Talk:San Roque, Spain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ethnic cleansing is a serious charge, and also untrue. The anglo-dutch force that entered Gibraltar did so in order to stake the claim of Archduke Charles of Austria, legitimate claimant to the spanish throne. No-one was forced to leave. Indeed if everyone was expelled why would the spanish King insist on Utrecht containing a clause for the "inhabitants" to be allowed to practise their catholic religion? If there were none left, why would he care?

The late Spanish king Charles II left Spain to Philip V in his will. It was not Britain's place to interfere.

There were in fact few permanent residents in Gibraltar in 1704 most being of a transitory nature. Those that left did so of their own accord.

Also "industrial fabric" is meaningless in English. Also San Roque is not considered by anyone to be an "important touristic centre", and I can assure you most travel agents have never heard of the place. The San Roque tourist industry is negligable or non-existant.

WP articles should not only be true, but also neutral.

Dear Gibraltarian,

First, I would appreciate you sign up before you delete somebody else's contributions.

Second, there was a force expulsion and this is historically recorded.

Third, the clause in the Treaties of Utrecht was about stopping Jews and Muslims from settling in the colony (we have to remember the historical fears and mistrust regarding this issue):

And Her Britannic Majesty, at the request of the Catholic King, does consent and agree, that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar; and that no refuge or shelter shall be allowed to any Moorish ships of war in the harbour of the said town, whereby the communication between Spain and Ceuta may be obstructed, or the coasts of Spain be infested by the excursions of the Moors.

Fourth, I will rephrase the last sentence. Thanks for the advise.

Regards, Asterion 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

If as you claim no-one was allowed to stay, why would Felipe V care what religion was practised? There was no "ethnic cleansing" as you claim, and not one single person was forced to leave. Some chose to do so, many others stayed behind.

A Gibraltarian

---

Wikipedia is not a place for revisionism. You should get over your own history and accept it as it happened. Your behaviour is not different from those who say the Holocaust never took place.

---

I quite agree, and it is you who should get over the massive chip on your shoulder and get over the fact that Gibraltar is British, and no amount of inventing history, and portraying the British troops as 18th Century Gestapo will alter that. What you have posted on this page is a lie. A fabrication. No-one was expelled from Gibraltar, FACT.

The Terms of surrender clearly state "To the inhabitants, soldiers, and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar, shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Charles II; the religion and all tribunals shall remain intact and without alteration".

Thos that left chose to do so. Many others remained. You cannot re-write history just because of sour grapes over your inability to accept the loss of Gibraltar.

A Gibraltarian

---

To be fair, Gibraltarian, what treaties say and what actually happens are not always the same thing.

As a side note, could you please start signing your posts by typing ~~~~? Indenting replies to talk entries with a colon (:) before them would also be handy for readability's sake. :-) — ceejayoz ^★ 01:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia users are advised to refer to Gibraltar discussion page regarding the NPOV dispute. I am not prepared to engage in an edit war with this individual. Regards, Asterion 19:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Exodus of Gibraltar"

Saw this page on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and figured I'd chime in.

Asterion, you discuss the "Exodus of Gibraltar", however, Google has only one hit for the term, and that is a Wikipedia page. It would seem that this is not a common term.

Now, I'm an Australian living in the United States, so I have little personal involvement in this issue. I suggest you both work a compromise out. I do believe the onus of proof lies on Asterion, as he is claiming ethnic cleansing, a very serious allegation. Please provide some links to back the contention up.

Good luck, and I hope you both continue to try to improve Wikipedia. — ceejayoz ^★ 22:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You should look for "Exodo de Gibraltar" (over 9000 entries!): [1]

You have appeared from nowhere and simply decided to remove every single reference to this fact in several articles. You should already know that it is common practice to reach consensus before commiting such actions. If you had taken the time to read my previous comment, you would be aware by now that there is already an ongoing process at the Gibraltar discussion page over the exact wording for the description of this event. I would appreciate you revert your edits and refer to the main discussion before taking any further unilateral action. REgards, Asterion 01:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The actual phrase, in quotes, garners only 21.[2] Your search included every single page that had the word "exodo" and "gibraltar" somewhere in it.

A mere 21 results seems like very little support for the term. — ceejayoz ^★ 01:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There are things called "Books" where you might find some more information. Internet is not everything. There is a whole world out there

Generally a historical topic as major as the Exodus you are describing makes its way onto the internet. However, you haven't even quoted books as sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have opened a Request for comment. Hopefully we can get this resolved by bringing in some impartial observers. Will you abide by consensus? I shall. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Making of a myth

It amazes me to read these claims of 'an exodus'. The history of Gibraltar is one of successive invasions. When it was occupied by the Spanish they murdered the previous inhabitants without a second thought. The British were more polite and offered generous terms.

