Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Naming Gibraltar events

OK having got that out of the way and whilst we have the attention of a number of editors on this page, can I ask for some assistance on the naming of Gibraltar events in accordance with Government policy and common usage rather than the opinion of an editor resident in the UK.

The correct terms for describing general elections and referendums held in Gibraltar in the media are 'Gibraltar General Election' and 'Gibraltar Referendum' - Francis Cantos, Gibraltar Government Media Director.

Despite which the naming of political events such as elections and referenda has been changed to term them 'Gibraltarian' rather than 'Gibraltar' and nobody wanted to know when I campaigned to correct this. Indeed the articles were originally named correctly their authors and have been aggressively renamed.

Archiving

I have archived the 200kB discussion regarding the lead, consensus having been reached. Pfainuk talk 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank accounts

I reverted this edit, and am explaining my actions here lest anyone accuse me of doing this in bad faith. The text said "Bank accounts in Gibraltar are normally maintained in Sterling". But the source does not make this claim, all it shows is that NatWest offer an offshore bank account located in Gibraltar and denominated in GBP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find as bank that offers GIP accounts, include a link, otherwise please leave sourced information alone. --Gibnews (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You should know full well by now that the onus is on the person adding information to prove it is verifiable. It's not up to others to disprove your additions. I've added a fact tag to your latest version of the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its very hard to prove something does not exist, which is why people still discuss religion. However, thank you for not deleting referenced content again. If you can find any reference on google for banks offering GIP accounts feel free to add it. --Gibnews (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a post linked to this article on the NPOV noticeboard. Justin talk 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean, Atlantic or Both?

Gibraltar has always been described as the Gateway to the Mediterranean. I always thought myself that each side of the peninsula corresponded to a different sea. My question is... In which sea is Gibraltar located? If I'm correct about both, then the article is missing that reference as the Atlantic is not mentioned at all in this article. Cheers--MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is inside the Strait of Gibraltar. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To the west of Gibraltar lies the Bay of Gibraltar; to its east, the Alboran Sea. Both bodies of water belong to the Mediterranean Sea, therefore both of Gibraltar's coasts are in the Mediterranean sea.

Now, to the south of Gibraltar lies the Strait of Gibraltar, where the Atlantic Ocean mixes with the Mediterranean Sea. This is only where they mix, the Atlantic Ocean lies further west. It is not as if there is a median line somewhere along the Strait defining where an ocean ends and a sea begins.

Gibraltar is located in the Mediterranean Sea, which begins in Punta de Tarifa (sorry for my English).

The phrase the "Gateway to the Mediterranean" refers to its strategic military position, which in days gone by, provided a "natural" fortress from which to control this sea.

I hope this helps. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing links about Gibraltar

I note that Ecemaml has started a campaign of removing existing working links and altering them to point to the Government of Gibraltar website. However the GoG does not offer permalinks and their press release links expire at the end of the year, thus come January 2009 all his efforts will result in broken links in wikipedia, or a large amount of effort in maintenance. --Gibnews (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, Gibnews, stop your behaviour. You've been previously warned so that I feel free to escalate your behaviour as you go on breaking the most elementary wikipedia policies. Some remars:

Stop breaking the WP:SPAM and WP:COI policies. I understand that you wish to promote your web site, and even think that the wikimedia projects are the right place to do that. But they aren't. You've even inserted covered advertisement in your editions (which I had to remove, in here, here or here). Please, stop.
You go on breaking the civility guidelines. Using my username as title of a section just because you don't like me enforcing policies. Therefore, I've changed the title of this section.
Finally, before accusing anyone of anything, provide a proof of your statements (the GoG does not offer permalinks and their press release links expire at the end of the year). I don't really believe it since, as you can see here, the structure of the press releases links is absolutely similar to that in here.

To sum up, behave in a proper way. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't assumed bad faith then you might have found out this wasn't User:GibNews' website. Really, I understand your concern, but you should have brought it up to Gibnews first. As others have. It would have saved you the egg. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ecemaml you don't own Wikipedia and although you might want anyone who disagrees with your POV that Unfortunately Gibraltar is not Spanish to go away, its not going to happen. I do not see the point in removing links that work and will work, to replace them with ones which will fail simply because it irritates YOU that the material is hosted on a website I'm involved with, when that site presents original material, hosted with the consent of the copyright owner. You may be an administrator on the .es wikipedia and get your way there but here you are an ordinary editor and not in a position to order people around or enforce your rather offensive views. --Gibnews (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy tiger(s) - they're only links and we should favour the official sources where possible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In the past you've always stated that isn't your website, right GibNews? Is that no longer the case? Just for clarification. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) <ec>

The two important things is that the content presented is published on behalf of and with the explicit consent of, the organisation in question (for instance the GoG) and represents THEIR view and not MINE.) Secondly that the links are of a permanent nature and will be available when we are all dead. Given the current level of interest perhaps someone should create a wikipedia article about the website.

A useful feature of that site is that its technology and policy allow deep linking, which not all news sites do, including some others that I have designed for clients. But I don't think the argument should be about me, although noting the attempt to personalise it by others. --Gibnews (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, that's very naughty indeed. You've in the past told me this wasn't your website when I levelled the same accusation. Certainly, linking to a website under your control is against the spirit of WP, if not the rules. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I already seem to have acquired a stalker in Ecemaml who seems to be checking all my pictures uploaded and making unfounded claims of spamming etc. This page is about discussing the article about Gibraltar and NOT me. --Gibnews (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In his defence, he raises fair points and is not in any way stalking. You shouldn't be placing notes offering high quality versions of your photos for money (that constitutes an advertisement, as he says) and you should stop placing links to the website that you are involved with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As he seems to be following me around, it looks very much like stalking to me, and if it continues I will make a formal complaint. If there is anything wrong with mentioning that higher resolution images are available commercially, then nobody has pointed it out to me on Wikipedia Commons, which would be the appropriate place, not here.

His 'allegations' are unfounded and simply vexatious.

In relation to websites, I've designed several hundred of them, and a lot are mentioned in Wikipedia. Although Ecemaml has initiated a campaign of replacing all links to gibnews.net as stated the end result will be a less usable wikipedia when the GoG change its site because they do not guarantee permalinks and they have a rather strange structure with mixed pdf and html version and linking errors. And as I keep saying this is not about me, its about information about Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, I've tried to remove your personal attacks. As it seems that you think that a fairy way of conducting here, I must say it isn't. If you have any complain on me, you know where you should go to. Anyway, I strongly ask you to remove your insults. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]I draw your attention to This and suggest you desist from attacking me, and in particular editing my user page is not acceptable behaviour. The use of abusive edit summaries like: Replacing second-hand link with official press note by the Government of Gibraltar is also confrontational when the links you are removing work and the material linked is ORIGINAL. As I have said a number of times, please take a step back from edit warring and attacking people to try and enforce a POV. It does not work and its not nice. I refer to you directly because its appropriate. Indeed I see you do the same! Editing or censoring other editors comments is NOT your role here. Indeed there is a lot of work needed in updating articles in the Spanish wikipedia where as a fluent Spanish speaker you could translate the Gibraltar articles and update some of the erroneous information about the Falkland Islands. --Gibnews (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No mention of UN Resolutions?

This article makes no reference to UN resolutions on the disputed condition of Gibraltar. Neither the Introduction nor the History section refer to UN resolutions on decolonization which provide some background to the claim by Spain. They are mentioned in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar article, but nowhere in the main article.

(The resolutions include: UN Resolution 1514 (1960) or General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" [1]). JCRB (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. The information is in the appropriate article. We don't need more in the main article, which is currently up at 72Kb with 40kb+ of readable prose.. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a series of UN documents which relate directly or indirectly to Gibraltar, how they are read and interpreted depends in what one wants to make out of them. However they are all related to the Sovereignty dispute and have no bearing on life in Gibraltar, so to that extent mention of them does not really belong in the main article any more than the long speeches that Gibraltar politicians make every year at the UN and the nonsense that the UNC4 and UNC24 spew out calling on Britain and Spain to have bi-lateral talks, which HMG is on the record as saying it won't do without the consent of the Gibraltarians who have said they do not support the idea. Its not exactly and area where the UN are achieving much. --Gibnews (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The History section should mention the UN Resolutions on decolonisation because this is relevant background to the territory's disputed status. Furthermore, the article describes the 1967 Referendum and its outcome, but omits UN Resolution 2353 which declared it "a contravention" of prior General Assembly resolutions. There needs to be a balance here. (See NPOV). JCRB (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article on the dispute, this is an article about Gibraltar. There's loads more to Gibraltar than the sovereignty dispute and I see no reason for us to go into laborious detail here when the main article on the subject is Disputed status of Gibraltar. If we went into such detail in every part of this article, we'd end up with a single article including every to do with Gibraltar - which would be so long that you would never find anything in it. That's why we leave the smaller details in more focussed articles.

