Wikipedia

Talk:Gibraltar and Silverberg family: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gibnews (talk | contribs)
5,248 edits
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1:
{{Notability|fiction|date=May 2007}}
{{talkheader}}
{{in-universe}}
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography}}
{{WPCD}}
{{WikiProjectBanners|1={{WikiProject Gibraltar|nested=yes|class=B|importance=Top}}|2={{WikiProject UK|nested=yes|class=B|importance=high}}|3={{WikiProject Spain|nested=yes|class=|importance=}}}}
 
The Silverberg family is a family of renoun military strategists from [[Konami]]'s [[Suikoden]] series of games. Among the characters listed are also those who have close ties to the Silverberg family.
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 1|2004 &ndash; March 2006]]
# [[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 2|March 2006 - June 2006]]
# [[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 3|June 2006 - July 2006]]
# [[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 4|July 2006 - December 2006]]
# [[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 5|January 2007 - April 2007]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->
 
In the ''Suikoden III'' manga, Caesar Silverberg attributes the countless successful strategists who have emerged from the Silverberg family as a result not only of the family passing down their teachings to a subsequent generation, but also because of each tactician's own personality traits. Throughout the course of history in Suikoden, the Silverberg family have been known to be heralds of change because of their involvement in nearly all the conflicts which have occurred.
== UK Overseas Territory vs British Overseas Territory ==
 
Members of the Silverberg family frequently occupy the Tenki Star, the Star of Wisdom, amongst the [[108 Stars of Destiny (Suikoden)|108 Stars of Destiny]], which is the star assigned to the primary tactician of the hero or the Chikai Star, the Chief Star of Earth, which is assigned to the secondary tactician of the story.
[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] keeps reverting this and refused to engage with a discussion I tried to commence with him on his talk page. The fact is that legally, as per the [[British Overseas Territories Act 2002]], Gibraltar along with the thirteen other territories are called the British Overseas Territories. The act itself can be read [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20008--a.htm#1 here]: '''As the territories mentioned in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) are now known as "British overseas territories"'''. I don't deny that the FCO may refer to Gibraltar as a "UK Overseas Territory", but that is not its correct, legal, name. Does anyone else have any opinions on this? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Julian Silverberg==
:You're right that FCO uses both terms interchangeably - see [http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=%22overseas+territory%22&as_oq=british+UK&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=fco.gov.uk ]. However, a Google search shows that "British Overseas Territory" (81,600 hits) is more widely used than "UK Overseas Territory" (13,400 hits). On this basis I suggest using "British Overseas Territory" as the commonest and legally correct term, though it might be a good idea to use a compromise form of words such as "a British (or UK) Overseas Territory" to cover both bases. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A legendary strategist who helped Karnach Rugner, ancestor of [[Barbarossa Rugner]], become independent from [[Harmonia]] without any bloodshed, creating the Scarlet Moon Empire more than 200 years ago.
. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Elenor Silverberg==
::He's reverted it again, again without contributing to this discussion. I've now reverted three times - would someone else care to do the honours? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Elenor Silverberg is the earliest known Silverberg since Julian himself. She was originally tactician for the Scarlet Moon Empire, but she was banished due to the actions of her subordinate, Graham Cray.
 
After this she headed south into the Island Nations where she settled on Hermitage Isle with her new apprentice, Agnes. She was recruited by the Island Nation Forces after hearing of Graham Cray's involvement and she eventually lead the army to victory against the Kooluk Forces. After the final battle she confront Graham Cray at the top of Fort El-Eal to question his actions which lead to his flight from the Scarlet Moon Empire and her exile. Fort El-Eal was destroyed in a massive explosion shortly after and it is believed that it was here that Elenor lost her life.
:::I've asked him to discuss the matter here on the talk page and I'd request you to do the same. Revert wars aren't productive. This should be sorted out by dialogue, not by reverting or asking others to revert. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Elenor appears in [[Suikoden IV]].
:::By the way, I've dropped a line to the FCO to ask them which is the preferred term. I'll let you know what they say. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Leon Silverberg==
::::Nice one. Hopefully they should have a bit more spare time on their hands after developments in Iran. ;-p [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The current head of the Silverberg family, the uncle of Odessa and Mathiu Silverberg, whom he took care of after the death of their parents, and grandfather of Albert and Caesar Silverberg. He appears in [[Suikoden I]] and [[Suikoden II]].
 
Leon is well-known throughout the world as a genius strategist and was involved in many wars, including the Succession War, the Toran Liberation Wars, and Dunan Unification Wars. He lives by his strategic maxim of "ending war as fast as possible with the fewest casualties", using whatever means necessary, regardless of the morality of it, and regardless of who will win the war. His philosophy is shared by his grandson, Albert.
:::::Nope. :-) The lights are still on in King Charles Street as I type this; they're in the middle of working out the logistics of getting Our Boys™ home from Tehran... -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 
As a strategist, he is responsible for the Kalekka Incident which legitimized Scarlet Moon Empire's act of war against Jowston. During the Gate Rune Wars, Leon acted as tactical advisor for the Toran Liberation Army and aids them in ending the war. During Suikoden II, he is requested to become the strategist of the Highlands by [[Jowy Atreides]] (Jowy Blight). He aids the Highland until its defeat at the end of the Dunan Unification War.
I can demonstrate at a stroke why the FCO website cannot be used as a reference for this: it uses both "British" and "UK".
*[http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1035796306456 FCO Gibraltar travel advice page]: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory".
*[http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965242498 FCO Gibraltar country profiles page]: "Status: UK Overseas Territory"
Quite clearly, in common parlance, both terms are used. However, equally clearly, according to the wording of the two Acts of Parliament that determine the legal status of the overseas territories, "British overseas territory" is the correct legal term. I find it bizarre why [[User:Gibnews]] would disagree with this, but now I have demonstrated that the FCO website uses both (as well as the Gibraltar website), he should retract his claim that this is wrong, and that I am vandalising the article. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Mathiu Silverberg==
:Sorry, I missed the fact that [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] already noted that the FCO uses both. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Mathiu Silverberg is the brother of Odessa and nephew of Leon, and is a well known strategist. He is also the mentor of strategists Shu and Apple. Mathiu's tactical philosophy contrasts with his uncle's, where upon Mathiu believes that the method is more important that achieving the end goal as quickly as possible. He appears in [[Suikoden I]].
 
He became a member of the Scarlet Moon military during his youth and participated in the Succession War as a strategist for Kasim Hazil, then served as a vice-strategist for Barbarossa Rugner under his uncle Leon. When Leon devised the plan to slaughter the town of Kalekka, Mathiu reluctantly carried out his duty, but retired from his position soon after, having realized that war inevitably causes innocents to suffer.
More on the FCO's terminology. The following is a quote (with my bold emphasis) from the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2002/2002en08.htm Explanatory Notes to British Overseas Territories Act], which was (to quote verbatim) "'''prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office''' in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act":
*''"There are fourteen '''British overseas territories''': Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, '''Gibraltar''', Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Turks and Caicos Islands."''
Although the FCO uses both on its website, when writing explanatory notes about the Act, it sticks to the official, legal name. I should point out that [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036754/Gibraltar Encyclopaedia Britannica] uses the term '''British''' overseas territory too. And [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3851047.stm the BBC]. So too should WP. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Over a decade later, Mathiu became the head strategist for the Toran Liberation Army during the Gate Rune Wars following the death of Odessa. Near the end of the war, he was fatally wounded during the attack on the floating fortress by a spy. He dies shortly thereafter, just after the fall of Barbarossa.
:Gibnews wrote on his talk page (which I will write here because he is presently blocked for 3RR violation): '''"The BBC make factual errors some of which they correct. However the FCO take a lot of care on their country profiles and they are up-to-date and 100% correct although other parts of their website may be wrong, or express a historical view. The 2002 act was correct in 2002, the correct designation for Gibraltar in 2007 is a '''UK overseas territory'''".''' It is preposterous of him to claim words to the effect that "the FCO website is correct in the bits that serve my purpose, but there is a factual error in the bits where it does not". That is an [[unfalsifiability|unfalsifiable]] argument, and one that deserves to be thrown out of the window. Gibnews has provided no evidence to suggest that there has been an official name change (unsurprisingly, because no act has superceded the 2002 one). [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 10:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Odessa Silverberg==
::Here's what the FCO had to say in answer to my query: "Thank you for your query regarding the terminology of the use of Overseas Territories. Both terms - British Overseas Territories and UK Overseas Territories are used, but the British Overseas Territories was used in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002." So it would seem that it doesn't actually matter which one is used. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Odessa Silverberg is the sister of Mathiu and niece to Leon. She appears in [[Suikoden I]].
 