However, Gibraltar was not a popular place to be in 1704, disease was rife and there was a shortage of water and problems of supply of everything. Indeed many of the people in Gibraltar were sent here from other places as a punishment. Moving to San Roque would have been great luxury, even before the golf courses, superstores and marinas were built.

The myth has been pumped up simply to support a three hundred year old sovereignty claim and to try and promogate the view that some foreign nationals have a 'right' to someone elses homeland and that the 'true Gibraltarians' are Spanish and not the people of Gibraltar who have been established in the territory for longer than the United States has existed as a country.

In practice, Gibraltar today is the result of the investment, struggles and suffering of its people, not the decendents of those who relocated to richer pastures in 1704. The Gibraltarians have built and paid for the modern infrastructure which provides an income for themselves and the promise of one for successive generations. It also provides for the residents of La Linea and the surrounding area, effectivly the suburbs of the Rock.

In return, the Government of Spain attempts to supress the truth, and prevent any international recognition of Gibraltar - dissadvantaging its handicapped by exclusion from EU directives and refusing to acknowledge the ITU allocated telephone and GSM codes.

Thankfully this malice cannot be translated into modern ethnic cleansing although it seems the intention exists, along with the sort of 'virtual ethnic cleansing' that is attempted on the Internet.

So San Roque has artifacts stolen from Gibraltar ?

We would like our stolen property returned.--Gibnews 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, this last statement is a quite gross provocation. And you know it. --Ecemaml 17:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is a gross provocation, and lacks a NPOV - however read [[3]]--Gibnews 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spaniards are not Gibraltarian

The correct title of the council was the Gibraltar City City Council not Gibraltarian Council. Gibraltarian today has a precise legal meaning. However, at the time the inhabitants were Spanish. The article deliberatly introduces a non NPOV and over emotional unsubstantiated claims to try and promote the myth that these people were in some way dissadvantaged.--Gibnews 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they became under the rule of a foreign army. It made them in many ways disadvantaged. They became a border town, under the danger of the war and a siege. It made them actually disadvantaged. What seems a gross POV and, btw, unsourced, is your statement: "Nor was Gibraltar a comfortable place to be, with a shortage of water and endemic disease." You mean that they left the town because in that very moment, they noticed that the city was unconfortable. It's not only POV, but a pure nonsense. --Ecemaml 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you research it you will find that my statement is true. The Spanish had difficulty in keeping the population of Gibraltar due to disease and the habit of the pirates of raiding and abducting, in order to maintain it people were sent to Gibraltar as a punishment.

Even today they buy houses in San Roque to escape :)

However, much of the wording was taken from Sir William Jacksons book, and represents his opinion, however he referred to the Gibraltar council not the Gibraltarian council. There is a very good book on disease in Gibraltar by Dr Sam Benady.--Gibnews 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

If we are going to quote bits from Jackson's book, lets at least get it right, he does not say that churches were desecratated, just that they were used for stores. (page 99) Other faiths buildings were not respected at the time anywhere. What you might term an 'atrocity' today was common practice in the 18th century, indeed when the Spanish occupied Gibraltar they killed everyone in the city. In retrospect it would have been better if the British had done that - but instead they allowed the Spanish to leave peacefully under generous terms.

By far worse things happened to people in those days, and really the article only exists as a whining propaganda exercise along the lines 'we was robbed' - three hundred year should be enough to get over it.--Gibnews 12:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Original inhabitants

Its false to claim that the people who left Gibraltar at the close of the Spanish occupation were 'orignal' - in contrast to the British occupqation the Spanish invaders killed everyone they found in residence. That was the way things were done then. The nonsense about 'gibraltarians' in san roque is simply propaganda to justify the Spanish claim and is offensive when we should all be thinking of being Europeans and not this outdated national BS. -- Gibnews