Remember that UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. These particular resolutions also had no practical effect on Gibraltar and thus are not particularly significant in the history of Gibraltar. The 1967 referendum, on the other hand, led to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order which did have a significant effect on Gibraltar, as did the long closure of the border. Pfainuk talk 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that UN resolutions are not binding is pretty irrelevant. Gibraltar has been subject to several United Nations declarations in the last few decades and this is a major part of its history. Finely enough, the detail which you argue does not belong in the main article, is present on the subject of the 1967 Referendum. If the text covers the content, outcome, number of votes, etc. of the Referendum, then it should also mention the UN resoltion about it. We need more balance, or risk portraying a one-sided point of view. Let's include a generic reference to UN resolutions, and as you said leave the detail for the article on the Disputed Status. JCRB (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN resolutions oly deal with the sovereignty issue. You keep on trying your very best to shoe horn more of that article into the main article, an article which is already above the 30kb suggested article size. Merging other articles in, in whole or in part, is just not needed. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make remarks about other editors' intentions. The sentence on the 1967 Referendum is partial and unbalanced. It suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature. It was a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the UN. I suggest the following:

The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of continuance of British sovereignty, with 12,138 votes to 44. Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior Special Commitee and General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969, which the Government of Spain strongly opposed. JCRB (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is covered in the appropiate articles (Including the article on the referendum itself). The article is about Gibraltar, as such Spain's opposition to the Rock is notable, but we don't have to comment on Spains position or everyone's position on every facet of Gibraltan history/life/whatever. As has been said before, in this reply, in this discussion and in several other discussions with you, things are covered in their appropiate articles. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)So do I - UN resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on. They have no impact on life in Gibraltar nor do they change a thing. They are a curiosity reflecting an organisation which although its NGO's like the IMO and ITU are of enormous benefit, in terms of politics it is a paper tiger. More articles on REAL things in Gibraltar might interest and educate people, stale dialogue about sovereignty claims which are going nowhere will only cause more disagreements and waste words. If you read the report of the Argentine chaired C4 they call on Britain and Spain to engage in bilateral talks, despite Britain stating clearly there will be no talks as a matter of policy. The UN may waste its time, but do we have to follow their example ? --Gibnews (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

JCRB, don't waste your time. Gibnews won't allow the inclusion of such information. As you can see, on the grounds of his personal opinions (UN resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on, More articles on REAL things in Gibraltar might interest and educate people, The UN may waste its time, but do we have to follow their example) and not on any wikipedia policy.

The key point here is not whether Gibnews or anyone else think that such information is favourable to his interests but whether it's relevant. You won't find any assessment on its relevance according to legitimate sources but on Gibnews opinion (usually presented as obvious facts :-) UN resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on is a particularly good example). Good luck, JCRB. --Ecemaml (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) PS: you'll see that even the opinion of the United Kingdom on the independence of Gibraltar has been censored (surprisingly on the grounds on a consensus on the introduction, when such information was added not to the introduction).

Being more precise, here you have some facts that should be included somewhere in the article (of course that its development should be left for other articles) so that a reader can have a full picture of what Gibraltar is:

Gibraltar is one of the territories in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. However, such information is not available in the article.
The position of the Gibraltar Government and the UK government on the fact (as both want Gibraltar to be out the list, it might be the reason to omit such an information... but that's simply POV).
The fact that, nowadays, Gibraltar cannot be an independent State. It may change in the future, but an encyclopedia must show current information and likely prospects. And that's not because I say it, but because a) Gibraltar is under a decolonization procedure in the United Nations that involves Spain (which just wants to recover the Spanish sovereignty) and, most important, because the UK has stated that it's not an option (since it claims that it's constrained by to the Treaty of Utrecht).
The position of the Gibraltarians on his independence.
The United Nations de-colonization process, considering the UN resolutions, the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold.
The explanation on the circumstances under which such resolutions where approved (height of the decolonization wave, bad image of UK as a colonial power...)
The Gibraltar Government position on the decolonization process.

Otherwise, the article is simply POV. But I don't think it's possible, even likely, to change it. Maybe a proper mediation would be a good path. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Being precise, no you don't have to put your facts in THIS article as they are dealt with elsewhere. The article is already over the recommended size limit as it is. None of that sort of detailed information belongs in an overview article. There is enough information in the article that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is in dispute, if the reader wishes to know more they can read the articles with more detail in them. You've had a reasonable response from several editors, with a reasonable argument why this is undesirable. Constantly screaming bias and POV at other editors merely puts peoples backs up and eliminates the possibility of a concensus being achieved. Justin talk 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, your third point is just plain wrong. The United Kingdom is bound by Article 73 the United Nations Charter to offer independence if Gibraltar wants it. Incidentally, the Treaty of Utrecht’s reversionary clause is annulled by Article 103. Attempting to present the UK's position on independence as fact is POV. RedCoat10 • talk 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Ecemaml consistently fails to Assume_good_faith. If anyone reads the record of the UNC24 and UNC4 on decolonisation its successes are conspicuous by their absence in relation to territories on their list. However that is material for another article as its quite irrelevant to Gibraltar, or the other territories under discussion. --Gibnews (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only issue to remember when dealing with the UN Comittee on Decolonisation is that they are a group with a stated aim. The UN is not a neutral arbiter on all things, it just reflects the POV of its members. Not that it should be excluded from articles, merely that people should stop going 'Oh its the UN, therefore it must be neutral and important'. I love the UN. I think it is a great idea. But call a spoon a spoon. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ecemaml, I am aware that some editors oppose certain information. I am not sure why, but I can guess it has certain political implications which are disliked. So far, most of the arguments against the reference to UN Resolutions are quite weak (length of article, importance of UN Resolutions, not about "daily life"). If we want to shorten the article, we could start by taking out the ''A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and territories by Jane’s Country Risk"" sentence, which seems superflous for an introduction. And honestly, anybody that says UN Resolutions are "irrelevant" to the history of a territory, does not understand politics or international affairs. You are absolutely right that there is no mention of Gibraltar's inclusion in the UN List of Non-Self Governing Territories. I wonder why. Something like this belongs in the introduction. Let us be patient and try to find a consensus. JCRB (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the age old 'Anyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant about the truth because I own it' method. Yeah, good luck trying to gain consensus while saying anyone who disagrees is ignorant. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Details of specific UN resolutions are probably too much detail for this overview article. However, the fact that Gibraltar is on that UN list is important enough to mention. If space is required to be made to mention it, we can start by trimming that "in popular culture" section. (How can it be justified that a movie should be mentioned just because it featured a submarine in the vague vicinity of Gibraltar, but there is not enough room to talk about something as important as the UN List of Non-Self Governing Territories?) Incidentally, I don't necessarily agree that this mention needs to go in the intro. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The list I could agree on, though being on a UN list per se is not really notworthy (They list everything. I mean, Gibraltar is on a /ton/ of lists most likely, economical lists, literacy lists, monkey population lists....the UN is big on stats). That the UN declares it to be none self governing is probably interesting enough to mention, though I imagine there is some comment from Gibraltar on the matter we can include. While I have no problem with the popular culture section being trimmed, I should say that adding new info in isn't as much a problem, but merging other articles back into an oversized article is just folly. It does mean we should look at splintering some section off. --Narson ~ Talk • 06:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree that Gibraltar politicians' attempts to get it removed from the list should be mentioned in the same para. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not mentioned that Gibraltar is not part of the International Olympic Committee because of Spanish political objections either. --Gibnews (talk)

I added the info, to the "Politics" section. Hope everyone is OK with the wording and the location. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Might want to change it from United Nations putting it on the list to the United Nations Committee On Decolonisation. The list is their pet poodle, I think. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and made that edit. Pfainuk talk 17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I do wonder how relevant this fact is to Gibraltar politics - though of all the sections we've got, that one's probably better than any other. I have altered the references slightly, and have changed the wording as I read it as saying that Britain and Gibraltar disputed the fact that Gibraltar was on the list, rather than the notion that it should be on the list.

