly state that the countries and territories in that list are tax havens in their own article (except in Gibraltar, since it's an evil Spanish attack). Come on.

--Ecemaml 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fistly neither of us are experts in taxation, excepting that I actually pay tax in Gibraltar, this is why I have commissioned an article by someone who is.

'Tax haven' remains an obsolete term which is meaningless.

Sadly because the Government of Spain has an anti-Gibraltar agenda some of its citizens feel they are being patriotic in following that line. When I say there is something nasty in Spain its not a personal attack directed anyone in particular, just an observation of reality.

I do not see the same guys inserting allegations of being a tax haven on the main page of Bermuda etc. No doubt if they did it would also be refuted.

• Inserting 'disputed' tags for no reason is vandalism.
• Adding abusive comments to my personal page is vandalism.

--Gibnews 20:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting mix of conspiratory theories ("Government of Spain has an anti-Gibraltar agenda some of its citizens feel they are being patriotic in following that line") with resusal to understand (better, to accept) that the term "tax haven" is fully applicable to Gibraltar (especially considering that such an appreciation is by far "the most popular view" all over the world). Allegations of not inserting statements on "being a tax haven on the main page of Bermuda" seem a joke, since the main page of Bermuda currently says that! The other point ("When I say there is something nasty in Spain its not a personal attack directed anyone in particular, just an observation of reality") has nothing to do with reality and is an unnecessary global attack on Spaniards (it's not surprishing, since half your editions include some degree of such kind of xenophobic attacks).

The question remains. Why is the term meaningless (it seems that only Gibnews has the possesion of the truth and the rest of the world is wrong)? Why the term cannot be applied to Gibraltar? We're still waiting for your arguments.

Final point. At least me thinks that Gibraltar is a tax haven. The article on tax havens also considers that. Astrotrain states that he has no problem with the term. However, you insist in denying it. Therefore, there is a dispute, and asserting that isn't vandalism (in fact, most of the issues related to this discussion are not vandalism at all). So that, I'll provide a tentative redaction to be inserted in the main article to be discussed. We can try the usual process: mediation, RfC, arbitration... Regards --Ecemaml 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; and you critisise me for being long winded and being personal;

HOWEVER, lets move on.

I am careful to say that the Government of Spain has an anti-Gibraltar agenda rather than 'the Spanish' as most sensibly care as much about Gibraltar as I do Kyrgyzstan. Although I have doubts about people who use sockpuppets and deface pages - things you got our friend Gibraltarian canned for - I think you have a serious interest in the subject and attempt to present a neutral point of view.

SO your challenge ecemaml is to include 200 words or so in the communications section about why Gibraltar GSM telephones are blocked from operation in Spain but work in every other country in the world.

In the meantime, I'll research the meaning of 'tax haven'.--Gibnews 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny small talk (I'll write on any thing I'm interested in, not on the topics you allow me), but at the end, it's always the same: why the term "tax haven" is meaningless? why is it deprecated? why cannot it be used? I'm still waiting... --Ecemaml 09:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No its not small talk, you imply that there is no consiracy by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. You are invited to write an article about why Gibraltar mobile phones are BLACKED in Spain, its a far more important issue than tax.

There will be an answer on the term 'tax haven' in the same way you were promised the BBC story on the MV Aurora which I disputed would be corrected. Be patient.--Gibnews 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Could I please ask people to be civil and avoid personal attacks.

For those who dispute the factual accuracy of the article, can you please:

• state which parts of the article you believe to be inaccuarte or POV
• what you think can be done to address this

If it is about the tax situation. I propose to resolve the argument by including a short summary in the "Economy of Gibiraltar" section with a link to the taxation section at Economy of Gibraltar. The tax section added previously should not be included because:

• it is too long for the main Gibraltar article (eg doesn't make much sense to talk more about tax than history or politics)
• the tax status of Gibraltar is not particualry important or relevant for the main article. Historically the territory derived most of its income from the British military bases, and only since the 1970s/80s began to develop a larger commercial sector.
• the original taxation section was badly written and POV (eg it gave assessments of taxes being "moderatly low")

Personally, I have no objection to the term tax haven being used. Astrotrain 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree on being civil and reasonable if I am not alone in doing so. Farouk tried to be civil and he ended up leaving... Some mention should be made of taxation since it is a very important issue for both the economy of gibraltar and the Anglo Spanish dispute over the territory. It is worth a couple lines for a territory which has more registered offshore companies than people.--Ismael76 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