The San Roque exodus events are verifiable (I will add some references in a sec). This is not about whether you or me think but about writing an encyclopaedia with verifiable sources. This is no place for whitewashing history. As for my opinion on being European, I will give it to you but it will stay here, in the talk page, as I do not let my personal views to obscure my contributions: As Blas Infante once said "Nosotros no podemos, no queremos, no llegaremos jamás a ser sólo europeos. Jamás hemos dejado de ser lo que somos de verdad: esto es, andaluces; euroafricanos, ‘euroorientales’, hombres universalistas, síntesis armónicas de hombres" (no need to translate it, I guess). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Asterion ofcourse Andalusians are European. I dont know if you go much to Andalusia but your "we are not European" discourse would not be warmly recieved there, as it would not be in any other part of Spain or southern Europe in general. And Andalusians should consider themselves more European than any considering the millions the EU has spent in developing backward regions of Spain.--Burgas00 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Creo que confundiste mis palabras. Simplemente dije que somos más que solamente europeos. Somos un puente de civilizaciones. Saludos, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, the history of Gibraltar is one of sucessive invasions. The Original Inhabitants were the Neanderthals, they were not Spanish. The people who left in 1704 had been in Gibraltar for 200 years, considerably less than todays Gibraltarians, who will also be there tomorrow.

Researching the topic, I see another reason they left quickly was the murder of some British troops, despite agreeing to surrender peacefully. Yet another example of Spanish failure to honour agreements. --Gibnews

I propose changing it to autochtonous population then for the sake of accuracy. My point is that the local population was Andalusian and had been such whether the regime was a Taifa or part of Castile later on. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my opinion of this dispute:

Gibnews, original inhabitants is just fine. They were the people who lived there before they were kicked out/left etc... It is silly to create a mythical "separate" history of Gibraltar, claiming, for example that Spaniards had lived there "for 200 years". Prior to 1704 its Spanish inhabitants had been there throughout the history of pre-islamic, Islamic and Christian Spain. The history of Gibraltar, prior to 1704, is roughly identical to that of any town in the Southern third of Spain.--Burgas00 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And heres my opinion

The claim that the Spanish people in San Roque today are the 'true Gibraltarians' is insulting and inaccurate. Those who left in 1704 were Spanish and not Gibraltarian. Spain has yet to accept the legitimacy of the Gibraltarians who have been there by far longer and contributed more to the territory than any previous inhabitants.

And they were not 'kicked out' they left --Gibnews

You keep putting words on other people's mouths. The text read "Original inhabitants of Gibraltar" (as they were indeed), which is verifiable and neutral sentence. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying present inhabitants are Gibraltarian. Of course they are. And the people of Algeciras, San Roque are not Gibraltarian they are the descendents of Gibraltarians. You see insults where there are none. The problem is when you edit these imagined insults you create confusion. Today's Yanitos are the only true Gibraltarians because Modern Gibraltarian identity is the product of British occupation. However, you cannot say that Yanitos have lived there longer than any other previous inhabitants. 200 years is not a longer period than always:-) --Burgas00 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that when the Spanish invaded Gibraltar they killed everyone they found there, so the occupation started with a new population. That occupation lasted only 200 years. The claim of being 'original' is fraudulent and made to promote a claim to Gibraltar where none exists. --Gibnews

What nonsense Gibnews! Really, you surprise me.... Muslims did not kill the inhabitants of Gibraltar in 711 just as the Castilians didnt do so in the 15th century. Such an event has never ocurred during the reconquest. You have a very surreal perception of Spanish history...

Its called truth, you may find the concept uncomfortable.

The claim that the Spanish occupants of Gibraltar were 'original' is what we term, in English, a lie and does not belong here. --Gibnews

That is just you POV. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

its not a POV it happens to be the truth and calling the Spanish occupiers 'original inhabitants' is nonsense. Lets be honest San Roque is an insignificant small Spanish town and the only purpose of having an entry in wikipedia is to attempt to discredit Gibraltar and the British. Its claim to fame is otherwise non-existant. --Gibnews

How can someone be an occupier in his own country? I will not tolerate any other personal attacks, thank you very much. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the correct use of the English language. All territories are occupied by people, it is not a derogatory term, we are all immigrants and occupiers. Because it is a small territory the successive occupiers of Gibraltar are more clearly defined than in other places, like England which was last formally occupied in 1066. It is not a 'personal attack' it is simply a description of reality. People do not spring up from the soil, they come from somewhere else. --Gibnews

That is not the sense you used it as. I repeat my question, how can someone be an occupier in his own country? There were not cultural or ethnic differences between the population of Gibraltar and that of any other SW Andalusian town. You should indeed familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies as many of your edits and edit summaries are clearly offensive. I find really peculiar too that you discredit Jackson's book when it goes against your point of view and try to use it as a escape route to justify your biased removals then. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews the truth? It is a lie which has been fabricated by yourself...(and by no one else it seems.) The Castilian crown did not exterminate the original inhabitants of any town of southern Spain, including Gibraltar. It was simply occupied. Not even those Muslim Gibraltarians who decided to remain Muslim were "exterminated" (most simply quietly converted to christianity to avoid problems). Besides the Muslim community, who were to be called Mudejares once under Christian rule, there was a large ammount of Christians-Mozarabes- living in Muslim Spain in general and in Gibraltar proper. You seem to be very ignorant of the history of your town and on the ethnocultural region to which it has always belonged...--Burgas00 08:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

