Talk:Kingdom of Gibraltar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Notability

I have re-tagged this article as being non-notable, its only reference is a nonexistent link and there are less than 10 non-wiki Google hits for the kingdom in question. If adequate references are provided, feel free to remove the tags, but for now its notability is dubious. Chris Buttigieg 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was created to prevent the constant vandalism on Juan Carlos I's article in its Titles section by one or more unregistered users (mainly from Gibraltar) which keep erasing the "King of Gibraltar" title from Juan Carlos I full titulary. Now "King of Gibraltar" in that article is linked to this article. --Maurice27 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment, all I was saying is that this article needed to be adequately referenced. Chris Buttigieg 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But you keep erasing another source (a pdf) that I am trying to link as a reference instead than trying to help me to get the link to work. And for each and every change I am doing, you are changing all the tags of the article. I ask you to wait at least one hour to see the results. Thank you. --Maurice27 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The pdf link isn't working because it contains a pair of square brackets with the URL. I will leave you to continue with the article and I'll have a look to see how it's coming along later. Chris Buttigieg 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The title needs to be seen in its correct historical significance, that 'Spain' was a collection of discrete kingdoms rather than a state, and that Gibraltar ceased to be under the control of the Spanish crown in 1704. --Gibnews 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inappropriate material

This article is about the King of Spain, hits titles. The territory was ceeded to the Crown of Great Britain, not Great Britain. hisce cedit Coronae Magnae Britanniae plenam. You can read the actual treaty online and you do not need to change the wording to push a POV. The fact that it was ceded in perpetuity is important.

There is no reason to introduce San Roque here, its has nothing to do with the titles assumed by the Spanish King, and it is highly POV.

You have removed my reference to Sir William Jacksons book, he is pretty neutral on the subject and actually quoted in the article about San Roque.

But this article is about the 'kingdom of Gibraltar' not a village in Spain which never formed part of that. Many other villages also use a similar emblem, its all over the place and quite inappropriate

Finally the crest used by the Government of Gibraltar is quite different to the one you describe. -- Gibnews 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no POV-pushing here - at least not on my part. I don't think it's necessary to go into excessive detail about the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht - it's already discussed adequately in other articles. The technicalities of the cessation are irrelevant to the purposes of this article. All that's really important here is that Gibraltar was ceded to Britain. The mention of San Roque is important in that it shows how Spain has preserved the ceremonial aspects of the old kingdom (since the council of San Roque is the descendent body of the old Spanish Gibraltar city council). As for the crests being different, even a cursory look at Image:San Roque coa.png and Image:Coa Gibraltar.svg shows that they are very substantially similar. -- ChrisO 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to include that San Roque claim, It was never part of the Kingdom of Gibraltar which is what the article is all about, not anti-Gibraltar propaganda promoted by Franco and his close friend Hills.
As regards the ToU why do you insist on emasulating the wording? It simply does not say what you claim, thats a matter of fact.
The crest of the government of Gibraltar is this and is very different. Again that is a matter of fact, and facts are important not your POV.--Gibnews 08:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