However thats not factual - ecemaml states that there are only 28,500 active companies, and the current population is higher. If you want include dead companies, we need to count the residents of the cemetary.--Gibnews 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some notes on tax to the economy section, which should be enough to state the favourable tax regime in the territory. I've taken the tag down since there doesn't seem to be any other dispute other than that. Astrotrain 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I took out the bit about advantage of banks for individual depositors, the ESD applies. --Gibnews 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that Gibraltarian and Gibnews are the same person. Not only is it statistically probable, but they express the same paranoid behaviour, view points and disregard for facts, majority view and consensus. Any difference in style is clearly a good cop/bad cop strategy. I vote for Gibnews' Overseas British nationality be revoked and he be exiled to the island of Perejil where he will follow a national indoctrination program and learn to be a good Spaniard. --Ismael76 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On a clear day I can see the Moroccan Island of Leila, but methinks you are trying to get my goat. --Gibnews 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep on blurring the topic in order to avoid a proper discussion, but some clues: ecemaml does not state that there are 28,500 active companies. He just accounts a large number of sources that state that. See for example: http://www.fsc.gi/press/press190302.htm, http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/finance/IMF_Report.pdf and so on. On the other hand, nobody is talking here (but Gibnews) on individual bank deposits, but on companies with some kind of low tax regime and no physical presence in Gibraltar. Finally, the key point is, again, whether Gibraltar is a tax haven or not. Thousands of sources state that, but Gibnews claim that it is not (with any argumentation other than the obsolescence of the term according to some unnamed "experts"). The remaining discussion is the usual small talk. --Ecemaml 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Two is not a 'large number' although I'm quite happy to accept there are 28,500 or so companies registered in Gibraltar, having written the original software that managed the registry. The usual figure in the Spanish press is 80,000 although I have seen 500,000.

'thousands of sources' may say nonsense - 2,810,000 websites say 'Elvis lives'. Indeed he has been seen in Main Street, but its not appropriate to put in in Wikipedia as being true.

The application of the European savings directive to Gibraltar is something I have had to argue about at length and understand better than most banks and bankers and is appropriate.

'small talk' seems a codeword for topics you want to avoid. --Gibnews 11:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, two is just a sample of a large number, one of them from the very Gibraltar institutions (if you want to get them, just try '28,500 companies Gibraltar' in google and you'll get them). But again it seems your usual way to avoid the discussion on the topic. I'm still waiting. Why is "tax haven" deprecated? Why is it not applicable to Gibraltar? --Ecemaml 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews tio, no tienes razón y lo sabes. Te estas peleando con Ecemaml que es el tio mas neutral que hay...Ademas tengo la impresión que siempre os habeis llevao bien. Gibraltar es un paraiso fiscal, otra cosa es decir que es un nido de traficantes y de mafiosos. Las dos cosas no son lo mismo. Mira, si entras en razón, yo ya no me meto mas con Gibraltar e incluso prometo ayudarte a defender el buen nombre de tu territorio. --Ismael76 12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• No personal attacks please. I am sure that Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, and Gibnews has made good contributions to the Gibraltar page. Astrotrain 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Ismael, it appears that your comments violate both assume good faith and no personal attacks. If you continue in this manner, don't be surprised if you get blocked. --69.117.6.123 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that neither Astrotrain nor user with IP 69.117.6.123 have any knowledge of Spanish....

• I hadnt noticed changes made by Astrotrain and Gibnews on the economics section! I am more or less satisfied with it now, and for me the debate is closed. Not making any personal attacks, was just joking... and Im sure Gibnews took it as a joke.--Ismael76 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the line 'gibraltar espanol' is a joke, but an old one which has lost its charm. Sadly the comments about Gibraltar and criminality were included in the main article here and in the .es pages by people who believed them. I removed them in both places at different times. The current .en pages presently give one of the most accurate short descriptions of Gibraltar on the net, and I trust the edit wars and sillyness are over and we can all get down to more productive business.--Gibnews 09:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that difficult to avoid being insultant in almost every message you leave?

There is no such word in the English language so its hard to comment on what you are trying to say.

Qualifying any view oppossed to yours as "sillyness" maybe is funny for you, but surely a violation of wikipetiquette?

Firstly I have not done that; I appreciate English is not your native language but it helps if you READ what is said and do not try and manufacture things. I am guilty of as much 'sillyness' as anyone - however labeling everything 'small talk' when its too difficult to for you discuss is an evasive tactic.--Gibnews 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm still waiting: why is the term "tax haven" deprecated? Why is it not applicable to Gibraltar? Now you understand why I talk about small talk. I've asked to you the same questions many times, but no answer yet (beyond the usual blame on Spain, protests about copyright issues, whether the figure of 28,500 is given by a large or small number of sources ...) --Ecemaml 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you did not have the courtesy to at least wait a small time before labeling Gibraltar a 'tax haven. If you care to give me a week or so first it would be appreciated. I do have a life.--Gibnews 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am dissapointed that you have not read the above before reverting to expressing your POV in the introduction to the economy of Gibraltar. This shows a lack of respect.