As an aristocrat, Odessa had lived most of her life in relative comfort and was unaware of the suffering of the common people. When she came to see the corruption within the Scarlet Moon Empire, she became one of the original founders of the Toran Liberation Army, an anti-imperial movement started by her late fiancé, Achilles.
:::Nice, glad to see they got back to you, and quickly too. I guess that merely confirms what we were saying all along. However, it does completely disprove Gibnews' claim "other parts of their website may be wrong, or express a historical view. The 2002 act was correct in 2002, the correct designation for Gibraltar in 2007 is a UK overseas territory." Given that it is the term used in the Act (and therefore the legal term) and given that the WP article is named [[British Overseas Territory]], and given that the BOT article now says (thanks to [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]]) another name is UK Overseas Territory, and furthermore, given that it is bad style to drop in acronyms without introducing them, I suggest the right thing to do is leave in its current state, "British Overseas Territory". I'll remove the overreferences that I added yesterday. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
As the leader of the Toran Liberation Army, Odessa also acted as the group's chief strategist, using her knowledge of military strategy as taught by Mathiu. She welcomes a young [[Tir McDohl]] into the army and begins to see him as a potential successor as he gained her respect. When the Imperial Army attacked the rebels' base, taking advantage of the absence of a considerable number of their forces, Odessa is assassinated while attempting to save a child.
::::Seeing as both terms are valid, I see no reason why the term UK Overseas Territory should be withdrawn. I suggest that in order to comprise the both terms and not overlook any in particular (which may be usable or valid nonetheless) both should be included. I believe someone mentioned this before. As so, there will be no seclusion of a categorically valid term, and furthermore, it will have an evenhanded influence. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
The surviving members of the Liberation Army seek out Mathiu to take up Odessa's place as chief tactician and nominate Tir as their new leader. Thanks to Odessa's foresight and advanced planning, the Toran Liberation Army is ultimately victorious in the war.
:::::The dual use is now recorded in Wikipedia in the [[British Overseas Territory]] article. It's going somewhat overboard to say "British (or UK) overseas territory" just to resolve this (rather bizarre) dispute - I think we can all agree that no other source uses that "double" term. So WP should use one or the other. However, instead of "UK Overseas Territory", "[[British Overseas Territory|Overseas Territory]] of the [[United Kingdom]]" is a better way of phrasing it, because the acronym "UK" is not being dropped into the article without introduction. But, what is the objection to not using the legal name, and that of the linked-to article? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 23:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==??? Silverberg==
::::::This is nonsense, for a very simple reason - 'British' does not have any meaning in a territorial context. 'British' refers to a nationality not a territory - UK does, its the name of a member state of the EU and has a precise meaning. Thats why its termed a UK Overseas Territory.
Mathiu and Odessa had a younger brother, but his name is unknown as is his current whereabouts. It is certain that he is still alive.
 
==Shu==
::::::::''"British refers to a nationality not a territory"''???? You have excelled yourself with that statement. You are confusing the noun - the British (people) - with the adjective - of or pertaining to Britain, its people, language or culture. British territory means territory belonging to Britain. Gibraltar is British territory. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Shu is the chief tactician of the Allied Forces during the Dunan Unification War. As a child, he studied military strategy under Mathiu Silverberg and alongside Apple, whom he views as a surrogate sister. He appears in [[Suikoden II]].
 
Under Mathiu, he learned everything about military strategy. Mathiu saw great potential in this young pupil. However, Shu used his knowledge for personal gain and was cast out from Mathiu's school. Since then, Shu has become a trader in Radat. With his uncanny grasp of the movements in the world, he quickly became rich through trade.
:::::::::'''British''' has a lot of meanings, but for community purposes the designation is UK, which is on the front of my passport. I travel under a document issued under the authority of the UK Government, not the 'British Government'. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 08:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
During the Dunan Unification War, the Allied Forces asked Shu to join them. He initially refused, but with persistent begging by Apple and Riou, he agreed and quickly whipped the Allied Forces into shape by scoring an initial victory against the Highland Army, resulting in the execution of Solon Jhee. He quickly devised cunning strategies to rally support from other city-states and established an alliance with the Toran Republic.
::::::::::I doubt you will believe this, but according to [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184840,00.html The Guardian Style Guide]], ''"'''Britain/UK''': These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. Take care not to write Britain when you might mean only England and Wales, for example when referring to the education system."'' Just to repeat the key information there: "Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." Who to believe... one of Britain's most eminent newspapers, or a chap in Gibraltar? Hmmm... tough one... [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
However, Leon Silverberg suddenly sides with the Highland Army and causes disruption to Shu's plans. After the Dunan Army's retreat against Luca Blight, Leon helped Shu defeat Luca Blight by informing him of a planned night raid and Shu did not let that chance go by. Throughout the war, Shu's attitude towards military strategy had transformed. Originally, his philosophy was identical to Leon Silverberg's philosophy, where soldiers were pawns and strategists were never supposed to risk themselves.
::::::Although ChrisO has got an quick answer from the FCO, there is no doubt a more detailed one available. Why is it important? Because Gibraltar is different to the other overseas territories in being part of the EU with the UK being the member state responsible for certain things. The FCO have changed the name it refers to Gibraltar by a number of times and not all the references are up-to-date, however they do make a major effort with the country profiles, which I cited, which was ''Last reviewed - 09 January 2007'' and that is, I feel the best source to check information on Wikipedia against, the travel advice page has only had the general section updated, probably to reflect international dialling code changes.
 
However, with the influence of Apple and Nanami, he started to see that it is sometimes necessary to put himself on the line in order to truly win. In the end, he leads the Allied Forces to victory after he defeats Leon Silverberg. After the war, he became the Chancellor for the new Allied Nation while awaiting the return of the hero to his rightful post. He later retires, but then is brought out of retirement by the Higheast Rebellion, in which he secretly planned a plot to cause internal discord within Harmonia, which caused them to withdraw from the Highland territory.
::::::I did ask [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] to discuss the matter on this talk page, and feel that shouting at me on my user page was not a productive way to progress the matter, nor was continually reverting the description and removing the definitive reference added.
 
==Apple==
::::::I feel that ammounted to vandalism and thus it was reasonable to revert it back and labeled it as such. As I've been banned its hard to continue the discussion, although that will no doubt make some happy, I am pleased to see there are other Gibraltarians around to ensure that it does not describe us as 'spongers and fleas' or some of the nonsense there used to be.
Like Shu, Apple is not a member of the Silverberg family, but was actually a student of Mathiu Silverberg. She appears in [[Suikoden I]], [[Suikoden II]] and [[Suikoden III]].
::::::--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 01.56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Apple deeply respects her mentor and aids him during the Toran Liberation Wars (Suikoden I). She becomes tactician to Viktor's mercenaries early in the Dunan Unification War (Suikoden II). After the fall of Muse, she successfully recruits Shu for the Allied Forces and helps him as a secondary strategist.
:::::::I find it very concerning how every time evidence is cited that disagrees with your position, you find new and increasingly odd reasons for it not to be admissible. I look forward to you providing references that demonstrate what you say is the case, and that these claims do not represent your own [[WP:OR|original research]] or [[WP:POV|point of view]]. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
During Suikoden III, Apple works as a historian gathering information to compile a biography on Mathiu. She travels with a student of her own, Caesar Silverberg, and assists the young tactician as he acts as strategist for the Flame Champion during the Second Fire Bringer War. According to Apple, Caesar's tactical mindset is likely the closest to that of her master's.
::::::::Let me make a suggestion. Since both terms seem to be be used, we could in principle use either. However, which term does Gibraltar itself use - does it self-identify as a British or a UK Overseas Territory? This seems like a situation in which [[WP:NCON]] should be applied. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==George Silverberg==
:Even though absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence or rational reason has been put forward to say that British Overseas Territory should ''not'' be used, let's try that approach:
George is the son of Leon Silverberg and the father of Albert and Caesar Silverberg. Nothing else is known about him.
:{| border=1
|-
| width=150 | '''Criterion'''
| width=200 | '''[[British Overseas Territory]]'''
| width=200 | '''[[British Overseas Territory|UK Overseas Territory]]'''
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22British+overseas+territory%22 "British Overseas Territory"] - 82,100 google hits
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22British+overseas+territory%22+gibraltar "British Overseas Territory" Gibraltar] - 19,900 hits
'''1 point'''
| [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22UK+Overseas+Territory%22&btnG=Search "UK Overseas Territory"] - 13,300 google hits
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22UK+Overseas+Territory%22+Gibraltar "UK Overseas Territory" Gibraltar] - 687 hits
'''0 points'''
|-
| 2. Current undisputed official name of entity
| [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/20020008.htm The British Overseas Territory Act, 2002]
'''1 point'''
| No evidence provided yet to the contrary that Gibraltar's legal status has changed.
'''0 points'''
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
| [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22British+overseas+territory%22+site%3A.gi "British overseas territory" in the .gi suffix] - 78 google hits
'''1 point'''
| [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22UK+overseas+territory%22+site%3A.gi "UK overseas territory" in the .gi suffix] - 4 hits
'''0 points'''
|-
|
| '''3 points'''
| '''0 points'''
|}
 