I have removed the section on the coat of arms of Gibraltar as it is wholly immaterial. The article is about a substantive title of which Gibraltar was part of. The section in question essentially reiterates the history of the arms when it already has its respective article, namely the coat of arms of Gibraltar. -- Chris.B 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The current coat of arms of gibraltar is not exactly the same as the one from san roque, which is supposed to be the "original" one. All nobility titles have a coat of arms related, so, an heraldic explanation is needed. And make no mistake. this article is not about Gibraltar nor the british Gibraltar coat of arms (which, if I'm not wrong, is supposed to show a ship). It is about the spanish title pertaining to the spanish crown and its coat of arms. --Maurice27 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hence it should be removed. You have said it yourself, this article is about the spanish title pertaining to the spanish crown and its coat of arms, now why should we have a section on the coat of arms of Gibraltar (not San Roque) when it belongs in its respective article? I think you are treating the coat of arms of San Roque interchangeably with that of Gibraltar's when they are both different. Yes, similar in some respects, I don't doubt it, but nevertheless different coats of arms. And the coat of arms of Gibraltar is not supposed to show a ship and has not done so since 1502. -- Chris.B 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, This article has NOTHING to do with british Gibraltar. It is about a spanish monarchy title, its coat of arms and the the city in which it is based. "The original royal warrant of 1502, which the city council took with it to San Roque along with Gibraltar's standard and records, is now in the San Roque municipal archives" So, again, quit talking about San Roque not being related. It is Gibraltar which is not related here. You give any reason to erase the heraldic explanation of the coat of arms. --Maurice27 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is about GIBRALTAR not San Roque and there is only one Gibraltar, the original grant of alms was to Gibraltar and its not where 'Gibraltar lives on' its where stolen goods reside. --Gibnews 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now it is about Gibraltar? I thought I already explained it in MAY!. I'm not going to explain it again and again. The british monarchy does not use this title, it doesn't. The spanish monarchy does. If you want to take this matter to a political controversy, it is not our problem. This article is about a title of the spanish monarchy which was first based in Gibraltar and then moved to San Roque. It is the third time I explained and proved it. I hope that it is enough. If any other user keeps reverting or erasing parts of the article for this same reason just for the sake of improving his ego, he will be reported for trolling and vandalism. --Maurice27 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I read your 'explanations' but you were wrong then and remain so. Please do not threaten other editors. Gibraltar is not in Spain. San Roque is, but it is not Gibraltar. I hope that make it clear. --Gibnews 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You haven't explained anything Maurice. I think we all agree that this article is about a title of the Spanish monarchy, but there is still no distinction between San Roque (or its coat of arms) and Gibraltar (or its coat of arms). The latter of which already has its own associated article. And please remain civil. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And because both cities share the same coat of arms, you do feel in the right to erase all that section here? By which means? So you feel like reducing an article from a start to a stub just because you decided so. This article is about a title, the articles about titles all do have a section to explain the coat of arms related. If you want me to copy you here 50 examples, you just have to ask. So again, quit erasing information from an article without a valid explanation or you will be reported for trolling and vandalism. --Maurice27 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Both cities do not share the same coat of arms. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"there is still no distinction between San Roque (or its coat of arms) and Gibraltar (or its coat of arms). The latter of which already has its own associated article." Chris B 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... "Both cities do not share the same coat of arms" Chris B 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... Is this a kind of game you are playing? The old castilian coat of arms does not have the british motto. This makes a completely different one. So, your argument of the british one already having an associated article is not valid to erase the info in this one. --Maurice27 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my expansion of Coat of arms of Gibraltar which covers this issue. -- ChrisO 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, your expansion is a great job, but I don't understand the need to erase the pictures from this one. Just take a look at all the articles about titles. They all have a coat of arms to illustrate it, which includes and heraldic explanation of it. Plus the picture of the original coat granted to the city and to the duke of medina-sidonia is clearly very useful in this article. The title of "Kingdom" and the arms ar united since the begining. I would love to read your POV before adding them again --Maurice27 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to bed in a minute so I'll have to pick this up again tomorrow. :-) Just a thought before I go - the title and coat of arms were not united from the beginning. Don't forget that the Spanish title dated from 1462, while the coat dated from 1502. There was a period of 40 years when Gibraltar was run by Medina Sidonia without a royal coat of arms being attached to it. There was some political reason for this, but I can't remember off the top of my head what it was (I think it was something to do with the monarchy not wanting to upset Medina Sidonia at the time). I'll see what I can find out tomorrow. -- ChrisO 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait until tomorrow then. Good Night. --Maurice27 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to just butt into this discussion, but Chris is right. I do believe the castle depicted on San Roque's CoA is different to that depicted on Gibraltar's. In the past one could get hold of cheap 'Gibraltar Flags' with the castle that San Roque uses. They were cheap because they were not Gibraltar's official flag, as it depicted the wrong castle. Gibmetal 77talk 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Spanish King wants to include in his formal titles Gibraltar, along with some equally silly ones which mean nothing today, then thats a matter of fact and its reasonable to record that in Wikipedia. However if the article is about Gibraltar, past or present, then the only connection with San Roque is in relation to artefacts given to Gibraltar and taken away by Spaniards feely chose to leave in 1704. The current Gibraltar flag is based on
Granted in 1502 the warrant read :
"we grant you as Arms an escutcheon on which two thirds of its upper parts shall have a white field, in the said field set a red castle underneath the said castle , on the under third of the escutcheon which must be a red field on which there must be a white line between the castle and the said red field; on this a golden key which shall be on that with a chain from the said castle."
By convention the key faces left, the Spanish variants point the other way. There has been some confusion about Gibraltar flags, probably due to the artistic interpretation of their far eastern manufacturers, however we have largely sorted this out on wikipedia, the CIA factbook etc that the version as shown on the Gibraltar page is the correct one although you can buy cheap flags with angled castles.