It seems designed to provoke and continue the Gibraltar -v- Spain exchanges which have plagued the pages on Gibraltar.

Can I one more time request that you refrain from including obsolete descriptions of the Gibraltar finance center, unless you can justify its use by a recognised authority, like the OECD. Although they may have said that in 2000 (as gleefully quoted on the .es pages) this is 2006 and things have changed. In the past countries engaged in the slave trade, but it would be wrong to imply that they do today.

Times change and I hope that the negative attitude in spain in relation to Gibraltar might too ... soon.--Gibnews 02:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Among Spaniards, all references to "Gibraltar Español" are made with "tongue in cheek" or as a joke, because they are so anachronistic and associated to a distant Franquista past. Gibnews, you should travel more often, you have a warped vision of Spain. I have never met ANYONE (including pretty right wing people) who has taken taken the issue of Gibraltar's status seriously.

It is understandable that Spanish people associate Gibraltar with criminality since many Spanish criminals (and unfortunately politicians) use Gibraltar to launder their money. Remember the recent Ballena Blanca operation against Costa Mafias... However, Gibraltar is slowly complying with international standards set by the EU and by other international organisations for Tax havens... You must not see attacks on Gibraltar only as part of Spain's historic claim on Gibraltar but as a wider attempt to fight corruption within Spain itself. (Spain is corrupt enough and having two tax havens (andorra and Gibraltar) next door doesnt help. Where do you think all the money made by Julian Muñoz went. I can bet you anything you want it passed through Gibraltar. Actually im going to do some research on that.--Ismael76 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no evidence of institutional criminality.

• Who Julian Muñoz is remains a mystery to me, however your unfounded suggestion that his money went through Gibraltar sounds like the atttempt made to blame us for the MT Prestige disaster.

• You may not have met anyone who takes the status of Gibraltar seriously, however your Government does and spends a lot of money on it describing it as the 'second most important foreign affairs issue' - I really wish they would forget about it and accept reality.--Gibnews 17:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

anon

An Anonymous editor asserts, "Link to Gibraltar Government and Politics (Link here)This page has been lifted from tourism website!" Does not give the link to the site. Just blanked Politics section, left the above in its place, and did not mention anything in talk page. Thanks. Mikereichold 11:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ecemaml

I am dissapointed that again we are bogged down in a stale repetition of exchanges. I do not see any justification for the use of the word 'tax haven' in relation to Gibraltar and have asked for others to wait until its researched properly rather than simply reverting offensive language.

This has been resolved previously where

• False allegations were made in relation to Spanish nationals asking to vote in the Gibraltar referendum, where I published the independent observers report on the net to show the truth of the matter, and

• In relation to the closure of the frontier by Spain when the MV Aurora docked and the page in Wikipedia was based on nonsense.

• I have also included tax rates so people can see exactly what goes on, despite suggestions it was being covered up.

In relation to the use of the word 'tax haven' / 'paridiso fiscal'

This morning this was discussed live on the Spanish Channel Telecinco where Gibraltar's chief minister, Peter Caruana - a lawyer by trade - dismissed the use of these terms and stated the correct term was INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CENTRE which is the phrase I have been using.

Simply reverting to a version included simply to offend and insult is not acceptable behaviour. Lets take this to arbitration or whatever the procedure may be.

There are plenty of other things to talk about which are more important, however there is no justification for abuse.

If this is a repeat of the tactics used to make User:Gibraltarian missbehave, it will not work with me however, I am not happy to accept articles about Gibraltar written according to the perspective of Spain, which is not involved in Gibraltar affairs.

The only valid place to do so is in describing the reasons for the 300 year old sovereignty claim rejected by 99% of the population of the territory. I would also be interested in hearing a Spanish POV on why its necessary to block our telephones.

However, the 'usual abuse' has no place and having heard lots of it over they years is discarded by me and should be here.--Gibnews 11:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, you can revert the reference to "tax havens" untill the issue is solved thru arbitration. (I will definitely vote for the use of the term. )Please do not revert the consensus version offered by Astrotrain. It should remain untill the issue is solved by other means. You are now completely alone, Gibnews, everyone is a vandal except you, have you noticed?

As for Peter Caruana, he is the PM of Gibraltar and a politician. Aznar said he did not lie about the bombs in Madrid and Tony Blair swore there were WMD in Iraq. Caruana's claims are not much help and him being a lawyer (gasp!) is not much help since as you claim, "tax haven" is not a legal term.