In the manga, Caesar describes his father as a "true tactician", a strategist who was capable of knowing when to choose between winning more battles or watching out for the soldiers under his command, which is what Caesar himself strives to become.
:Seems absolutely categorical to me, even - for the sake of argument - allowing zero points for number 2. Until evidence is put forward, there is no point in continuing this debate. Evidence, incidentally, does not constitute the ludicrously farcical attempt at putting forward evidence below - ''"I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless for the reasons give above"'' [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Caesar Silverberg==
::A cursory Google search is not evidence why a particular term should be excluded from use, its legal status notwithstanding. If both terms have demonstrated their acceptability, I feel that more proof is needed before the debate is settled. In my opinion, the table is misleading, asserting how this predomination of Google hits is indeed clear-cut proof, when in actual fact it is inconsequential. As Gibnews said, I think it best that the wording is taken from the Falklands page which has it both ways, and use that until there is a definitive answer. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Caesar Silverberg is the son of George and the younger brother of Albert Silverberg. He travels with his mentor, Apple. Caesar appears in [[Suikoden III]].
 
Caesar is the youngest and most inexperienced of the strategists, though still possessing the talent his family is known for. Initially appearing to be a lazy and disinterested teenager, he possesses a keen and watchful mind and while he never demonstrates the elaborate plans of his predecessors his cunning misdirections and ability to see the situation stripped of emotional attachment serve the Flame Champion well.
:::A google search is inconsequential is it? Read this: [[WP:NCON#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references]]. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
His motivation to pursue the life of a tactician comes from his sibling rivalry with Albert, hoping to best his older brother. Caesar believes in Mathiu's ideology, where reducing the amount of casualties on both sides involved holds priority to the goal in mind so that neither opposing forces loses their strongest human resources such that they will be able to rebuild and manage a peaceful resolution because each side remains able to empathize with the other.
::::Nevertheless, simply because one term is more prevalent in English, why should the other 13,300 hits be dismissed or rendered nonentities? I understand your point, I just feel that the table is a misleading illustration, and I still feel that people are jumping to conclusions. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Caesar is initially dismissed by the Grasslanders, despite how his tactics saved the Chisha clan from Harmonia forces, and becomes discouraged, though Apple assures him that as a strategist, he must find generals to guide in battle. He eventually earns his place as their strategist when he reveals that he is familiar with the tactical advisor of the Harmonian forces: Albert Silverberg. Karaya clan chief Lucia convinces the other chiefs to accept Caesar as their tactician since she knows of Caesar's grandfather, Leon Silverberg, and the value of having Silverberg tactician on their side.
:::::There has to be a way to resolve disputes like this though, and that WP page outlines the best way to do it. Noone is denying that "UK Overseas Territory" ''is'' used. The question is, ''which'' do we use here? The evidence so far points to three things: '''(1)''' the FCO uses both - as evidenced by browsing their site and ChrisO's reponse from them, the Government of Gibraltar website uses both, the BBC and Britannica use "BOT", the CIA "Overseas Territory of the UK" '''(2)''' "British Overseas Territory" is the name used in the most recent, currently in force, Act of Parliament determining the legal status of the territories and their citizens '''(3)''' "British Overseas Territory" is the more commonly used name on the internet, globally (4x more) and within Gibraltar itself (20x more). In the light of that evidence, until evidence is put forward to the contrary, the case for "British Overseas Territory" is much, much stronger. I'm happy to discuss '''empirically verifiable''' evidence to the contrary - I am still waiting for some. All we have had so far is ''opinions'' from Gibnews, ranging from claims about the semantics of the term "British" to claims that he asked "a lawyer", to suggestions that Acts of Parliament can be superceded by the wording on a government website. Note that there is no ''opinion'' of mine in the three points outlined above, they are evidence that anyone here can verify independently. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
He proves himself to be a skillful tactician (though assisted by Apple and Salome Haras of the Zexen Confederacy) and intends to test his skills against Albert by pledging his support to the new Flame Champion. While the Grasslanders and the Zexen Confederacy defeat the Harmonians and the Destroyer forces, Caesar realizes that Albert remains the superior tactician and decides to return to his studies in hopes of surpassing his brother some day.
I feel that given that it is a contentious matter, and not yet fully resolved, that its unfair to impose the current wording and and contrary to the comment 'the debate is over' its not.
 
==Albert Silverberg==
However, as a compromise, can I suggest to Chriso to take the wording from the Falklands page which in effect does have it both ways and uses that until there is a definitive answer.
Albert Silverberg is the son of George and the older brother of Caesar Silverberg. He appears in [[Suikoden III]].
 
Albert excelled in his studies and is an excellent strategist, eventually gaining the role of Harmonia's chief tactical advisor during Harmonia's invasion of the Grasslands. His ideals are largely similar to that of his grandfather, Leon, where bringing about the end goal as quickly as possible to spare lives takes priority over the methods used, no matter how amoral the methods may be or how much suffering must be caused as a result. He and Caesar, as a result of their differing ideologies, is a sore point between the brothers along with their contrasting personalities, especially since Albert is much more serious in comparision to his younger brother.
In terms of local usage, I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless for the reasons give above. There is a lot of confusion about the subject and I researched it for a TV programme recently, note that was ''research'' not ''original research''.
 
He initially works alongside [[Sasarai]], a bishop of Harmonia and the commander of the Harmonian invaders searching for the [[27 True Runes|True Fire Rune]], but reveals that he is actually working for Luc, the Masked Bishop. Albert's motives are unclear, but it appears that he believes supporting Luc will allow him to gain power within the Harmonian bureaucracy. It is revealed that he chose to follow Luc in hopes of lessening the amount of casualties in Luc's war through strategic means.
Although the dispute may sound similar to 'Romans they go to the house' the centurian was correct.
 
He eventually disappears at the end of the Second Fire Bringer War, intending leave the continent and start again under an assumed name. Caesar finds him before he leaves and informs his older brother that he will surpass him some day.
I'm refraining from editing as my router IP still seems to be blocked. Have a nice Easter I'm off to exploit the Spanish state and spend money abroad. Perhaps I can find some telefonica IP's to steal.
 
==External links==
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 10.10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
* [http://www.suikosource.com '''Suikosource''']
 
[[Category:Suikoden characters]]
::I believe substantial weight should be afforded to the legal documents establishing Gibraltar's existance. The British Overseas Territories Act (2002) is very persuasive. The entity's own terminology is also important. Other people's terminology is less important.
 
::The Gibraltar government's website makes no mention as far as I see. What the BBC or Google uses may be notable to reach a conclusion about practical use, but are not authoritative determination. If they were the deciding factor, then consider calling Gibraltar part of Spain because that the Spanish view (at least, some of them)!
 
::Would the editors like to consider this text (includes text and footnote/reference)?
''Gibraltar is a [[British overseas territory]] <ref> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20008--a.htm#1 The Act is legislation assigning the terminology "British overseas territory" though the phrase "UK overseas territory" has been used, including on information pages of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) website, a reference that does not carry the weight of law. </ref> located near the southernmost tip of the''....
{{reflist}}
 
::Discussion is useful. Please don't try to report each other and try to seek sanctions. This just creates ill will. Gibraltar is supposed to be a happy place! On my talk page, I even have included a flag of Gibraltar even though I have just visited there and don't live there.[[User:VK35|VK35]] 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::I'd be OK with that, but... isn't it enough that the [[British Overseas Territory]] article now has words to this effect (which I added myself, expanding on an addition by ChrisO) - "The British Overseas Territories are also referred to as overseas territories of the United Kingdom[2], UK overseas territories[3], or when the context is clear, simply the Overseas Territories[4]." (The Gibraltar govt website uses all of these, in fact [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=overseas+territory&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=gov.gi&as_rights=&safe=images]) By doing it in one central place, it covers all fourteen overseas territories in one fell swoop. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The reason for my suggested footnote is to recognize the sentiment for "UK overseas territory". If there weren't such strong sentiment then the blue highlighted link would be enough and there wouldn't be any need for a footnote with the explanation. I wrote in the hopes of facilitating cooperation, try to reduce fighting and ill will, and because I like Gibraltar.[[User:VK35|VK35]] 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::The reason given above ''for'' "UK Overseas Territory" is that Gibraltar is '''not''' a British Overseas Territory. No (verifiable) evidence has been put forward that verifies this claim. My reason ''for'' "British Overseas Territory" is that this is the official, legal name, and the most commonly used one. I, and another contributor, have put forward several (verifiable) sources that verify this claim. Like the debate below, a compromise would only be pandering to the POV of one hot headed contributor, not for any sensible reason. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Its not ''pandering to a POV'' its my uderstanding that the correct term is '''UK Overseas Territory''' if anything changing it is pandering to another editors POV simply because of the noise level.
 