Generally speaking, we should be cautious with waving this list around too much. As (I think) Narson pointed out, the UN is not a neutral party here since they have a stated aim for the non-self governing territories - an aim that has not always accorded with the will of the populations of those territories (and this includes in territories such as Tokelau where sovereignty is undisputed). The fact that this list is potentially controversial is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that the longest prose-section of the article United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is the Criticism section. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok to the reference about inclusion in the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. But still no reference to UN resolutions. The introduction mentions the British government committing to respect the wishes of Gibraltarians, and the Gibraltarians "strongly opposing" the return of the territory to Spain, but no reference to United Nations resolutions requesting its decolonization. The History section dedicates several sentences to the 1967 Referendum and its "positive" outcome (Gibraltarians decided to continue under British sovereignty), but again no reference to the UN resolution which rejected it. There continues to be a lack of neutrality and balance in many parts of this article. JCRB (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No new arguments to include them either. We already have an article on the disputed status of Gibraltar. We don't need another. You may also wish to tell us where in the article or on this talk page you got the word "positive" from since Firefox can't find it. Pfainuk talk 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to UN resolutions of that nature, largely because there are none. There is an sub-article about the United Nations in the Politics of Gibraltar which cites the resolutions applicable and explains their content, which is that Britain and Spain agree to discuss the question bi-laterally, something which is no longer HMG policy to do. The premise is past its 'best-by date, being based on the 1968 Resolution 2353 (XXII). In relation to the rejection of the referendum result refers to the 1967 referendum, when Britain had few supporters in the UN. There was no UN rejection of the Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002 the result of which is current and decisive. Discussions at the UN have become stale and largely pointless, as the committee decline invitations to 'come and see' and whatever arguments are put up, they regurgitate the consensus resolution described in the article cited, based on the 1968 situation which is no longer applicable. Overall discussions at the UN is not going anywhere, and it is HMG's view that Gibraltar has been decolonised under the 2006 Constitution. The current CM, as noted, has decided not to attend further meetings of the C24.

Given that, a detailed argument of what is said there could take a very long time because the resolutions etc can be interpreted differently and there has been no progress made since the sixties, if indeed that could be termed 'progress'.--Gibnews (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I come to the same conclusion, I believe, though I'm not sure my reasoning is quite the same. Essentially, these are a pair of forty-year-old GA resolutions that have never had any effect on Gibraltar, either in theory or in practice. If there was going to be an effect, it would have happened by now. There seems little reason to include them in what is intended to be a short summary of the history of Gibraltar or a in a summary of Gibraltar politics, except perhaps in a description specifically of the history of the dispute (which this is not) or in a description of Gibraltar's relations with the UN (which this is not).

OTOH, the listing as a non-self-governing territory does appear to have had some effect - if small - on Gibraltar politics: otherwise the fact that the Chief Minister decided (or not) to attend meetings of the C24 would be pretty insignificant, as these things go. Pfainuk talk 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If there were no UN resolutions about the 2002 Referendum, that is fine. There were however, a number of resolutions condemning the 1968 Referendum, and this is not mentioned in the article. The text reflects a partial view of the matter, giving the impression that a legal and legitimate vote was conducted. The legality of that referendum was questioned by the UN (and Spain) for the simple reason that sovereignty of Gibraltar lies with the UK, not the inhabitants of the colony. This is the major difference between any modern state, and a Non Self-Governing Territory. The article not only avoids explaining that, but even fails to mention the UN Resolutions. I my opinion, this is pure POV. JCRB (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is (or appears to be) based on the assumption that the United Nations General Assembly or Special Committee can create international law. This is inaccurate.

With a few relatively minor exceptions (related to the operation of the General Assembly itself) UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding - they have no legal force whatsoever. The Security Council can make international law, but I would be very surprised if you could find a Security Council resolution that judges that referendum to be illegal.

So, based on this flawed assumption, your argument interprets the words of GA resolution 2353:

Declares the holding of the referendum of 10 September 1967 by the administering Power to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2231 (XXI) and those of the resolution adopted on 1 September 1967 by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

to say that the UN questioned the legality of the referendum. This is not what the resolution says. It could not, indeed, be what the resolution said, since (by definition) going against a non-binding resolution is not illegal.

Allow me to draw a parallel with German Autobahnen. Roughly ¾ of all Autobahnen have no speed limit. They have a recommended speed limit of 130km/h, but the police will do nothing to stop a driver doing 200km/h because that isn't illegal. Just about all UNGA resolutions - including these - are "recommendations" (UN Charter, Article 11, Paragraph 2) in the same way. And just like it isn't illegal to go against the 130km/h recommended speed limit, it isn't illegal to go against a General Assembly resolution.

The rest of the argument (your statement of the UN's supposed reasoning) is rendered pretty moot by the fact that the basic premise of the argument is inaccurate - and, in any case, that section is entirely unsourced.

Now, the next question is, why should I - and others - suddenly accept the inclusion of these when the argument in favour is based on such a badly flawed premise? The fact remains that these resolutions have made no difference to the status of Gibraltar. They did not make any difference to the validity of the referendum (since they are not legally binding). They have not made the slightest difference - theoretical or practical - to Gibraltar history. They are small details. On disputed status of Gibraltar, yes, they probably belong. But we have more than one article on Gibraltar for a reason. Pfainuk talk 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

UN resolutions are worthy of mention in WP, but not here at the Gib overview article. I agree with Pfainuk - mention them at disputed status of Gibraltar. I also think, though, that the price of doing this is the serious curtailing of that trivia section. Mentioning that a film depicted a submarine near Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia should either be worked into the main text (Is Gibraltar a popular location for films? Yes. Give that as an example. Cite it. put it in there) or dropped. That is, I think, the general method. On their own it is a bit, well, trivial. Not that I don't find trivia sections interesting and quirky, but I'm a history student. We love quirky. But what I find 'fun' and what is encyclopedic are two seperate things. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no flawed assumption in the interpretation that the UN rejected, opposed or condemned the 1967 Referendum. Its strict legality may be another question. The article subtly justifies British sovereignty by emphasizing the result of the vote (providing legitimacy through the wishes of the inhabitants) but then stops short of mentioning that the United Nations rejected it. Not much more to to say here. You can argue that it was an old resolution (so was the referendum, this is the history section) or that it was non-binding (the UN hardly makes binding resolutions) or that Britain had no influence in the UN at the time (which is besides the point). The fact remains that the the world's international organization for cooperation in international law, security, economic development, social progress and human rights made several official declarations rejecting the referendum. The article avoids mentioning this. JCRB (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We have explained JCRB, there is an article that goes into detail where those are mentioned. It is too much detail for a run down. If you can't or won't accept that, I'm sorry, but I don't see the consensus for what you want. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, you can keep repeating that UN resolutions go into the other article. But that won't solve the lack of neutrality in the referendum sentence. There is no neutrality and a blind person could see this. We can go into detail in the other article, but a small reference to the UN resolution is necessary here. JCRB (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to redress what some might see as a lack of neutrality there is absolutly no need to include anything in the main Gibraltar article about This decision at the UN. --Gibnews (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a different matter. It's the History section we're talking about here.

Nice positive pro-British reference to the 1967 Referendum ("continue British sovereignty") but no mention of the UN Resolution that declared it a "contravention" of UN principles and agreements. What is this? JCRB (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite a good parallel, actually. I don't know when that resolution was passed, except that it was in the past - but that would be enough to make it "History", and it does, like resolution 2353, pass comment on the use of referendums in the case of Gibraltar. It too is, of course, a small detail, not worth including in a summary such as this.

I also note in passing that the statement that the UN resolution declared it a "contravention" of UN principles and agreements is not accurate. The UN did not declare the referendum to be a contravention of UN principles (it declared it to be a "contravention" of two previous non-binding resolutions), or of UN agreements (in that the previous resolutions recommended that an action be taken as opposed to agreeing that action would be taken). In any case, your repeating yourself over and over (and that, like before, is what you are doing) is not going to bring consensus, and unless you have new arguments to bring forward I suggest that continuing this discussion is a waste of everybody's time. Pfainuk talk 18:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN resolution which brings no credit to the it as a 'human rights organisation' was specific to the 1967 referendum, nobody was foolish enough to repeat this for the 2002 referendum, and its totally missleading to claim it passes comment on the use of referendums in the case of Gibraltar. Resolution 2353 (XXII) may have been a diplomatic triumph for Spain, but it had no effect or application in Gibraltar. Its reasonable to mention it on the article which deals with Gibraltar at the UN, otherwise its not notable. --Gibnews (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The intention is not to repeat myself, but to clarify a position which is obvious, and which you repeatedly fail to understand.