--Gibnews 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV nonsense

If we have to have mention of San Roque, lets be clear on what its role is. Its where artifacts from the Spanish period of Gibraltar were removed to. Its influence over Gibraltar is NONE WHATSOVER.

In relation to the ToU its an old and false argument that it does not transfer sovereignty of Gibraltar to the British Crown, but the Spanish MAE accept that it does, so lets not go down that road.

Mr Hills wrote a book about Gibraltar and citing it is rather like quoting what Herr Goebbels wrote about Hitler. Historially interesting but very much POV, the man was half Spanish and a close friend of Franco. --Gibnews (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in accepting every reference and source you may find in order to support you "personal oppinion" on this matter. Meanwhile, restrain yourself from erasing sourced and referenced data from the article.
Claiming to erase it that it is POVish is a nonsense. Of course it is! It was the Spanish Crown oppinion! Only if that sentence was not clearly stated as being one side's opinion, we could fall in the article not being neutral. But is clearly stated: "the Spanish viewpoint..."
I also find of absolute importance that this sentence remains. It is in the base of all the claims Spain has made over Gibraltar in following years and the reason for which the spanish crown keeps using this title.
Gibnews, feel free to add every single sentence you may believe important to the article. We ALL want it to be as neutral as possible. But again, you keep adding political reasoning in an article which is nothing else than about a substantive title of an european crown. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You really, really need to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." This has nothing to do with your personal dislike of Hills or your personal ideology. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is totally ridiculous, and an argument used by ill informed people to perpetuate a dispute between Gibraltar and Spain. In 1713 Spain transferred Gibraltar to the crown of the United Kingdom, the words are:
absolutely with all manner of right for ever
Quoting the Spanish Foreign minister Castiella in 1966:
British Soverignty over a piece of our territitory is based on the status of Gibraltar established bilaterally by Spain and Great Britain in article X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713.

Not that interpetation of the ToU is appropriate to the context of this article which is about a historical curiosity in a title. AND is not the official Spanish position, it was the opinion of a dead friend of Franco, and Mr Hills was not the 'Spanish King'. --Gibnews (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to have a look again at the sources. The Spanish position is quite clearly that the treaty "transferred not sovereignty but ownership over the fortifications (establishing a British military base in Spain)." (ref. Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, p. 97. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198280076) Per WP:NPOV, we need to acknowledge both positions equally, without attempting to judge them. To quote WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." We can assert the fact that the UK and Spain dispute each others' positions and provide a summary of those positions, but we can't evaluate the positions based on our personal views or our amateur interpretations of a legal text. That's not our job as editors and Wikipedia's policies specifically prohibit us from making any such evaluations in an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Firstly I agree this is not the place to expand the various interpretations of the Treaty of Utrecht which is why it should be removed.
But if we HAVE to have it, lets have a tracable official source and not the ramblings of an old half Spanish pal of Franco or an alleged cite of an obscure text that is not available to readers online or on my bookshelf, which recently includes the book by the Spanish Foreign Minister in 1966 who states their position on sovereignty, but you have censored.
As for interpretations, the text itself is clear:
absolutely with all manner of right for ever
To exclude sovereignty it would have had to have been specifically mentioned. The meaning of the term 'sovereignty' is involved and what we accept by that term today is not something that existed in 1704. However the consistent Gibraltarian view, which is not shown, is simple, that there shall be no concessions. There are plenty of citations available to that. --Gibnews (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Mr Hills also considered that General Franco was good for Spain, others may disagree - the current official position which has been described:

Spain does not dispute that Gibraltar is properly, in law, British territory. Therefore, this is not disputed land. She has a political claim to the return of Gibraltar sovereignty, but she does not dispute the fact that in proper international law, she ceded sovereignty to Britain in perpetuity and therefore it is undisputed British sovereign territory.

--Gibnews (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that ChrisO has removed the above on the grounds totally misleading line; cited source is the CM of Gibraltar, not the Spanish govt. You need to find a Spanish govt source for this However the statement attributed to Mr Hills who was a friend of Franco but not part of the MAE remains. In relation to the CURRENT Spanish view, Mr Caruana who meets with the Spanish minister regularly is better informed than Mr Hills who is dead. --Gibnews (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)