However, I have made a formal request to the FCO and will get a detailed statement on the subject which will be published, no doubt there will be those who wish to argue further, but they will be wrong, and until such time as we declare UDI and become a republic whatever title the mandarins of the FCO say is correct IS the definitive version. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:With all due respect to your comments, it appears to me that the actual legislation naming the status of Gibraltar is "British Overseas Territory". (See explanation above in this section). However, there is so much confusion that even the FCO website uses the term "UK overseas territory". Therefore, I think it is best to use the correct terminology but, in view of the other commonly used terminology, it seems acceptable to me to make such an explanation. In fact, the mere noting of the alternate usage may enhance wikipedia's credibility as a well referenced and detailed encyclopedia. I am curious to whether printed encyclopedias explain the difference (i.e., which term is used in legislation and which terms are used in daily life).
 
:Even if the FCO responds in writing, I would question their response if they use the term "UK overseas territory" ''and'' fail to explain why the original legislation uses the other term. If they adequately explain why the term "British overseas territory" is obsolete, then this would be a very notable addition to this article about Gibraltar.
 
:It's ok to consider the issue, but let's agree to find the true answer and not view this as a confrontation between two sides![[User:VK35|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff00000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">VK35</span>]] 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::[[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] already added this clarification to the [[British Overseas Territory]] article, and I then expanded it to include all four usages ("B.O.T.", "UK O.T.", "O.T. of the UK", "O.T."). I don't think we need to add this to all fourteen articles on the BOTs. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Flag==
Do we need to continue this debate? I believe we should remove the Spanish flag but consider it essential that we gain consensus first, ie edit warring is not acceptable. This page is now unprotected, please can we discuss the issue and leave the Spanish flag here in the meantime, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Gibnews' objection wasn't simply about the flag but about whether this article falls within the scope of WikiProject Spain. The ''unanimous'' consensus from other editors was that it does. The flag is secondary to that. Gibnews should respect this consensus rather than trying to impose a personal veto. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Unanimous consensus? Unanimouis means everyone whereas there were 2 dissenting voices, mine and Gibnews's, and if that is a definition of unanimous I am a Gibraltan. Come on, Chris, making untrue statements wont help in any way, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Sorry, did I misread your earlier comments? I was under the impression that you had no objection to the article being within the scope of WikiProject Spain but that you did support the removal of the flag. Is that right? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I dont object to they're being a part of the Project Spain (neutral view) but I do support Gib that we shouldnt have a Spanish flag here. From my understanding it is the flag that is causing the controversy not the being a part of the Spain project, though I will also add that logically the 19 ex-Spanish colonies should also be a part of Project Spain but that it would be equally unacceptable to put the Spanish flag on those 19 talk pages and to be very clear tghere is no unanimous consensus to have the Spanish flag here, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:I without doubt advocate the removal of the Spanish flag on this talk page, on first sight I deemed it a joke and an attempt to purely inflame and provoke any Gibraltarians, which will in turn (and inevitably) cause endless edit wars. Understanding that it may perhaps fall under the scope of the project, well there's nothing I can do about that. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::The problem is easily resolvable by creating a new template with the Wiki Spain info and without the Spanish flag, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Little reason has been offered for doing this other than appeasing the particular POVs of individual editors, which is certainly not a road we ought to be going down. --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::SqueakBox's idea sounds good to me. I do not know what is WP's policy on political correctness, but it would certainly do a great deal in alleviating any umbrage. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I have put together various (unequivocal) points that I feel are why the removal of WikiProject Spain and needless to say, its attached flag should come about.
 
1. If WikiProject falls under the scope of Gibraltar because at one epoch in history Gibraltar was under Spanish rule, one would inevitably question why other former Spanish territories and colonies do not.
 
2. Likewise one would also question that, given that at one point in time Gibraltar was also Moorish, if there was a WikiProject Moorish should it not also fall under the scope of Gibraltar, surely there are many telltale signs of their occupation.
 
3. Seeing as Gibraltar is related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain, should it not similarly fall under [[WP:UKWNB|WikiProject United Kingdom]]? One can hardly argue that a Spanish project has more right to fall under the scope of a British territory than a British project does.
 
4. Finally, (with regards to the flag) WikiProject Spain should be removed, whereby its accompanying flag is '''[[political correctness|politically incorrect]]'''. Political incorrectness is defined as language or conduct that could give offence, e.g. on the basis of ethnic origin or sexual orientation, and as I am sure most people are well aware, the Spanish flag is offensive to Gibraltarians, not to the POVs of particular contributors, but a whole people.
 
I hope I have made myself clear. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 10:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Thanks for this. For clarity, I'll respond to each of your points using the same numbering.
::1. They do. WikiProject Spain is interested in all articles 'related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain', so this might include other historical colonies too.
::2. Yes, Gibraltar might well fall under the scope of a putative 'WikiProject Moorish', as of course would the article for [[Spain]] itself.
::3. Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that Gibraltar also falls under the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom (although that project has largely been split up into many more specific sub-projects such as WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Greater Manchester, and so on: WikiProject Gibraltar might be considered one of these too). WikiProject scopes are not intended to be mutually exclusive: the article doesn't have to be tagged as part of either WikiProject A or WikiProject B, it can quite happily be tagged as relevant to both.
::4. [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive]].
:Hopefully this clears up the relationship of WikiProjects to articles (in particular, that one article can be considered part of many separate WikiProjects); it's probably worth reiterating that the fact that this article falls within the scope of WikiProject Spain categorically does not imply any kind of statement on Gibraltar's current political situation. --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::::[[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]], the fact that other articles on colonies are or are not parts of the wikiprojects of their former rulers is neither here nor there: at the end of the day, it's just a tag that someone has or has not yet seen fit to add. But, you might want to look at the [[Talk:Macau|Macau talk page]], Macau is an ex-Portuguese colony in China, and is part of both Wikiproject Portugal and Wikiproject China, ''and shows the Portuguese flag''. What is important is the definition of what a wikiproject is. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If WikiProkject Spain is interested in ''all'' articles 'related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain' shouldn't Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the other myriad territories which were once Spanish be tagged with WikiProject Spain. They may not be Spain, yet they are related to the history etc of Spain, just as Gibraltar is.
:::It is preposterous to assert that a WikiProject Moorish would fall under the scope of Gibraltar - therefore I surmise that a Wikiproject Romans/Vandals/Phoenicians and everything else Gibraltar once was would also fall under the scope of Gibraltar.
:::Notwithstanding the fact that WikiProject United Kingdom may have branched into other sub-projects, it has an equal right to be present on this page just as Spain does, if not more.
:::I respect that Wikipedia contains content which some readers may find objectionable or offensive, yet what I am trying to say is that the removal of the flag is not to appease the POVs of specific contributors, but to prevent offence. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Offence is a POV though. You find the sight of the Spanish flag offensive on the Gibraltar talk page, I do not. We have differing points of view on this subject. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you're reading what I've written accurately. The WikiProject tags are '''not mutually exclusive''': the only reason there isn't a 'WikiProject United Kingdom' tag on this article is that '''no editor has put one there yet''' (well, and because, as I stated above, no such WikiProject United Kingdom actually exists). Similarly, it would be perfectly reasonable for, to take one of your examples, Cuba to be tagged with a 'WikiProject Spain' tag: the fact that it hasn't just means no one has done it yet.
::::You're also missing the point about objectionable or offensive content. Let's have a hypothetical counterexample: a Spaniard whose ancestors were expelled from Gibraltar by the invading British forces in the eighteenth century. This hypothetical Spaniard finds the Gibraltarian flag as offensive as you find the Spanish flag. Should it be removed from the article? Of course not. --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:::::'''Three points on that''' One, no Spaniard was expelled, when Gibraltar was liberated they were given a choice of remaining - perhaps you should read the article. Secondly what is acceptable in relation to Gibraltar is a matter for Gibraltarians. Finally, the Spanish flag is considered a symbol of oppression in Gibraltar and its use as offensive as a swastica on the Israel page.
 
:::::Indeed it was a Spanish editor who produced the non flag version as he knows the sensitivity of that symbol.
 