BULLSHIT in his book Sir William Jackson reports that when Gibraltar was invaded by the Spanish the inhabitants were all killed. You are trying to whitewash the ethnic cleansing that was the norm at the time. --Gibnews

Gibraltar wasnt invaded by the "Spanish", it was conquered by the crown of castille. It was always in Spanish hands, be they muslim or christian and was already populated by (christian or muslim) Spaniards. Or did you think that Spain's population miraculously disapeared in 711 and they were all magically transformed into Arabs. The reconquest was a process of civil war in Spain not foreigners conquering new territory. Both sides of the conflict were Spanish and the wars were held within Spain. There is even evidence that points to the likelyness of Tariq bin Ziyad who sailed over from Ceuta in 711 AD being a Hispano-visigothic noble convert to Islam.

And who the hell is Sir William Jackson? Was he there at the time? What are his sources? Spain has never tried to white wash its ethnic cleansing during the reconquest. On the contrary, a past ideology negating the muslim period of its history has traditionally exagerated the extent of this practice. General consensus among contemporary historians is that, logically, Southern Spain's native inhabitants have never been exterminated by any of the sides of the conflict... It would have been 1) impossible to do so 2) illogical and 3)it would have plunged the entire crown into economic depression.

And even if you were right (you are not) the population which would have theoretically been exterminated by the Crown of Castile would also have been Spanish.

You should limit your edits to the history of the UK. It seems it is the only thing you know anything about...

And considering that the population of San Roque is similar to that of Gibraltar, it is quite funny that you deem it a "small insignificant town" which does not merit an entry in wikipedia.--Burgas00 08:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a small insignificant town. On the other hand Gibraltar is a seperate territory with its own laws, Government, airport, internet tld etc there are thousands of places like San Roque in Spain. What else is remarkable about it - how many books are written about it? how many internationally acclaimed people come from it? there is simply no comparison. --Gibnews

Thats not very nice for the people of San Roque... I personally know quite a few people from this town. San Roque has a place in wikipedia just as any other town does. Perhaps you would like to delete the whole article? I see your hispanophobia is slowly being brought to the surface.

By the way, Gibraltar was just another town in the southern coast of Spain until the British conquest. Why write its history before that moment? Since before the British it was so "unremarkable" is there any point, according to your own logic, to grant it a history of its own? --Burgas00 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To accuse me of being a 'Hispanophobe' sounds like a personal attack and is quite unjustified. San Roque is a nice place, but there is nothing of general interest about the place to merit its inclusion in Wikipedia, unless it includes an article about every unremarkable town in Europe.

On the other hand Gibraltar is a territory with enormous history and significance which is still argued over and seems to drive Spaniards nuts, you guys need to get a sense of perspective and your own national importance.

And stop making unfounded claims.--Gibnews

Gibnews, as an uninterested party - i.e. I've never been to Spain nor Gibraltar, and am not a nationalist of either one - you are coming off as biased and unfair here. Wikipedia should have articles on towns. A population center of 25,000 is certainly notable - we have List of towns in England, for example. I respect the fact that you're proud of Gibraltar, but I suggest you take a step back and realize that the world will not collapse if there's a minor wording change in a Gibraltar-related article. Cheers. — ceejayoz ^talk 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I reject the claim of bias. The only word I want removed is 'original' describing the Spanards who lived in Gibraltar in 1704 and left, because its only there for propaganda purposes to attack the legitamacy of the Gibraltarians and is a false claim for the reasons given.

Apart from its use for propaganda purposes there is little else of note about the place except it has some good golf courses, I included a link about that as the Spanish are more interested in what happened in 1704 than today.--Gibnews

I'm not talking about the wording. I'm talking about the edit warring over it. Open a RFC and get a consensus. I'll support it, in fact - I believe your point re: there being plenty of earlier inhabitants is an accurate one. I merely object to the way you and others here are fighting over it instead of resolving the dispute in a permanent manner via Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines.