The Referendum can also be considered a minor detail as the "wishes of Gibraltar inhabitants" are completely irrelevant to the territorial dispute. This is exclusively a matter between the sovereign states of Spain and the United Kingdom. The referendum has little importance for the status of Gibraltar or to its history, except a means of stirring up public opinion internationally, in favour of the British side. If Wikipedia is about neutrality and objectiveness, then either the referendum sentence is taken out because it is clearly a "minor event" in its history, or the relevant information is added about the UN Resolution declaring it a contravention, resulting in a more balanced sentence. JCRB (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that anything written falls on deaf ears but nevertheless, let us remind this Gentleman of some basic facts:

The purpose of the 1967 referendum–arguably the most important event in Gibraltar's political history–was to give the people of Gibraltar an opportunity to determine their future by a formal and deliberate act. In a statement by the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Mrs. Judith Hart guaranteed that the British Government would observe the result of the referendum. Lo and behold, Gibraltar chooses to retain its links with Britain and the choice is duly observed.
Unlike the referendum, the subsequent non-binding resolutions adopted by the UN had no practical effect on Gibraltar whatsoever.

It doesn't take rocket science to fathom which of the two is worth mentioning in an already lengthy article. In any case, may I also remind you that adding personal commentary or personal analysis to articles is not allowed. The idea that the "the wishes of Gibraltar inhabitants are completely irrelevant to the territorial dispute" is your opinion. -RedCoat10 • talk 15:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the Spanish position may have been that The wishes of the Gibraltarians is irrelevent, HMG have give a clear undertaking in successive Gibraltar constitutions that The UK will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Therefore the views expressed in the free and democratic 1967 and 2002 referenda are of paramount importance. Indeed the present, more enlightened, Spanish Government has stated that it would not want a 'Spanish Gibraltar' contrary to the wishes of the Gibraltarians. When the orginal UN resolutions were pushed through Spain was a fascist dictatorship and the resolutions reflect that. --Gibnews (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. First, the Referendum is certainly not the most important event in Gibraltar's political history. By far the most important is the Treaty of Utrecht. Second, I will repeat the above: The Referendum has no legal implications because the status of Gibraltar is a matter between two sovereign states (see Treaty of Utrecht) not between the inhabitants of two sovereign states. The wishes of the inhabitants is therefore technically irrelevant, specially as Gibraltar is a Non Self-Governing Territory. The Referendum is simply a means of political pressure through public opinion. What part of that do you not understand? JCRB (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you chaps are just going onto the ins and outs of the legality of various methods, can we take it to user talk pages? There was a proposal for an edit. The proposal gained no consensus. Lets call it closed and stop spamming the page. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Gibnews (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, if there is no consensus about a sound point, then there is no use in discussing it privately. It is kind of sad that no editors can challenge a sound argument in a constructive way. I suggest we take it to WP:DR. JCRB (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Last time it tried it was shambolic. Now it is just you on a lone crusade (Yes, I'm sure our other 4 letter friend will re-appear soon), I see no need for WP:DR. You fail to realise your viewpoint is not The Truth <insert appropriate sound effects>. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson that there is no need to take this to WP:DR. It is pretty clear at this stage that there is no consensus for the suggested edit, and I don't see how rehashing the same arguments on a different page would change this. As I said before, unless you have new arguments to bring forward, continuing this discussion serves only to waste everyone's time. Pfainuk talk 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The intro now neutrally summarises the positions of both sides. You've beaten this one to death, JCRB, and then you've beaten it some more. Time to let it go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Galileo also said the earth was round, and no one believed him. I still don't see what the heck is wrong in adding "...although the UN declared it a contravention of previous UN resolutions". This would clearly make it a more balanced sentence. As it is, the sentence subtly justifies British sovereignty by emphasizing the result of the vote. It also ignores the political relevance of the referendum, which is minimal as the sovereignty dispute lies with Britain and Spain, not the Gibraltarians. Did I say before Gibraltar was a Non Self-Governing Territory? Excuse me if I did, but this seems to have been ignored by you. If you convince me I will "let it go" as you metaphorically put it. JCRB (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he said the Earth revolved around the sun not the other way around and for that he was taken infront of the inquisition, that the Earth was spherical dates back to Greek times in western civilisation. As for the rest, we don't have to convince you at this point JCRB. You wanted the edit, you had to convince us. You failed. Go check the local stables and see if any of their equines have died lately, perhaps they will let you flog them. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny Narson, but not a constructive comment, in fact quite disrespectful. I hope you don't start down the path of personal attacks. What I have argued is perfectly logical and reasonable. I ignore the backgrounds of other editors in this discussion, but being the English-language part of Wikipedia I can begin to imagine that most hearts and minds are in favour of Britain and any pro-British statements about Gibraltar. Such positions are enough to blind them. This long discussion is sufficient proof.

The question is that an article on a disputed territory (meaning 2 points of view) dedicates long sentences to explain the "positive" outcome of a referedum which "justifies" its current political status, but ignores that such referendum went against international agreements between the parties and the United Nations. It also ignores, that according to such agreements the sovereignty of the territory is not with the people who inhabit it but with the "Mother Country" which colonizes, rules or administers the territory. Such omission of facts are nothing but POV. And no matter how many editors reject this, it will not change the fact that the article is biased. JCRB (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson is right, and his comment was not in any way a personal attack. This essay, which says pretty much exactly the same thing, applies here. This debate has reached its natural conclusion. You have tried to convince us of your points and you have failed. Continually re-opening it will achieve nothing but annoy people, and possibly make them less receptive to your arguments in future. To quote myself from above, "unless you have new arguments to bring forward, continuing this discussion serves only to waste everyone's time." Pfainuk talk 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will again refer the good gentleman to my previous comment: Quit flogging the horse. You tempt me towards the Dead Parrot Sketch. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

All this talk of 'colonial situations' needs to be taken in the context of more recent events, where the UN threw out attempts to try and deny The people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands the right to self-determination because of dubious 'territorial claims'. Also there was no condemnation by the UN of the 2002 referendum organised by the Government of Gibraltar, the result of which showed the level of attraction of joining with the Spanish state. --Gibnews (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be taken to the disputed status of gibraltar page? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is quite immaterial in any other context.--Gibnews (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Rupiah

Just curious - what's this bit about the Gibraltar Rupiah (under currency)? I've never heard of it, nothing about it anywhere else. Is it the old Real? Cnbrb (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just some vandalism that we missed last week. I've reverted it. Pfainuk talk 18:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks. A hoax! I did wonder..... Cnbrb (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Currency Boards, the Gibraltar Pound and the British Pound

On the subject of currencies, I'm not happy with this statement "No banks offer accounts in GIP." I think it puts an interpretation on the GIP vs GBP situation which may not necessarily be true - ie it is original research. Fine, if a reference can be provided which specifically backs up this claim, but otherwise it should just not be mentioned at all. The currency situation is a funny one - Gibraltar has the right to print its own notes and mint its own coins, but every GIP note must be backed by an equivalent amount of Pound sterling - so if you deposit a 1 GIP note in a bank, what "happens" to it then? Indeed, what happens to a GBP note that you deposit in a UK bank? Your account gets credited with one "pound", but then when you come to retrieve it, what do you get? In Gibraltar you may get back the same GIP note, and in the UK the GBP note. In the meantime, what was that one pound denominated in? The denomination of the banknote, or the denomination of the currency which backed it? I don't profess to know the answer, but I would suggest we simply strike this sentence from the article to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC) ps perhaps we should also add "No banks offer accounts in Gibraltar Rupiahs"? ;-)

I am reminded of a leaflet I picked up in France in 2000, explaining the switchover to the Euro, which explained that since 31 December 1998 (when the exchange rate was set), "franc" and "euro" had effectively been two words for the same thing. In the same way, for all practical purposes, "Gibraltar pound" and "pound sterling" are surely just two ways of referring to the same thing. Only in this case, the numbers of GIP and GBP are the same as well. So, I agree, the sentence is not really necessary and rather difficult to verify (in that for practical purposes it is meaningless).