:::::--10:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Nobody has tried to do it yet but my guess is there would be a lot of resistance. We are supposed to be an inclusive encyclopedia whereas this flag is turning more people away than it is bringing here. To use a Spanish term "no vale la pena" (not worth the hassle), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I appreciate the point, but it would nevertheless be a rather worrying precedent: we're being asked to remove a perfectly legitimate tag on no grounds other than that an arbitrary symbol it uses makes some users unhappy. --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Okay fair enough, I respect the fact that being offensive is evidently no excuse to Wikipedia, and I therefore cannot continue to argue solely as a Devil's advocate. I have nonetheless mentioned what I feel are logical reasons, regardless whether they are valid or not in Wikipedia. In addition I would like to remark that this symbol does not 'make some users unhappy', I would say more of a 'rensentful displeasure' or 'offence' and futhermore I have now tagged Gibraltar are part of WikiProject UK. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
*I'm just chiming in to say that I don't have a strong opinion about the flag at this point. I do feel strongly that the Article should stay in all 3 WikiProjects. I would also like to point out that on [[March 1]] [[2007]] I tagged both [[Talk:Texas]] and [[Talk:California]] with WikiProject Spain. Those tags quickly got replaced with WikiProject Mexico tags, which I agree are more relevant. The WikiProject Mexio tags have stayed there ever since, with no objections. The analogy is a very good one. Mexico once controlled all or most of Texas and California ''and'' there continue to be interconnected interests even today. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 
My view is that these ''projects'' add little apart from clutter, Although there is an argument that the history of Gibraltar is linked with Spain, the argument that the main article should form part of a foreign project is weak, and the inclusion of a nationalist symbol is offensive, there are NO Spanish flags in Gibraltar for that reason. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:There is no such think as a "foreign project" here. all these projects are part of Wikipedia. This is not a nationalist endeavor. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 
If its not a 'nationalist endeavor' then why is there a national symbol attached to the template, one which is seen as grossly offensive when used in connection with Gibraltar. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*It pertains to the country of Spain, yes, but that does not make it "nationalist". Please see above how no one in all of California or Texas has complained about the WikiProject Mexcio tag (with flag) on those states. Once again though, I don't mind if we make a new template that does not include the flag. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:The situation is quite different, and as far as I am aware the Government of Mexico has not systematically harassed Texans and tried to interfere with their right to vote or play football. Thankfully on a personal level, Spanish nationals are most welcome in Gibraltar, the flag is not, and it will not be for a long time. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::But they do harrass us - they keep coming here and starting Mexican restaurants and making us fat!!! It's a conspiracy. Fortunately they have not interferred with the football games. If they do that, then perhaps we will rise up and throw off the yoke of oppresion. :=) Seriously, I'm OK with it if you want to put up a tag that removes the flag. Would that be acceptable to you? [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::OK, I took out the flag. Can everyone live with this compromise? [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::The flag is not welcome in Gibraltar? I respect the views of Gibraltarians and their right to decide what flags fly in their land, but this talk page isn't Gibraltar. It's Wikipedia. I think this is the start of a very slippery slope, and really, at the end of the day, those that are objecting to the sight of the flag are really just demonstrating how they are unable to maintain a neutral point of view. The presence of the flag is not a factual inaccuracy, it is not claiming that Gibraltar is Spanish, it is not making personal attacks, it is merely making a statement that Gibraltar is part of a project on things relating to Spain. On point of principle I object to this, and would be willing to take this discussion further if anyone else wishes to, because I think a very important principle of Wikipedia is at stake here. I will say this though, the only balanced compromise is that '''if one flag is removed, all should be.''' [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:I think it loooks much better now. I dont believe trying not to offend people unnecessarily is the start of a slippery slope. The flag here in now way can be said to have made a better encyclopedia nor its absence a worse one (our goal), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:I'd be happy if ALL those stupid and useless flags and templates were removed from talk pages. Although the HISTORY of Gibraltar involves Spain, so far the inclusion of Gibraltar in 'project Spain' has only attracted the attention of an editor expressing illinformed and insulting views that the Gibraltarians are an economic cancer.
 
:Nationalist symbols belong where appropriate. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 08:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::So it seems we finally agree on something! BTW - the best policy is to ignore people who write things like that on talk pages, and if it gets into the article and it's unsourced and/or blatant POV, delete it. Either way don't rise to their provocation. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Ah but it demonstrates the level of ignorance and prejudice that exists. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Perhaps someone could modify the UK template with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clyde_The_Bulldog.jpg this] pic? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
*Gibnews, do you or do you now support the compromise above, where the tags remain but the Spanish flag is gone? You say above "I'd be happy if ALL those stupid and useless flags and templates were removed from talk pages." I don't think there is any chance we are going to remove all the tags. Your personal dislike for wikiproject tags does not govern this page. So, do you support this version, or should we go back to the standard tag which has the Spanish flag? [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::I would oppose the restoration of the Spain flag and would happily see the removakl of the UK Jack as well, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Does anyone object if I remove the UK flag, leave the Spanish flag out, and leave the Gibralter flag in as the only flag? [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I object. Wikipedia is not to be held hostage by childish whims. This subject has been discussed for long enough already. --[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:I completely agree. If we didn't censor the Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons to appear 1 billion annoyed Muslims, we certainly shouldn't be in the business of censoring the Spanish flag to appease a single intransigent Gibraltarian user. Gibnews is quite simply trying to censor Wikipedia by trying to exercise a personal veto. This isn't acceptable in my view. I've posted a couple of requests for outside input to see if we can get a clearer take on the community's view of this matter. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::'''Its not a single intransigent Gibraltarian''' There are lots of us who feel the same way, as I have tried to explain politely its considered sufficiently offensive that the last person to try and fly it was arrested and the police rescued him from being lynched. Can I remind you YOU said it was not appropriate on the Gibraltar page originally. When Spain renounces its territorial claim and takes note of the views of the Gibraltarians then it may be acceptable - in the meantime its inflamatory. It also gets in the way of creating an encyclopedia. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
::Claims of censorship imply it should be here? Why? To discourage people who feel strongly on this issue (most Gibraltans) from participating? How can we claim censorship and this isnt even a main space page? GibNews is one of a number of editors here opposed to the flag so we cant claim it is his personal veto. I dislike the UK having nothing other than ?????, I think we should put on the bulldog pic I linked to above (we Brits are known as bulldogs John Bull etc), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Let's be clear about this: noone is forcing anyone to contribute. Contributors are here of their own volition, which entails agreement with Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. If some contributors find certain aspects of frankly inocuous attempts at ''improving Wikipedia'' offensive, there is a very simple solution: stop looking at the page and go and do something else. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Thats a defeatist attitude. But for the avoidance of doubt I'm not going anywhere, and there are plenty of others who agree with me. The Gibraltar pages are pretty much current, although there is room for one about 'popular missconceptions about the formal name of the territory' If you do not understand why Spanish flags are unpopular, then research why Gibraltar is not currently in UEFA. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::The only "missconception" (''sic'') about the formal name of the territory is yours, based on a gross misunderstanding of both the English language and the British legal system. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::I have tried to be more polite, however in due course you may have to eat your words and your ridiculous hat. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Indeed I didnt know that. What a disgraceful attitude by the Spanish football authorities (its not as if Gibraltarians could play for Britain), and then people wonder why their flag isnt wanted here! [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I agree that Spain should allow Gibraltar to join UEFA but this has little to do with the current discussion doesnt it? The Taiwan flag isnt wanted in China, the Serbian flag isnt wanted in Kosovo, nor is the Potuguese flag wanted in Olivenza... But neither Kosovo Albanians nor Taiwanese nor Spaniards are being so childish as to create edit wars over this in their respective articles where the Serbian and Chinese flags are well present.
Says alot about the mental age of gibraltarian editors...--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Its popularity is in reverse proportion to the insults and harassment from the Government of Spain. As you sow so shall you reep. And the flag is still there. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
== Wikiprojects ==
 
Great there are 3 wikiprojects here, perhaps this article will get [[WP:FA]] status 3 times as fast? Go focus on the article please, rather then the talk page that nobody but editors likely will see anyway. —— [[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">'''Eagle'''</font><font color="red">'''101''']] </font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Not until this is settled.
 
:my preference
 
* remove all the stupid 'project' templates they do no good anyway and clutter the page.
 