My bit about bias is that you're saying the town shouldn't even be included in Wikipedia, which I do not agree with. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don't know how to do that, if you do, please do so and I'll participate and learn how for next time.--Gibnews

Former is a correct description original is not so perhaps we have reached a consensus. However I think there should be more information about the place today, otherwise I will be nominating it for deletion in the future as a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article. --Gibnews

A branch of what? We've articles on individual, unremarkable high schools that've survived AfD. An AfD on this article by you would be in bad faith. — ceejayoz ^talk 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Gibnews is showing his attitude towards owning articles. I bet he has on watch every single article containing the word Gibraltar. This is just ridiculous. Please do yourself a favour and start contributing on other areas of the wiki project. Maybe this way you would learn to value the rest of Wikipedia community. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read This

I simply commented that an article about a small town in Spain which mainly focuses on events alleged to have occured three hundred years ago and which are raked up to try and manufacture a claim to Gibraltar today are inappropriate and this twaddle is already described in other places ad-nausiam.

My particular area of expertise is GIBRALTAR so thats what I concentrate on if you know about San Roque TODAY write about it and expand the article so that its of interest to a casual reader and not just a winge about 'we was robbed by the nasty brits long ago' Please see the wood for the trees, and do not mistake me for user Gibraltarian. Spain is a wonderful country, I go there often, however I do not understand it in depth to write about it. Why not concentrate on that instead of trying to discredit me, and waste time on nonsense. Gibraltar repeatedly asks for good neigbourly relations with Spain, the politicians are slow to show this, it would be nice if the online community led the way. --Gibnews

I am sorry if I misunderstood your intentions but this the obvious thing to do, given your borderline-offensive edit summaries (and there are many of these). I had not personally attacked you (and I am not confusing you with Gibraltarian either, whom I haven't attack either): Checking someone else's average edits per page and number of pages edited is commonplace [4]. On the other hand, you are no one to decide whether a particular town article should have a section on its history or not, obviously. This is even more evident on cases like this, when the town was created as a result of the takeover of Gibraltar. Regarding your other point, on whether we should concentrate on Today, this is a fair comment to make. You must have noticed that I considerably enhanced the article in that sense and I also included an infobox. I cannot understand why have you got to act as devil's advocate for User:Gibraltarian. He has been permanently banned from wikipedia and has refused to appeal since then. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

No problem. As you are aware there is a great deal of misstrust of Spain in Gibraltar due to the problems which were actually started by Franco and have been a feature of all successive Governments to this day. We hope that the attitude will change - ours will not but we do genuinly want good neigbourly relations.

In relation to the article, San Roque is not just a town, its a substantial municipality which includes Sottogrande and its facilities. I know a number of Gibraltarians who have bought property in the town itself and next time I go will take my camera, it has a lot of charm and this year celebrated its tercentenery with a Royal visit etc. In terms of 'other' interests, I did a lot of research into the Mary Celeste mystery, most of which has been already ripped off my website and added to wikipedia by others. I am presently away doing some more - however the pages on Gibraltar are now a very good and correct reference source, so much so that its ahead of my Gibraltar website in Google ... agggh shot in the foot.

I believe we have reached a consensus on the inhabitants so lets move on, excepting that the description of 'attrocities' taken from Sir William Jacksons book is currently one sided as he also describes the inhabitants murdering a number of British servicemen after the peace was agreed. He also says the churches were used as stores rather than simple desecration - maybe the spanish sources say something different. However I would rather see things about today where we are all good members of the EU and NATO rather than ancient divisive history.

--Gibnews

Glad u guys are moving forward on this. I see you all agree with my choice of "former". We should have thought of it earlier. I have to admit, "original" sounds abit like saying "the real Gibraltarians". :-) --Burgas00 18:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I removed some of the templates in this talk page as I think we are now agreeing and achieving a consensus rather than fighting. --Gibnews

Repeated edits

Give it a rest, or would you like a call from our ISP ?

--Gibnews 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical background

Thats much better, so there was life before 1704 - I see no need to campaign for its removal as propaganda anymore. --Gibnews

Thank you. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There was never a good reason to "campaign for its removal as propaganda", IMO... -- ChrisO 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it only focused on events in 1704 from a single POV it was little else but propaganda of the worst kind, and forms part of the fraudulent and abusive Spanish claim to Gibraltar.

Apart from that its a nice place to visit. --Gibnews

Page move

Someone recently moved this article from San Roque, Cádiz to San Roque, Spain. This is not good practice as there may be other places named San Roque in Spain, while there is certainly not another in Cádiz province. As rule of thumb, it is better to name places using the name of the municipality followed by the next administrative division up, in this case Cádiz. If no one opposes, I will request help from an administrator to move the article back to its original name. Regards, Asterion^talk 10:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)