FWIW there's no economic reason why the GIP and GBP notes have to have the same value, except that the GoG says they do, and that investors in Gibraltar have confidence in the GoG's ability and willingness to exchange Gibraltar-issued notes for BoE notes if required. If that confidence were lost then the corresponding reduction in demand for Gibraltar-issued notes could lead eventually to the end of parity: precisely this scenario caused the recent Argentine economic crisis, in which banks were forced to redenominate US Dollar accounts into Argentine pesos where previously the distinction between the two currencies had been meaningless. Pfainuk talk 16:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not true actually. Gibraltar's situation is different to Argentina's because Gibraltar is legally obligated to back each pound printed with sterling reserves, rather than simply committed to pegging the currency at a particular exchange rate. Those are two very different ways of implementing a currency peg. Assuming Gibraltar is honouring its commitments in the 1934 Act, then it would be impossible for the rate to deviate from 1 because every single holder of a 1 GIP note could convert that note into sterling. In other words, there could be no "run" on the Gibraltar pound such that it became worth less than 1 British pound, because each Gibraltar pound always has a British pound behind it - per the 1934 Act. Currency pegs such as Hong Kong's, Chinas or Argentinas are/were maintained by open market operations rather than maintaining a stash of US Dollars for every note printed. When investors lose confidence such as in Zimbabwe you have the government saying it's worth one rate with the market a completely different, and more realistic one. Anyway, we digress. I will remove the sentence in question. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I take that back Pfainuk. It appears Argentina had a similar commitment to maintaining US dollar reserves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that when bank accounts in Gibraltar are opened in pounds it is never in GIP, but rather in GBP. However, I can't seem to find anything online to back this up so I guess it would be OR. Just to let you guys know, one GIP notes do not exist. :o) --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you know a bit more about the subject than I do at any rate, so no worries! Pfainuk talk 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You would have great trouble depositing a GIP note in a bank account as there is NO SUCH THING Natwest class all their accounts in Gibraltar as offshore, there are NO banks offering GIP accounts as it simply does not exist. Since the mid eighties all accounts are in GBP. --Gibnews (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that banks in Gibraltar do not accept banknotes issued by the Government of Gibraltar?

My understanding was that there is effectively no difference between Government of Gibraltar notes (GIP) and Bank of England notes (GBP) in Gibraltar. Based on this assumption, in Gibraltar, it would be fair to say that "Gibraltar pound" and "pound sterling" are effectively two ways of saying the same thing. It would not matter whether the account is in GIP or GBP because the two statements would be identical and the account would be in both currencies simultaneously.

Now, if I've got this wrong - if you cannot take a Government of Gibraltar banknote and deposit it into a Gibraltar bank account without paying to exchange it into sterling - then clearly the difference is significant and should be mentioned rather more explicitly than the current sentence does. But the idea that a bank would treat locally-issued currency as foreign is a tad bizarre, and so I would want a cite for that.

As it is, I have removed the current source for the first part because it no longer exists, and the second part is already tagged as unsourced (since September). Right now, the entire thing fails WP:V and the second part fails WP:NOR. Pfainuk talk 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, let's see if I can help to make this a bit clearer. You can indeed deposit a ten GIP note in a Gibraltar bank. However, the your statement would show the deposit as having been made in GBP. As I see it, both terms do not mean exactly the same thing as in Gibraltar you can find ATMs which only give out "Gibraltar notes" and ones which only give out "sterling notes". Admitedly, it's all a bit confusing. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 12:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tad confusing. Would it be fair to say that a GIP is the same as a GBP from the banks' perspective? I mean, that the two types of notes are treated as directly equivalent within the bank, but might be sent to different ATMs when it comes to withdrawals (as a convenience to customers)?

My point about them being the same thing is in the same way that French francs, German marks and euros were the same thing in 1999-2001: clearly the numbers were different and the notes looked different. You couldn't use francs outside France or marks outside Germany, and within France and Germany you could only withdraw cash in francs and marks respectively, but to the banks the three currencies - the franc, the mark and the euro - were effectively the same thing.

Bank accounts across the eurozone were, in principle, simultaneously denominated in francs and marks (and pesetas, lire, schillings, Irish pounds and so on), because those currencies' values were defined by the value of the euro. Even though they looked different and the notes had different numbers on them, it did not matter which of these currencies your bank chose to use, any more than it matters whether your bank chooses to denominate your account in pence or pounds. In the same way - unless I'm missing something fundamental (which is possible) - GBP bank accounts are simultaneously denominated in GIP, because the value of the GIP is defined by the value of the pound. Pfainuk talk 13:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something, the GIP there is no such currency in circulation, The GoG do not issue notes saying Gibraltar Pounds any more and you cannot open an account in GIP. --Gibnews (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The writing on the notes is not desperately relevant. For fifty years, both before and after decimalisation, Irish banknotes said, in English and Irish, e.g. "Twenty pounds sterling payable to bearer on demand in London".[2] These notes are still currency in Ireland, but they are not (necessarily) worth twenty pounds sterling on demand in London, only in Ireland - and there you will get the euro equivalent of I£20, not £20 sterling.

That you cannot open a bank account that is nominally denominated in GIP would not be strictly relevant even if it were not apparently original research - from 1999-2001 you could not open a bank account in French francs, but people still had francs in their pockets. The franc still existed in some sense, even if only as a denomination of the euro. Similarly the existence of Gibraltar banknotes argues to me that the Gibraltar pound exists, even if only as a denomination of the pound.

Your argument appears to be based on the black-and-white issue as to whether or not there is such a thing as a Gibraltar pound. I'm going to get slightly philosophical here and say that there are shades of grey between existence and non-existence of such a currency. It is apparent that the GoG issues banknotes separately from the Bank of England, and as discussed before there is no reason why a Gibraltar-issued pound has to be equivalent to a Bank of England-issued pound (if confidence were somehow lost in the Gibraltar government's ability to redeem these notes). But at the same time it is quite clear that the Gibraltar pound does not exist as a separate, floating, currency, but rather as a type of pound sterling.

Another example, incidentally, of such a break in parity is the Australian pound. In 1929, following the Wall Street Crash, the Australian government decided to devalue its pound compared with sterling. Their peg, from 1931 to 1964, was valued at £1 sterling equal to £1/5/- Australian. There is no reason, in theory, why the GoG could not do exactly the same thing in Gibraltar.

So to the question "do Gibraltar pound-denominated bank accounts exist?", the answer must surely be that, yes, they do, in that you can deposit Gibraltar (GIP) banknotes into a bank account without exchanging currencies, banknotes that are not exact equivalents to BoE notes (because they are not issued by the BoE but by the GoG). But thanks to the currency peg, such accounts do not exist independently of pound sterling-denominated bank accounts. If that sounds complicated, that's because it is.

In any case, that line remains entirely unsourced, and no sources has been forthcoming for the claim that you cannot open a bank account in GIP. Pfainuk talk 00:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a source which explains what goes on here. Hong Kong's Money. See page 23, "Origins of the Currency Board". It explains how the British used this system in their colonies and goes on to say "The physical currency was the sole monetary liability of the currency board. Most banking transactions would have been conducted in sterling so there was seldom any compelling need to develop financial markets in the local currency, or therefore to set up clearing arrangements in the local currency, which could, if settlement was conducted through accounts with the monetary authorities, give rise to an additional form of official reserve money" This doesn't explicitly mention Gibraltar, but it seems to me to exactly explain how Gibnews is both right and wrong. He's right that there is no clearing mechanism for the Gibraltar pound (ie, your Gib bank account is not denominated in it), but there is a physical currency called the Gibraltar pound that you can hold in your hand, so it does exist. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also this is useful reading [3]. In the light of what I've read, that whole paragraph smacks of having been written by people who don't understand how currency boards work. (I include myself in that, as I had a hand in the current wording). I think the paragraph should have words along the lines of: "The Gibraltar Pound is a physical currency pegged to sterling at parity, in a currency board arrangement that was used for many British colonies. Clearing and settlement of funds is conducted in sterling. Under the terms of the 1934 Currency Notes Act, the GoG must maintain reserves of sterling that match the amount of notes and coins in circulation." I knocked that out quickly, but I think something along those lines more correctly explains the situation than "the currency is referred to as both this and that and you can't open a bank account in it". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no notes anymore that say 'Gibraltar Pounds' they all say 'Pound Sterling' issued by the Government of Gibraltar. There are no bank accounts in GIP. Because images of notes are copyright and one is talking about negative evidence, this is a rather tricky area for Wikipedia.

At one time Barclays Bank promoted the myth of the Gibraltar Pound and charged and exchange between GIP and GBP - the practice was abolished in the same manner that there used to be convertible and domestic pesetas in Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If sourcing the text requires you to source a negative statement, so be it. Per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If a challenged text cannot be verified then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

Since your arguments about what banknotes say and GIP bank accounts haven't changed, I refer you to those comments already made by myself and Red Hat above. I don't believe the situation is as clear-cut as your arguments suggest.