* remove the Spanish flag
 
:Any solutions that include the second item are OK, then we can get back to creating something useful. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::The second has already happened - the Spanish flag is already gone. I don't see the first happening, ever. Wikiproject are here to stay and you are not going to change that. It's time for you to stop making noise about how ''you'' want this talk page to look. We've been more than accomodating to you. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::If its gone, good. I admire the flag in Spain where it belongs. I also look forward to the day when we can fly it in Gibraltar because that will mean the Government of Spain has renounced its claim and started treating the people of Gibraltar with respect. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:::Guys that flag really has to go. It is one thing to call this article part of wikiproject Spain, that is a massive POV problem. But to have the flag at the top of the page is really pushing it. No show/hide tricks, no games, Gibraltar is no more within the remit of wikiproject Spain than Portugal or France are. Spanish people don't see it that way, they run Wikiproject Spain (probably), which is why they included it in Wikiproject Spain. This is POV and provocative. What would you say if someone included Finland in Wikiproject Russia? Or Korea in Wikiproject Japan? Or Sinai in Wikiproject Israel? Or Morocco in Wikiproject Spain (that would make much more sense, Spain hasn't been into Gibraltar in 300 years, but was in Morocco in the past 50)?
:::Remember that Gibraltarians were subject to a hostile blockade by Spain for 30 years and they are not great friends. Recognize that this action is nothing more than a childish provocation that is wasting everyones time here. This serves no purpose and generates constant strife. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Did you read all of the above discussion? Did you read how [[Texas]] and [[California]] are tagged with WikiProject Mexico, which features the Mexican flag, even though they have not beeen under control of Mexico for over 100 years? Did you see how we have tried to remove the flag, but that Givnews was still not satisfied? [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Putting a territory under a heading of a nation that seeks its incorporation is provocative and serves no good purpose. Yes, yes I read all this and I not convinced by any of it. The flag is still there, and the wikiproject is still there. There are 1000s of pages in Wikiproject Spain, Portugal isn't there Morocco isn't there and France isn't there, and if they were included there would be a massive shitstorm. I would show you, but that would be [[WP:POINT]]. Users of the Spain wikiproject are free to edit this article but this isn't the way to lead to improvements and this lengthy discussion rather proves that point. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Portugal was never part of Spain. Morocco was never part of Spain (although the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are). France was never part of Spain. Gibraltar was part of Spain for hundreds of years and its culture, economy and politics continue to be influenced by Spain to a large degree. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for it to fall within the scope of WikiProject Spain. Your accusations that WikiProject Spain constitutes Spanish editors trying to push a particular POV are both inflammatory and grossly patronising: thanks for [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] there! --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::What this really boils down to is that Gibnews amd David Spart are trying to impose a specifically Gibraltarian nationalist speech code on this page, i.e. that the use of the flag of Spain is unacceptable to Gibraltarian nationalists. This isn't the way Wikipedia works. We don't impose a Chinese speech code that prohibits any mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre, or a Greek speech code that dictates that the Republic of Macedonia be called "Skopjiana", or an Iranian speech code that denies the existence of Israel. We're an ''international'' project and [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]] to meet local speech codes. It's as simple as that. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Thats your POV but as I said in the beginning one needs to respect sensitivities, and this is one. I see the red hand of Ulster causes similar disquiet amongst the Irish republicans. '''Gibraltar is not Spain''', however much some would like it to be. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::No, that's not my POV, it's fundamental Wikipedia policy. You agreed to play by the rules when you signed up as an editor. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but we're not going to change the rules because of one editor's personal objections. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
== Flags And Templates And Things ==
 
Careful everyone, or this will end up in the [[WP:LAME|Lamest Edit Wars]] hall of fame... [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:It is completely lame and utterly pointless. When people nationality is attacked they are provoked. There is an important point though: this is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] since it makes it look like it is wikipedia policy to recognise Spain's claim as valid AND a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] since it upsets users without adding any utility. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
::I hope you realise you're contributing to the lameness, as have I been. Look back at the talk page everyone, there's more space devoted to discussing the flag on the talk page than the article itself. This is ridiculous! [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:::No, I am trying to end the lameness, which will roll along forever and ever until it is removed from the wikiproject. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You mean you will continue the lameness until you get your own way? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, I just found this yesterday. I have never been to Gibraltar and I am not even British! But this is clearly wrong, and needs to stop now. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you all think, the bottom line is that due to the outdated territorial claim of Spain, and the years of persecution by its Government, that national symbol is seen as something unwelcome by the majority of Gibraltarians. Its use in connection with Gibraltar is an unfriendly act. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Proposal==
Given some see the flag as still being here please can we use the Spanish template with the Castle and the UK template with the bulldog or some such British symbol. I thought the castle was great and very Spanish (in that Avila/Salamanca kind of way) whereas the flag is, IMO and, given the comments of other editors inc Gibraltarians and those who have never been there, (which I have) it seems to me we have a strong consensus to remove non Gibraltarian flags. I would oppose Spain Project not being here at all but this is Gibraltarian space and we just need a liitle respect and everything will be fine, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:''"This is Gibraltarian space"''??? To paraphrase our dear friend [[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]], '''[[Talk:Gibraltar]] is Wikipedia not Gibraltar.''' [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::Come on, quoting Gibnews at me isnt an argument! Why would we want to turn Gibralrtarians away from this article. We arent Spanish wikipedia! [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::And what, pray, about Spanish editors' sentiments? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::Ah you mean like the one who said ''I think Gibraltarian points are the usual ones of a sponger. Gibraltarian points are what a flea would tell to the dog in wich it lives in order to stay in such a warm and comfortable skin for ever.'' what is a pity is that Gibraltarian editors, like user:Chris Buttigieg are scared off by this nonsense, and generally all 'Spanish editors' have to add about the topic of Gibraltar is their prejudice, because they do not know the difference between reality and the lies in the Spanish media.
 
::::The Spanish Government still blocks any EU legislation which mentions Gibraltar, and tried to block Gibraltarians voting in EU elections, taking the case to the European court, and lost, as they did with a case about the repair of HMS Tireless.
 
::::Unless 'Project Spain' wishes to cover all European states, I don't know what they are doing in Gibraltar, because the Spanish contribution to the territory was prior to 1704 and there is a seperate article for history. I note its not on the Portugal talk page.
 
::::And despite the offers to remove the flag its still there. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::Well as a Brit I have no issues with not seeing our beloved [[Union Jack|Jack]] here. Why would Spanish editors feel differently, especially if they respect the views of the great majority of Gibraltarians while here, as I do, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::It completely misses the point of this being a neutral encyclopaedia to suggest that because this is a talk page on Gibraltar, and people from Gibraltar contribute to it, that one has to tiptoe around Gibraltarian sentiments. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::That's your opinion. It definitely isnt mine. I respect Gibraltarians. Why would would anyone else be here if they dont? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]]
:::::::The suggestion seems to be from one user, that since Spain has a claim their flag should be here, which is what I suspected all along despite the protestations that "close ties, former possession, etc". Well that is unacceptable and goes to show that adding the flag at the top is POV and uncivil. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::::Erm... who is suggesting that the ''Spanish claim'' is the motive for placing the Spanish flag there? Even if someone is, so what? The answer to that individual is the same as that to the two offended Gibraltarians, which is that those flags are not there for political reasons. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be more mature and rise above any petty suggestions to the contrary. That goes for both Gibraltar-hungry Spaniards and proud-to-be-British Gibraltarians. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::There is an obvious attempt to provide a soley British perspective in this and many other articles relating to Gibraltar, can editors please remember that this is NOT English wiki it is English language wiki.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::::::Perhaps its up to the people promoting 'project spain' to back off because they have nothing to add, and all its done is start this pointless debate and attract insults about Gibraltar. I'm sure there is plenty of work for them to do elsewhere, describing the virtue of paella. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Gibnews, you are an experienced editor and shouldnt need to be reminded of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. You show signs of [[WP:OWN]] in your editing of articles about Gibraltar.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Enough==
 
Ok the current version of the page is acceptable to all parties. There are no flags but the article remains within the scope of all the relevant projects. Can we please move on to something else?
--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:What are you talking about!? There are 3 flags. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::4 flags so nothing is resolved, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:'''No''' its not enough, the flag is still there and the wording says ''This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain'' Gibraltar is '''not''' Spain. Their culture is not my culture, their language is not my language and their claim is not wanted by 99% of Gibraltarians, according to our recent referendum. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::...a perfect demonstration that you are trying to hijack Wikipedia for political motives. I see you conveniently failed to mention the "history" of Spain, presumably because Gibraltar '''was''' Spain, and is therefore relevent to a project one of whose stated aims is to cover Spanish history. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:OK, I think it's about time to draw a close to this particular discussion and move on. The only reasons that have been put forward for removing the WikiProject template or its component elements are (1) simple nationalism; (2) a claim that a particular article is "owned" by its subject(s); and (3) a claim that local political cultures can dictate the ''management'' of article development on Wikipedia. (I stress ''management'', because this is essentially an administrative issue, not a content dispute.) These three reasons are inapplicable and fundamentally contradict our most basic principles - for which read [[Wikipedia:About]]. So, to make matters absolutely clear: there will be no removal of the flag or the template, and attempts to remove either will be treated as [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. I hope that makes the position clear. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::It seem like time to make a [[Wikipedia:Request for comment]] to me as I dont think swhat you augest is acceptable. So we should get some further opinions and I would have thought an Rfc is the best way to do that, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::You can make a RfC if you wish, but absolutely fundamental principles can't and won't be overturned that way. The principles in this case are so fundamental that you'd need - at the very least - to take the issue to [[Jimmy Wales]], and I can tell you that you won't have a hope in hell of getting him to overturn the principles on which he founded Wikipedia. Your view that there's such a thing as a "Gibraltarian space" and Gibnews' view that "foreign" WikiProjects aren't to be allowed are in total contradiction to Jimmy's vision of what Wikipedia should be. Frankly, if the two of you don't want to follow those principles, you'd be better off going to somewhere like [http://www.wikinfo.org Wikinfo], which has a "sympathetic point of view" policy which would seem more suited to your objections. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You are talking nonsense, wikilawyering, and twisting wiki policies to suit your own POV. There are no firm guidelines as to what the remit of wikiprojects should be, but now it looks like there will have to be. [[User:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|<tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">{{ucfirst:David Spart}}</tt>]] (<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|contribs]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} logs] '''·''' [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:David Spart}}|block user]] '''·''' [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:David Spart}}}}}} block log]</span>) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:And your claim that we would have to go to Jimbo is absurd and not backed
up in any policy. Actuallyu it should be for the editors here to decide but when one admin comes along unilaterally threatening (with blocks etc) the editors here merely for making good faith edits or having a discussion then Rfc is clearly appropriate. For me if these flags offend one user they should be removed, its as simple as that. If we use policies to discourage good faith users then I assume the policy is being mis-read, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Not so. Let me quote from [[WP:NPOV]]: ''Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".''. The applicability of Wikipedia policy isn't a matter to be determined by debates among editors or RfCs. It's always applicable, all the time. Carving out a "safe space" for one nationalist user is about as fundamental a violation of NPOV as you can get, and as I said it's something that totally contradicts Jimbo's founding principles. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Getting Gibraltar to Featured Article status==
 