Try answering Ecemaml's question in a more convincing way... Accusing people of being biased is not defence against proper arguments.

--Ismael76 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have said a number of times, there will be a detailed statement on the use of the word 'Tax Haven' from an authorative source in due course. As for being 'alone' every professional I speak to says the same thing, that Gibraltar is an International Finance Centre and that the term 'Tax Haven' is not appropriate.--212.120.227.126 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Tax haven" is not an appropriate term in Gibraltar. Neither is "dictatorship" or "One Party State" in North Korea. In Gibraltar its "International Finance Centre" and in North Korea its "Democratic People's Republic".--Ismael76 00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree. In respect of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (to give its correct title) if you have any queries about it, best thing is for you to go there. As I am in Gibraltar, its easy to research things here.--Gibnews 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ecemaml's edit is well sourced and consistent with general consensus (Ecemaml, Astrotrain, Farouk, Ismael...). Sources are from government of Gibraltar so cannot be accused of being biased.

Gibnews: please include your detailed statement on the use of the word Tax haven from an authoritative source in the talk page so that we can discuss it.

Please do so before reverting the section on the economy. So far, you have not offered any sources to this argument.--Ismael76 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you find any references to 'tax havens' or 'offshore finance centres' on the Gibraltar Government or any other official website, kindly email me the link or post it here and that will be corrected.

The Financial Services Commission assure me that these are outdated terms which are only used in underdeveloped countries.

I really fail to see why Spanish people seem so interested in the description of the Gibraltar economy. I have no desire to update the page about Spain - don't live there and don't understand it.

Patience, remember Gibraltar was part of Spain three hundred years ago, in that timeframe the week asked for to produce something is but a drop in the ocean. --Gibnews 00:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Andorra much more developed than Gibraltar: Term Taxhaven used by CIA. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/an.html --83.33.230.192 11:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Andorra page, and the CIA are not an institution with financial competence.--Gibnews 08:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

It is a popular myth that in the 2002 referendum the Gibraltarians voted to 'remain a UK dependency' That was not the question posed in 2002, which can be seen here in both cases it was a clear rejection of any involvement of Spain in the political affairs of the territory.--Gibnews 09:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I got my infomation from the CIA. It look as if you were the right person to correct this. Have fun on the rock. Regards, MJCdetroit 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, prior to having a go at the wikipedia articles on Gibraltar I spent some time updating the CIA factbook as some of the 'facts' were serious rubbish. They are OK once you get to know them, trouble is their material is widely copied and the people doing so never update the copies.

see: [this example]

--Gibnews 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews

Gibnews looks like you are the only one here who wants to hide the information/dispute about tax haven status. Maybe as spaniards we lack of NPV, but certainly you do. Then, at least, both POV should be documented and showed. Censoring other people opinion who clearly outnumber you is not too kind and violates Wikipedia politics. --Panchurret 11:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a personal attack on me, and an assertion that there is some validity in the 'Gibraltar bashing' nonsense published in the Spanish media.

Let me refer you to the House of Commons select committee which said, and I quote:

We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively.

The OECD have been on a routine visit and no doubt will report that Gibraltar is one of the top jurisdictions in controlling money laundering, financial crimes etc. When it does it will not be seen in your media.

Yes there are more Spaniards than Gibraltarians, that does give any weight to the outdated territorial claim. Thankfully the days have gone when your Government tried the use of force and Spaniards do not seem to have the desire to die for that cause.

As there is no prospect of a Spanish Gibraltar can I suggest you spend your time and energy considering something else more positive. --Gibnews 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Panchurret dont even try editing this page, it belongs to Gibnews. He erases sources, links to official documents of international organisations or anything which he thinks may be a slander to the good name of his town. There is nothing anyone can do unless they stay stuck to the computer reverting his edits every hour. So Gibraltar is not a colony according to wikipedia (whatever the UN says) and it is not a tax haven (whatever the rest of the world and sources on the internet say), its better not to worry. Gibraltar is a not an important part of the world and these inaccuracies are not offensive to anyone. Fortunately Gibnews is not running articles on the Armenian genocide or the like...--217.125.181.133 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews seems to be just the new name of the now banned Gibraltarian. On December 6th Ecemaml launched a Request for Arbitration on Gibraltarian [5] which subsequently ended with his banning. One day after the Request, on December 7th user Gibnews was created --Panchurret 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for spoiling the fun by keeping things factual, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am not Gibraltarian.

For you anon@rima-tde.net the war is over.--Gibnews 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They are definitely not the same person. Regards, Asterion 01:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support - I see you don't sleep either :)

--Gibnews 10:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)