I agree with Red Hat's suggestion: this section of the text could be a lot clearer and I think his explanation puts the situation accurately. Pfainuk talk 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line whatever anyone says is you cannot open a bank account in GIP and the current notes say 'Pounds Sterling' Like this. --Gibnews (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, you're just regurgitating the same argument you've always made which is based on your interpretation of what the currency says, and nothing more. This is WP:OR, I'm sorry to say. The fact that the current notes have written on them "Pound sterling" is neither here nor there except in the observation that this is what the notes have written on them. NB: I'm perfectly willing to debate this topic with you, and to be shown where I am wrong or misunderstanding something if you can provide some sources other than a picture of the currency. The fact that you live in Gibraltar and the fact that you have some of its currency in your wallet does not make you an expert on how currency boards operate (not that I'm an expert either, but at least I'm trying to broaden my understanding of how it works by seeking out sources from people who are experts). I'm going to find some more sources (not that we need more, we already have two), and then I'm going to alter the text so that it is verifiable and reliably sourced, along the lines of the text above that Pfainuk agreed with. I sincerely hope that you engage constructively in this process. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'Same old arguments' seem to upset you because you want to believe there is a GIP when its as real as the Gibraltar Rupiah. As you point out, I'm more familiar with the reality than you because I have a wallet and a bank account and none of it says 'Gibraltar pounds'. But have a source.

Currency: Sterling

The first Bank Notes issued in Gibraltar date back to 1914. The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling. Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Ordinance did not create a separate currency but conferred on the Government of Gibraltar to print currency notes, which were legal currency in Gibraltar. Sterling Currency Notes issued by the Bank of England have therefore been legal tender and in circulation in Gibraltar alongside the local note issues, since these early days.

I trust that settles it ? --Gibnews (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Essentially the same right given to scottish banks and Irish banks where they print sterling notes that lack legal tender status in the UK? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Red Hat below, I thought I'd add that the principle differences between Scottish notes and Gibraltar notes are that:

Scottish/Northern Irish notes are not legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland. They are essentially cheques made out to bearer - similar to personal cheques and debit cards in terms of legal acceptability. Gibraltar notes are legal tender in Gibraltar.
Scottish/Northern Irish banknotes, like BoE banknotes, are legally authorised by the UK government. Gibraltar banknotes are authorised by the Gibraltar government.
Scottish/Northern Irish notes are not governed by a currency board, as Gibraltar notes are. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the role of currency board for exchanging notes between currencies is held by the note-issuing banks themselves: banks that also offer the normal range of banking services to depositors and which can, in theory, fail. One of the Scottish note-issuing banks - HBOS - came pretty close to that last month. The continued acceptability of Scottish/NI notes depends on the banks, not a government institution. (That two of the three Scottish note-issuing banks are now part-owned by the government is not strictly relevant here - both are commercial operations that can, in theory, fail.)

In that third point the plural of the word "banks" is important, in that the note-issuing banks have - as I understand it - a legal obligation to redeem notes issued by failed banks. This raises confidence in the money supply and reduces to near zero the likelihood of a floating exchange rate between Scottish/NI notes and BoE notes, a rate which would otherwise be based on market's confidence in each individual note-issuing bank. Pfainuk talk 12:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not "settle it", Gibnews, there is always more than one source out there, but I am glad to see you are trying to find some. I am sceptical of these for-tourist government websites, having recently gotten off a dispute over the meaning of "Britain" - one of our colleagues at this page provided a UK government website that (unbelievably, in my opinion) said that "Britain" was the wrong name for the UK as it did not include Northern Ireland. After emailing the .gov.uk website, they corrected their text. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying that the authors of Government websites are not necessarily experts in what they are writing about (unlike, say, the author of that book on "Hong Kong's Money"). That said, I actually do not see any contradiction at all with what I proposed above:

MINE "The Gibraltar Pound is a physical currency..."
- THEIRS "Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Ordinance ... conferred on the Government of Gibraltar the right to print currency notes."
MINE "Clearing and settlement of funds is conducted in sterling."
- THEIRS "The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling"

The key point here is that Gibraltar has its own physical currency, distinct from that printed by the Bank of England, but clearing and settlement is in the reserve currency, which is, as you rightly say, sterling. There is no "machinery" to transact in "Gibraltar Pounds", other than in its physical form - the notes and coins. So we really aren't that far apart, if you think about it, Gibnews. I just think that website is being a tad misleading by using the words "did not create a separate currency" - because banknotes are currency - fiat currency. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see you are reluctant to give up on the myth that there is a Gibraltar pound. No banknotes are not 'a currency' any more than a strip of cellulose acetate is a film, However the GoG site explains it well and that is what Wikipedia should use. What do the others say, have we a consensus to go on the GoG wording? I'm getting currency bored.--Gibnews (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"banknotes are not 'a currency'" - You might want to double check that statement versus dictionary entries for "currency": [4] "something that is used as a medium of exchange; money"; "Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money."; "the metal or paper medium of exchange that is presently used"; "Any form of money in actual use as a medium of exchange."; "That which is in circulation, or is given and taken as having or representing value; as, the currency of a country; a specie currency; esp., government or bank notes circulating as a substitute for metallic money." The etymology of the word currency stems from currere "to run" in the sense of a flow or course, which was extended 1699 by John Locke to "circulation of money." [5] Given the etymology and those definitions, you are clearly wrong, and the GoG website clearly explains it misleadingly. You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but the Gibraltar Pound is a separate physical currency. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ps if you fancy enlightening yourself about currency boards and how they operate, and the fact that Gibraltar operates under such a mechanism, you can read this [6] In its simplest form, a Currency Board Arrangement can be defined as a monetary regime based on an explicit legislative commitment to exchange domestic currency for a specified foreign currency at a fixed exchange rate. (Piecing together from a couple of sections) This paper...covers...Argentina, Brunei, Djibouti the ECCB, Estonia, Hong Kong and Lithuania....CBAs not covered (ie not examined in detail) include those of Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Legislative commitment = 1934 currency notes act; domestic currency = GIP; foreign currency = GBP; fixed exchange rate = 1. Need I say more? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Banknotes are not a currency, but the expression of a currency. No doubt the situation in 1934 is interesting and merits documenting in the history of Gibraltar but the situation today is as described by the Government of Gibraltar website. There is no GIP. The notes are sterling, you cannot open a bank account in GIP, or buy a pint in the pub with one. Its an ex-currency like the Norwegian Blue. --Gibnews (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That book is describing the situation today, and I would be inclined to trust the IMF and academics writing for economists over the GoG writing for tourists on these matters, because all tourists need to know is that they can spend BoE pounds as well as these interestingly-coloured Gibraltar notes in Gibraltar.

I think we all understand that while BoE notes are legal tender in various places outside Gibraltar (notably England and Wales), GoG notes are only legal tender in Gibraltar. This, in and of itself, makes the Gibraltar notes a different physical currency to the BoE notes. If the notes were equivalent, then you would expect a GoG £10 note and an BoE £10 note to be legally identical wherever you went (at least in areas where they are legal tender) - and this is patently not the case.

And the ultimate decider for me is that that section is rather confusing. We have sources for Red Hat's suggestion above, a suggestion which is rather clearer and which describes the situation, as he demonstrated. I think we should use it or something like it. Pfainuk talk 13:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There simply is NO SUCH THING AS A GIBRALTAR POUND

Currency: Sterling

The Monetary Unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling. Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Ordinance did not create a separate currency but conferred on the Government of Gibraltar to print currency notes, which were legal currency in Gibraltar.

Thats what the GoG says and that matches the reality today - a outrdated foreign Act has nothing to do with it. --Gibnews (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the overriding factor is the confusing way the article is written. The fact that Gibraltar has its own ISO currency code, the fact that every single "factbook" (CIA, BBC News, travel books, enyclopaedia) talks of the Gibraltar pound, and the fact that - as Pfainuk says - it's only legal in Gibraltar - is enough evidence that there is such a thing as a currency specific to Gibraltar. Unlike before, we now have two perfectly good sources explaining how you can have a separate physical currency without clearing and settlement mechanisms (which include bank accounts) in that currency, so I believe we should go ahead and reword the paragraph. Before doing so, however, I would be interested to hear what our friends Justin and Narson would agree with that. I propose to put some wording here on the talk page as a first step. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Red Hat, much as it pains me as we've agreed on so much lately, I agree with Gibnews. GIP seems more akin to a Scottish pound note than a currency in its own right. Whats the difference between it and Jersey coinage - you can spend those in the UK. Justin talk 23:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sad to hear that, but thanks for the prompt response. The GIP is comparable to the other Sterling-pegged currencies of the BOTs, namely Falkland Islands pound and Saint Helena pound (actually, it's not just what I think, I have a reference for the fact that these are currency boards [7] - Jersey is not mentioned). Note that these have their own ISO currency codes, the Jersey pound does not. The Jersey pound is similar to the notes of the Scottish banks - these do not have ISO currency codes either. If the International Organization for Standardization denotes them as separate currencies, it's tough to argue that they are not, when that is the international standard! :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A further reference, this one definitive - it's from the European Central Bank "MONETARY AND EXCHANGE RATE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE EURO AREA WITH SELECTED THIRD COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES", page 10 "Gibraltar has a special status. It is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and, at the same time, part of the European Union. However, certain Community provisions do not apply to Gibraltar. Both the pound sterling and the Gibraltar pound, the latter issued by local authorities, have legal tender status in Gibraltar. The two currencies are at parity. The Falkland Islands and Saint Helena and Dependencies have the status of British overseas territories, as well as overseas countries and territories associated with the Community. They also issue their own currency, namely the Falkland pound and the Saint Helena pound. Local pounds and the pound sterling are legal tender in the territories and are convertible at a rate of 1:1. The Falkland pound and the pound sterling are also legal tender in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands." A paper from the European Central Bank is as definitive as we can get. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

BUT the Gibraltar authorities do not issue Gibraltar pounds as they say on their official website they issue Pounds Sterling the GIP is theoretical and does not exist in practice. I believe the notes issued in the Falklands do say Falklands Pound that is the difference. What the Gibraltar Government actually does and says it does is more important that what the European central bank says it could do. Yes its a widely misreported issue, that is why its important we get it right here. --Gibnews (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Gibnews, you leave me no choice other than to take this one to the WP:RS noticeboard and get some outside arbitration. I hate to bring this old matter up again, but you are engaging in exactly the same arguments as you did in the BOT vs UKOT discussion. In both:

you claimed it was you that was right and the rest of the world wrong - "There is a lot of confusion about the subject", you wrote about that one, once more we now have, according to you, a "a widely misreported issue") - do you really know better than the FCO [8] [9], the European Central Bank [10], the International Standards Organization, the International Monetary Fund [11], the BBC [12], the CIA [13], and academics who have written entire books on the subject [14] [15]?
your argument was based on one single website as your source despite a multitude of other sources, even another page on the same site, contradicting it ("whatever title the mandarins of the FCO say is correct IS the definitive version") One has to weigh all the references. Noone and no entity is immune from making mistakes. Does that one GoG website outweight all those above, even the FCO's?
you based your argument on a basic misunderstanding of English (before it was "British" - "'British' does not have any meaning in a territorial context. 'British' refers to a nationality not a territory", you wrote then, now you are disputing that bank notes are "currency" despite every single dictionary one can lay ones hands on saying otherwise)

For someone with so many gripes with the Spanish, it's funny how you engage in these quixotic ventures. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One more reference for the list - the Gibraltar-hosted GoG website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why its so important for you to try and prove that the Gibraltar Pound exists as a currency when it does not. None of the references you have produced actually does that and you continue to ignore the OFFICIAL GoG London site that actually explains the situation as it exists.

When the FCO site said something you disagreed with, you chose to ignore that, and after I asked them they corrected their site, I shall do that again for currency.

Yes there are some references refering to the 'Gibraltar Pound' the notes issued in the eighties said that but they were withdrawn and there are now only Sterling notes and bank accounts denominated in GBP but termed offshore by the likes of Natwest PLC. And until the wording achieves a consensus, I've refrained from editing the article. But let us hear from other people because whatever I say you will disagree with on principle. --Gibnews (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue here is ensuring that Wikipedia remains clear and accurate, something which should be of overriding concern to all here. Our current wording is:

The Currency Notes Act confers on the Government of Gibraltar the right to issue its own currency notes, at parity with pound sterling. The monetary unit of Gibraltar is described both as "pound sterling" and also referred to as the "Gibraltar pound". The ISO code "GIP" is assigned to the Gibraltar pound. Government of Gibraltar notes in circulation bear the words "Pounds sterling" and are legal tender in Gibraltar, but not in the United Kingdom or the other territories of the Sterling Area. Sterling currency notes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender and are in circulation in Gibraltar alongside the local note issues. The euro is unofficially accepted in Gibraltar, though not by post offices or all payphones.

Bank accounts in Gibraltar can be opened in Sterling (GBP)

We say that:

Gibraltar's currency notes are at parity with the pound sterling.
Gibraltar's currency unit is called the pound sterling, aka the Gibraltar pound
The Gibraltar pound's ISO code is GIP

Of those:

Point 1 doesn't make any sense at all. Currency notes cannot be at parity with a currency - indeed they cannot really be at parity with anything at all. But if we are to take this to mean that Gibraltar's currency is at parity with the pound sterling, that rather tells us that there are two different currencies with the same value.
Point 2 tells us the precise opposite, that the pound sterling and Gibraltar pound are the same thing.
Point 3 implies the opposite of point 2, that the Gibraltar pound is separate from the pound sterling.

In the space of three sentences we manage turn 180° on the issue of separation between the Gibraltar pound and pound sterling twice. The reason I want this changed is because what we currently have is, frankly, a pile of crap.

So the next question is, given how useless our current wording is, can we improve it? How exactly does Gibraltar currency work? So, we check the sources, and they tell us that Gibraltar operates a currency board to exchange Gibraltar notes for Bank of England notes. A currency board system rather implies that while there may be only one currency for clearing purposes, the fact that there can be exchange implies that there are two currencies. We have multiple sources from respected financial institutions such as the IMF and ECB describing this system, and noting that it occurs in Gibraltar, as well as economics textbooks describing the system with reference to Gibraltar, if not in detail about the specific situation in Gibraltar. It is clear that Gibraltar notes are legal tender within Gibraltar but not outside, and that in that way they are not equivalent to Bank of England notes.

Now, we can write an accurate and sourced summary of the Gibraltar currency system, how it works in theory and how it works in practice, based on the sources we've got. We can probably indeed make the situation clear without arbitrarily declaring the existence or non-existence of the Gibraltar pound (instead of describing it as a "physical currency", we can perhaps note that GoG banknotes are exchangeable for BoE notes through a currency board arrangement, for example). Or we can stick with the nonsensical and self-contradictory paragraph we have. I know which I would prefer. Pfainuk talk 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I heartily agree with you. As my editing of the article will only spark an edit war, I am going to take a back seat to editing the section itself. I will, however, support any edits you decide to make - something needs to be done about this terrible wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording regarding currency

Although Gibraltar is allocated the ISO Code of GIP for the Gibraltar Pound, and at has in the past issued 'Gibraltar Pound' notes, the monetary unit of Gibraltar is actually Sterling. Gibraltar’s Currency Notes Act does not create a separate currency but allows the Government of Gibraltar to print currency notes which are legal currency in Gibraltar. Sterling currency notes issued by the Bank of England are also accepted. Banks offer Sterling bank accounts which are part of the UK clearing system. The Euro is unofficially accepted in Gibraltar by most retail outlets, though not by the Post Office or all payphones.

With suitable references added.

--Gibnews (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with this, since it essentially ignores most of the sources we have. The existence of a currency board and the fact that Gibraltar notes are backed by GoG sterling reserves are very significant here, and they should not be overlooked. I do not accept that a tourist information site is more reliable than the IMF, ECB, BBC, CIA, GoG, economics textbooks and so on put together, but I do think it would be better to describe to what extent Gibraltar banknotes are different from BoE banknotes than to make a declaration on what is, essentially, an issue of semantics.

I would propose, with suitable references:

Under the terms of the 1934 Currency Notes Act, the Government of Gibraltar issues banknotes which are legal tender alongside Bank of England banknotes in Gibraltar. These notes are backed by sterling reserves held by the Gibraltar government and can be exchanged at parity with Bank of England notes through a currency board arrangement. Clearing and settlement of funds is conducted in sterling. The euro is unofficially accepted in Gibraltar by most retail outlets, though not by the Post Office or (some) payphones.

This describes the situation in full, without telling you whether or not there is a Gibraltar pound. It describes the controversy (if we can call it that) rather than coming down on either side of it. Since sources disagree, that's what we should be doing.

Regarding the last section: does it mean that some payphones accept euros (in which case "some" or "most" would be better than "all"), or that no payphones accept euros (in which case we should remove the word "all" entirely)? The current wording is not clear. Pfainuk talk 12:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Pfainuk's edit of the two, as it avoids taking a side. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Pfainuk's wording too - it describes the situation accurately, without injecting any interpretation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one minor point - if you read the currency notes act, it's not that Gib notes are exchangeable at parity with BoE notes, it's that they are exchangeable at parity with Sterling. "Conversion between currency notes and sterling. 6. The Commissioner shall issue on demand to any person desiring to receive currency notes in Gibraltar, currency notes to the equivalent value (at the rate of one pound for one pound sterling) of sums in sterling lodged with either the Commissioner in Gibraltar or the Crown Agents in London by such person, and shall pay on demand either in Gibraltar or through the Crown Agents to any person desiring to receive sterling in London the equivalent value so calculated of currency notes lodged with him in Gibraltar by such person" Section 6 So I would reword "and can be exchanged at parity with sterling through a currency board arrangement" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. It would make sense to use the word used in the act, and I would cite this document after the word "sterling", to demonstrate where the word has come from. That said, while we do need to be careful due to WP:PSTS, I think it's fair to interpret this as "Bank of England notes" since I feel it clearly reflects the intentions of those who wrote the law (as any other interpretation would render several key sections meaningless). So, while I agree with you that the word "sterling" is better, I will still also accept the original version above if this becomes a sticking point.

I have corrected the link in your comment, incidentally. Pfainuk talk 16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would make the point that the source I have give is not some tourist information site its the official Government of Gibraltar position on the official gibraltar.gov.uk site, it happens that they spend more money updating the UK site than the corresponding one and the latter contains some out of date nonsense. The GoG source I have quoted describes things as they seem to be today and not as they may have been in the past. We do need to mention that the notes issued say 'pounds sterling'. The fact that they can issue notes in Gibraltar pounds is a curiosity as they clearly do not. --Gibnews (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That site's intention is to inform tourists, who do not need to know about the currency system in any detail: all tourists really need to know is what currency they can spend. Sites like the CIA World Factbook have been updated relatively recently, and it's not as if we have seen any evidence that things have changed in the last year.

You say that that site describes things "as the seem to be today". Wikipedia is not here to deal with one editor's perception of how things seem to be, but rather rather with what the sources say they are. We have a single website aimed at tourists saying there is no Gibraltar pound, not even mentioning the currency board, the sterling reserves. We then have economics textbooks and the documents of financial authorities, which are aimed at economists, which describe Gibraltar as using a currency board, with its banknotes backed by sterling reserves. We have the original law authorising Gibraltar banknotes which describes all of this. We have sources from respected institutions all over the world - including the Government of Gibraltar itself - describing the currency of Gibraltar as the "Gibraltar pound". And all this you dismiss because it contradicts a single GoG website aimed at tourists, bringing this back to a statement that the GoG "clearly do not" issue notes in Gibraltar pounds (which is far from clear).

But this is not a case of whether or not there is a Gibraltar pound. As discussed previously, the answer would appear to be both that there is and that there is not a Gibraltar pound, simultaneously. This is not a black and white issue, rather there are shades of grey, areas where the question as to whether such a currency exists is purely semantic. It surely makes more sense - both common sense and per Wiki policy - to describe the situation as the sources do, rather than to focus our attention on the narrow question of whether or not this is a separate currency. Pfainuk talk 11:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that site is the Official Gibraltar Government site in the UK, although it has information about tourism it states that the currency is sterling on its front non tourist page. As regards the CIA, until recently they referred to a railway in Gibraltar which closed in 1946. Perhaps we need better references, but Gibraltar Pound is rather like the Loch Ness Monster much talk and little evidence, indeed fewer sightings. --Gibnews (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh... this page has no reference to currency on it. The page you've been linking to repeatedly is part of the "On Holiday" part of the website, with links to "How to get here", "Where to stay", "What to do", "How to get around". Distinguishing "site" with "part of site" is splitting hairs - your source is clearly aimed at tourists.

But in any case, we have over half a dozen reliable sources, and I notice that my point regarding your dismissal of the mountain of respected sources we have in favour of a single GoG page aimed at tourists based apparently on your perception on how things "seem to be today" has gone unchallenged, as has my point noting desirability of describing, rather than judging the situation. Pfainuk talk 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree fully with Pfainuk. I think it's time to move forwards - judging by the similarity of this to previous discussions, we're not going to get any further discussing this here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be coming a bit late to this debate (I can't believe this issue is being discussed yet again) but I also agree with Pfainuk. I think one important point that has to be made is that the issue of the nature of the currency is clearly a rather complex technical question. Although we seem to have conflicting sources, as Gibnews has pointed out, that's easily resolvable. Pages aimed at tourists are necessarily simplified. They don't need to know the technical details of how a currency works; all they need to know is how they can use the currency in question. On an issue such as this, sources aimed at specialists (financiers, economists, analysts etc) are to be preferred. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The GoG UK website is not simply a tourist website - it also deals with finance and International Relations, as the front page states. On the Finance page it states that the currency is sterling. It explains the situation rather well in the reference I have given. By far better than anything else does!

The UK site has been recently revised and is better maintained than the Gibraltar site which contains a lot of inaccurate statements, someone today has cited it as confirming Gibraltar is 'a dependent territory' which is outdated. The other references given state what the GoG can do rather than what they actually do. And in practice they most certainly do not issue notes that say 'Gibraltar Pounds' and you cannot open a bank account in GIP. We just need some better references for the sake of wikipedia to reflect the true situation as it is, rather than ill informed fairy tales about it. --Gibnews (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of endlessly repeating the same argument, how about providing some of these "better references"? I will be interested to see how you can better the IMF and the ECB, who being monetary institutions with multinational reach, and populated with experts in their fields, should know what they are talking about. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

According to Gibraltar Pound:

The Currency Notes Act of 1934[1] confers on the Government of Gibraltar the right to print its own notes, and the obligation to back and exchange each printed note with sterling reserves at a rate of one pound to one pound sterling. Although Gibraltar notes are denominated in "pounds sterling", they are not legal tender in the UK, but they are exchangeable at par for UK notes at banks. Gibraltar's coins are the same weight, size and metal as UK coins, although the designs are different, and can be found in circulation in the UK.

British coins and Bank of England notes circulate in Gibraltar and are universally accepted and interchangeable with Gibraltar issues.

Can't find anything to say whether you can open a bank account in GIP anywhere though, the stuff I did find mentioned Stirling. Justin talk 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That all seems to be accurate according to the sources, though I think it really should mention the currency board and I think the reference to "UK notes" and "banks" (British banks or Gibraltar banks?) could be clearer. Aside the description of Gibraltar notes and coins (which we could put in a second paragraph), this says essentially the same thing as my version. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's accurate. I wrote it, a year and a half ago :-) [16] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense :). Gibnews seems to have gone quiet, though I'm sure he's watching, and I figure 48 hours since his last message on talk is probably long enough to wait. Since most seem to be in favour, I propose we now include my wording in the article (with "sterling" replacing "Bank of England" as discussed), without discounting the possibility of a second paragraph stating that Gibraltar coins are the same size, weight and metal as their sterling counterparts, and that Gibraltar notes say "Pounds Sterling" on them. If someone objects, speak up and we can discuss.

We still also need to be clear as to whether some, all or no payphones accept euros, because the current wording is as clear as mud. If so such clarification is forthcoming, I propose that we remove that reference entirely. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get other people's opinions. Personally I think we are getting into too much detail on currency for the main article - we need some concise wording and the detail behind that can go into a sub article. Perhaps the one on the 'Gibraltar Pound' suitably renamed as there is no such thing.

The wording on payphones is important. There are two coin mechanisms in use, one accepts euros and downloads an exchange rate from the exchange and the other only takes British coinage. It is a question that people need answered and Government offices feel it necessary to put up signs stating they do not accept Euros. --Gibnews (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pfainuk - let's put this baby to bed. (Re payphones, remember Gibnews - it has to be verifiable. "I live here and I saw it" is not a basis for inclusion.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually programmed the things to do it, if you really think it needs to be verified then I'll take a picture of a sign that says it and a copy of the sign in the Post office that says 'No Euros'. But not every line in wikipedia has a reference. its a reference work not a work of pedantry. --Gibnews (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made the edit, and been bold and added a bit about Gibraltar notes saying pounds sterling on them, per the possibility mentioned in my previous edit. Pfainuk talk 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I support your changes - looks perfectly good to me, and completely avoids the "is it or is it not a separate currency in its own right" issue. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)