Now that we have [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar]] up and running (feel free to sign up if you haven't already!) we can start work on our first major mini-project: getting this article up to [[WP:FA|Featured Article]] status. If at all possible I'd like to see it featured on the main page on September 10th, Gibraltar's National Day.
 
Getting the article to featured status will be tough: there are only about 1,300 featured articles on the whole of Wikipedia and they have to pass a stringent set of [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|criteria]]. What we have now is a good start, but it will need some work. I've been working offline on a revised version of the article which is based largely on the current text but with changes to reflect the [[WP:MOS|manual of style]] and other applicable featured article criteria.
 
One of the key things that we will need to do is to ensure that the article is fully neutral. This will require us to balance the British, Gibraltarian and Spanish viewpoints. I'm sure our Gibraltarian editors can take care of their end and I'm happy to do what I can for the British end, but we will need to have some substantial and sustained Spanish involvement as well. To that end, I intend to ask the members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain]] to get involved, so that the Spanish angle is properly represented.
 
This mini-project will require a fair amount of work, fact-checking, negotiation etc over the next few months. The desired outcome will be an article on Gibraltar that can be counted as one of the top 0.1% of Wikipedia articles. I hope everyone would agree that this is a worthwhile goal, and will be willing to contribute to it in [[WP:AGF|good faith]] and with due regard for the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and other foundational policies. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:Chris, The Gibraltar article is about Gibraltar, that may sound simplistic, but lets not forget it. There is no need to ''balance the British, Gibraltarian and Spanish viewpoints'' What the Spanish think is '''IMMATERIAL''' and largely nonsense as demonstrated by user:kiko.
 
:What matters are not ill informed opinions, but '''facts''', its a reference work not a forum for propaganda. The people from 'project Spain' may have things to add to the period of history when Gibraltar was occupied by Spain.
 
:Unless they know something about Gibraltar today, what can they do, and generally Spaniards know less about Gibraltar than Australians.
 
:Improving the style is commendable, as the main article has been hacked a lot, however the important thing is not to be competitive and make it a featured article but that when anyone looks up Gibraltar on wikipedia that what is there is factual, current and honest.
 
:Edit wars promoting 300 year old irredentist claims, backed by unfounded accusations of institutional criminality add nothing.
 
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Suggestions: Consider adding a section about things for the visitor to see. Some wikipedia readers will read the article in anticipation of a visit. It's been a few years since I was there, but I remember the 100 ton gun, the Trinity Lighthouse, Moor Castle, and deep caverns (name?). If there is interest in including such a section but nobody edits it, I suppose that I could do it and have it reviewed by others who live in Gibraltar. If it is already in the article but I didn't see it, sorry![[User:VK35|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff00000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">VK35</span>]] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==The Gibraltar Pound==
 
Its impossible to buy a Gibraltar pound, or to open a bank account in that currency. All business is in the pound Sterling.
 
If you have any doubts, please look at a currency note in circulation. Because there is an ISO code defined for the GIP this does not show it exists.
 
Its basically a myth. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Please cite some evidence for this view of yours. As per WP policy, I have removed your claim because it is unsourced. What you say contradicts the evidence I can find:
*[[http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965242498 FCO Gibraltar Country Profile]] (the very same page you claimed proved your claim for UKOT vs BOT - explain that one)
*[[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gi.html#Econ CIA Factbook]]
*[[http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=GBP&to=GIP&submit=Convert Yahoo Currency Converter]] (all such sites allow you to enter values in GIPs)
*'''[[http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/finance/gib_const_legal_services.htm Government of Gibraltar Website]] "Gibraltar's currency is the Gibraltar pound. The sterling pound is also accepted in Gibraltar on a one to one basis with the Gibraltar pound. There are no exchange controls in Gibraltar."'''
 
[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Please produce a picture of the mythical Gibraltar pound. Although looking into my wallet may be considered original research, and the image has been taken off the wikipedia commons, presumably for copyright reasons its [http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/2c/175px-10_pounds_of_Gibraltar.jpg here] and you will see it says 'pounds sterline' and not anywhere 'Gibraltar Pounds'
 
Whatever anyone says, '''show me the money''' before you want to change it. there are no notes issued in Gibraltar Pounds and no banks offer accounts denominated in it. Any that do say that are old demoneterised notes images of which may lurk around. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:That is '''your''' interpretation, and as such is original research which I have removed as per WP guidelines. I have provided links from the FCO, the CIA and the GoG websites. You have provided no evidence whatsoever. "Show me the money" isn't any sort of argument or evidence at all. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I did provide some evidence, look here
 
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/2c/175px-10_pounds_of_Gibraltar.jpg
 
'''Show me a picture of a Gibraltar Pound, or tell me a bank where I can open an account in Gibraltar pounds and I'd agree. But there are none.''' --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Gibnews is right, Gibraltarian notes (and coins) simply bear 'Pounds Sterling', nothing whatsoever about (e.g.) 'Five Gibraltar Pounds Sterling'. The fact that our currency may be known as the Gibraltar Pound is simply to differentiate it from the British pound, and distinguish that they are made on behalf of the Government of Gibraltar. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::There's a clearer image on this page: http://www.guardianfx.com/information/europe/gibraltar.html . However, I note that the Gibraltar government makes a clear distinction between the Gibraltar pound and the pound sterling: [http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/finance/gib_const_legal_services.htm]. They're plainly two separate currencies albeit pegged at parity; I guess the closest comparison would be the former [[Irish pound]] and the pound sterling, which were at parity from 1928 to 1979. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Its a contentious area, I assume the images on wikipedia of the notes have been deleted for copyright reasons, and the guardianfx site image is probably illegal - However, that is the current five pound note and all the others bear the words 'Pounds sterling'.
 
:::At one time Barclays Bank used to charge .25% to convert from 'Gibraltar pounds' to Sterling. They were taken to court over it and had to refund the charge as there was no difference.
 
:::Heres a ten, front and back. Note the words 'Pounds Sterling'
 
:::http://www.banknotes.com/GI30.JPG
 
:::Until someone can show evidence of a GIP, rather than references to it on websites, I think the original version should stand.
 
:::--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::Before you tweaked your entry above, it read "Looking in my wallet may count as original research but there is not a GIP in sight." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=prev&oldid=123320119] In your own words, it's original research. Sorry, but that is not good enough for Wikipedia. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::But I did 'tweak' the wording, which you should respect. I do have Gibraltar notes in my wallet and know their look and feel which you clearly don't, however theres only two Gibraltarians here who know, and a lot of think they know better. Have you actually looked at the picture ?
 
:::::http://www.banknotes.com/GI30.JPG --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::You still seem convinced that being Gibraltarian accords you some special status and knowledge that entitles you to be the arbiter of everything relating to Gibraltar. The sooner you learn that it doesn't, and that you have to provide references for your conclusions like everyone else, the better. I am fully aware that the note says "Pound Sterling". That is not in dispute. That alone though is not evidence for your various claims; [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] has provided a full explanation below on the subject. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::I see, so because Gibraltar notes say 'pound sterling' thats not evidence. Generally Gibraltarians do know more about Gibraltar than other people, I know nothing about Amersham and would not attempt to pontificate about it. But if they are not 'Pounds Sterling' you have better call the police as there is some large scale counterfeiting going on.
 
:::::::The 'Sterling area' became obsolete when Mrs Thatcher abolished regulation on exporting currency. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:::::OK, here's what a bit more research has turned up. Historically, there's something called the [[sterling area]] (or sterling bloc) which encompasses the UK, the Crown dependencies and some British overseas territories. The territories in question are in a [[monetary union]] in which they all share a single currency, the pound sterling ([[ISO 4217]] code GBP). They were given the authority to make local issues of banknotes and coins, hence the existence of the [[Guernsey pound]], [[Jersey pound]], [[Manx pound]] and the various notes issued by Scottish and Northern Irish banks. They are all issued under the authority of the [[Bank of England]] as the central bank of the sterling area. Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Saint Helena and its associated dependencies issue their own separate currencies (the [[Gibraltar pound]], [[Falkland Islands pound]] and [[Saint Helenian pound]] respectively, with separate ISO 4217 codes - GIP, FKP and SHP). They may call their currencies pounds sterling but they aren't part of the sterling zone, and their issues aren't legal tender in the sterling zone or in each other's territories (see e.g. [http://www.sainthelenabank.com/visitors.htm]). The GIP, FKP and SHP are linked to the GBP by a fixed 1:1 [[fixed exchange rate]] similar, as I said earlier, to the arrangement that used to obtain between the GBP and the Irish pound. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::You should note that [[Legal_Tender#Legal_tender_in_the_United_Kingdom|legal tender]] laws in the UK are quite arcane, and are ''not'' a good measure of whether or not a note or coin is denominated in GBP. Scottish and Northern Irish notes (which are not issued by the BoE) are not technically legal tender anywhere - including in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but no-one doubts that they are denominated in GBP. While they're not legal tender, Gibraltarian coins (though not banknotes) are more likely to be accepted in England than Scottish banknotes. Same currency? In theory probably not, but I don't see that it makes any practical difference. [[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]] 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::Yes, I'm aware of that complication. :-) To make matters even more complicated, Bank of England notes aren't even legal tender outside England and Wales! The Scottish and Northern Irish notes are [[promissory note]]s, not legal tender. But the point is that everything issued within the sterling area - BoE, Scottish, Northern Irish, Manx, Jersey and Guernsey pounds - are all the same currency, GBP. The regional variations are merely local issues under the central authority of the Bank of England. The three pound-denominated currencies issued ''outside'' the sterling area, namely the GIP, FKP and SHP, aren't part of the UK currency union; they're independent currencies under the authority of their separate governments, not the BoE. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::::The fact remains that there are no notes issued saying 'Gibraltar Pounds' nor can you open a bank account in GIP.
 
::::::::''The origin of the word sterling remains doubtful but the derivation thought most likely is that it comes from 'steorra', a star, because some of the early coins bore a star. Another possibility is that it is derived from 'staer', a starling, since some of Edward the Confessor's pennies carried a design of four birds.''
 
::::::::''Today the word sterling is described in Collins Dictionary of Economics as the name given to the UK pound in international dealings to distinguish it from other countries using the pound as the basis of their currencies.''
 
::::::::All Gibraltar notes say '''Pound Sterling''' on them, and Wikipedia should reflect that IF its going to be an accurate reference work. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::::Is that quote all you can come up with to back up your claims? Give us a break. And you still haven't explained how in an earlier debate you used the FCO Gibraltar country profile page to back up your argument saying it is the "definitive source" and telling me to "take it up with the FCO" etc etc, how the FCO mandarins have the final say etc etc, and now when '''''the same page''''' contradicts your argument you are quietly ignoring it. Explain that please? [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::::The fact that your pound notes and my pound notes both say "pound sterling" doesn't mean that they're the same currency. The taxonomy of different currencies is defined by ISO 4217; this clearly states that the Gibraltar pound and pound sterling are two separate entities, with two separate ISO codes and two separate names. "Pound sterling" is reserved as the official name of the UK currency, not the Gibraltarian one. See http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/popstds/currencycodeslist.html for the official list. The government of Gibraltar evidently agrees, as it also makes a clear distinction between the Gibraltar pound and the UK pound. Interestingly, the Falklands and Saint Helana pound notes don't seem to use the term "pound sterling", so Gibraltar seems to be on its own in that regard (I suspect probably for political reasons). -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==The Economy==
 
There is an article on the economy of Gibraltar, Local companies pay quite high rates of tax. The attempt to label Gibraltar a tax haven is a well known tactic to try and impune the reputation of the finance centre. There is already a full discussion of that, with a link to the OECD statement regarding obsolete material often cited in the article [[economy of Gibraltar]].
 
We have already been round this a number of times.
 
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, we've been there a ''number of times''. The point is about [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:V]]. -- ''[[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]]'' - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up ®''</sup></font>]]</small> 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::This is your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&diff=123302206&oldid=123290261 second revert today] re to this point. Please do not use irrelevant edit summaries. There's no important and relevant argument as Wikipedia policies. I've mentioned 2 of them and i am sure if you persist in removing sourced material, i'd mention many more before filing a RfC. -- ''[[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]]'' - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up ®''</sup></font>]]</small> 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::You already tried a RfC on this topic which got nowhere.
 
::The point is that this is obsolete information, and the main article simply gives a synopsis of the economy. Nobody cares what the OECD said in 2000 including the OECD, who have issued a press release to that effect:
 
::''That list should be seen in its historical context and as an evaluation by OECD member countries at a particular point in time of which countries met the criteria set out in the 1998 Report, Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue. More than five years have passed since the publication of the OECD list contained in the 2000 Report and positive changes have occurred in individual countries’ transparency and exchange of information laws and practices since that time. The list has not been updated to reflect such changes.[5]''
 
::There is no source given for the claim that ''Gibraltar's has a favourable corporate tax regime which benefit over 20,000 locally registered companies.''
 
::Which is nonsense, and the various historical things are covered in detail in the article on the economy of Gibraltar.
 
::Your reference cited to show Gibraltar is a 'tax haven' actually shows '''Gibraltar -- Assessment of the Regulation and Supervision of Financial Services - October 31, 2001 (558 k pdf file)''' and is irrelevent.
 
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Nothing is obsolete. You got to understand that information such as "Germany was governed by Nazis", "The US dropped a nuclear bombs on Japan" has nothing to do w/ being obsolete. This is the main article for Gibraltar and encyclopaedic information such as this must be documented. As for ''You already tried a RfC on this topic which got nowhere'', i must assure you that this time it got to get somewhere. -- ''[[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]]'' - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up ®''</sup></font>]]</small> 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
I think you need to read the article on [[Godwin's law]]
 
* Your reference does not say what you claim
 
* Please read what the OECD say about their old press releases
 
* there is no evidence to support the claim about 20,000 companies
 
* The inclusion of this nonsense adds nothing to the article.
 
 
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Actually, according to this source, Gibnews, the number of companies registered in Gibraltar hovers around 60,000.http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/media_articles/times3.htm
That is two companies per inhabitant right?
 
Gibnews your denial of blatant reality after so much time is getting really irritating for everyone. It has become clear that you have no regards for the principles of wikipedia or of what the project stands for. If you want some more sources, here they are. Just take the time to read them...
 
*http://www.gibraltaroffshore.com/gibraltarqualifyingcompany.htm
*http://www.lawandtax-news.com/html/gibraltar/jgilatoltr.html
*http://www.sovereignsociety.com/offshore1653.html
*http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?Page=10&PUBID=35&ISS=12619&SID=469278&TYPE=20
*http://www.corpestonia.ee/index.php?id=753
*http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=7323&searchresults=1
*http://www.bakertillygibraltar.gi/files/Tax%20facts%202006-07.pdf
 
There are dozens more. I dont know why I waste my time googling them for you...
--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Neither do I because its quite immaterial how many companies are ''registered'' in Gibraltar. Why? because companies are like cars, they are created, registered and a large number of them are no longer around.
 
Nonsense to say that there are 20,000 companies benefiting from a 'favourable tax regime' this is not particularly generous:
 
Corporation Tax
 
Resident Companies Full Rate 35% Small companies Rate 20% Marginal relief 7.5% Small companies’ rate applies if taxable profits do not exceed £35,000 and the company derives at least 80% of its turnover from trading. Between £35,000 and £105,000 the full rate applies less marginal relief on the difference between £105,000 and taxable profits.
 
 
--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I refuse to accept that you are so ignorant of the tax system of your own territory. Read the sources well. Surely you know that Gibraltar's tax-haven status concerns its '''non-resident''' companies which do not pay corporation tax at all.
 
I can only ask you to read the sources I provided you '''AGAIN''' (and properly this time). I cannot believe you are from Gibraltar!!!!
--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar"