Talk:Gibraltar

Sources

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

Monthly high and low temperatures

As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,

In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)

The source, https://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/gibraltar/gibraltar.php, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.

Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.

So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?

As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change to use the single numbers from the same source as the chart.

Note that another editor has switched that source since I wrote above. Given the history of mistakes in this section, I did a quick sampling of the source and confirmed it matches the current article text. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511223754/http://www.fsc.gi/fsc/home.htm to http://www.fsc.gi/fsc/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Change in the lead section regarding governance

The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This sort of veiled threat helps nobody, just raises the temperature. You should know that by now.

Could you perhaps cite the precise discussion supporting this specific text? I cannot find it. So far as I can see, your own argument leads to there being no text here at all. I have implemented such a change and given your arguments above and in your edit summaries I have no doubt you will support it. Kahastok talk 20:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't support Wee Curry Monster's edit because it was very confusing regarding a very controversial expression (self-governing) which generated a very long discussion several years ago:

1) it said that Gibraltar is "self-governing", which is a term with several meanings, and one of them is in direct contradiction with the fact that Gibraltar is in the UN's list of "non self-governing" territories; therefore, if you say it is self-governing it would be necessary to clarify that it is not "self-governing" in the sense that is used in the UN's list of "non self-governing territories" (a bit of a mess).

2) on top of that, he used the expression Gibraltar is "[ [ Self-governing colony|self-governing ] ]", which has several problems: a) the chosen format hides the word "colony" (giving a very partial impression) and b) the expression "self-governing colony" is not accurate since self-governing and Crown colonies were renamed "British Dependent Territories" by Britain in 1981 and British Overseas Territories in 2002.

I think the previous expression was very neutral and it was able to survive untouched for 8-9 years: "Under the Gibraltar constitution of 2006, Gibraltar governs its own affairs, though some powers, such as defence and foreign relations, remain the responsibility of the British government" describes the real situation of governance in Gibraltar without mentioning the confusing words "self-governing" or the UN's list of "non self-governing territories". Personally, I would prefer to mention the UN's list in the lede, but I understand that it might be very controversial, so I won't insist on that.

I can accept to have no reference to Gibraltar's governance in the lede if the alternative is to have a very long and tiring discussion, given that there is a whole section with the details, although I think it is not the best option. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. WCM_email 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [1], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.

Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? WCM_email 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am so glad you don't think the phrase self-governing is controversial and, futhermore, that ideological reasons should be immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. I will agree with your edit, then, if (in order to keep it neutral) you do not hide the word colony in the link (even though, for the sake of historical accuracy, I would add the fact that the official name for self-governing colonies is now British Overseas Territories) and include the fact that Gibraltar is in the United Nations' list of non self-governing territories. If you are looking for sources, you can see Gibraltar in the UN's list of non-self governing territories here and you can illustrate about self-governing colonies and British Overseas Territories here and here

I think it would also be a good alternative to restore the phrase that lasted for 8 years in the lead before you and Roger 8 Roger edited it. It was very neutral.

If, on the other hand, for any reason (ideological or whatever), you are only ready to stick to your original edit (hiding the word colony in the link you included and not mentioning the UN's list), then let's save ourselves a long and tiring discussion and keep governance altogether unmentioned in the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You know all the objections to everything above, it's not like you're some new editor who wasn't heavily involved in those discussions back in the day.

The real question is, if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, WCM said that the phrase "self-governing" is not controversial, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. It surprised me after his intense involvement in the discussion some years ago, so I wanted to know whether he really meant it (call me an optimist). I understand that you think that it is controversial, and maybe he does too. OK, so do I. I think we have consensus here. Let's keep governance out of the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And there you go again. If you are happy with the status quo with no text, all you had to do at this point was to say nothing at all, or "I accept the version of the text with no mention in it". Given your previous involvement, everything else you've said since that point appears to be an attempt at provocation.

So I ask again: if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

So I answer again (see my answers above): I have said (3 times) that, even though it's not the best option, no text is better than a long discussion. I have also offered three options for you and WCMonster to choose from. I have said that you and I seem to have a consensus here. So no, I don't want to provoke.

Your position is clear. On the other hand, WCMonster is the one who does not offer a clear answer. (a) Does he really mean what he says (that self-governing is not a controversial term, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia is not censored) and is eager to mention Gibraltar as a self-governing colony (now called British Overseas Territory) and part of the UN list of non-self governing territories? (b) Does he prefer the phrase that was in the lead for 8-9 years? or (c) Does he prefer no text at all? Just information. Question and answer. No long discussion or provocation. Thanks. -Imalbornoz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And once again, you claim not to want a long discussion in one paragraph, and then immediately try to provoke one in the next.

The answer - to your question as to what WCM thinks, to your presumption as to what I think - is that article talk pages are for improving the article, not for having a hypothetical discussion of other things. We have a clear consensus for a specific text, that we have all accepted. At best, further discussion of this point takes editor time away from more useful pursuits, and risks creating unnecessary and irrelevant conflict that may make consensus harder to reach in any future discussions. Kahastok talk 19:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The term "self-governing" is ambiguous and requires clarification. We don't say that Greater London or pre-independence American colonies were self-governing although they had local assemblies and laws. But in all cases, the U.K. reserves the right to overrule local decisions, which is not how self-governing is normally understood. TFD (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the current text on this in the lede (i.e. no comment at all on the subject)?

The same applies to you as applies to Imalbornoz. We've had long discussions on this before, and we appear to have a consensus on how to resolve it this time. What benefit is there to the reader in our spending the next three months arguing the toss on a pair of texts that we all agree won't go in the article? Kahastok talk 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion in the lead of the expression "self-governing" or the watered down version "governs its own affairs" in the lead. My point was that if these terms were included, they would require qualification, because self governance generally implies a greater degree of autonomy than Gibraltar enjoys. TFD (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? The consensus text does not include either of those expressions. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm mystified as to why someone would continue to insist I am responsible for an edit, when it has been clearly shown I am not. Suffice it to say, I support Kahastok's amendment, I feel no need to engage in a philosphical debate on a closed matter. I will close by referring the OP to WP:TALKNO for guidance as to how a talk page is supposed to be used. WCM_email 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, at least we have a consensus. I wouldn't want to repeat the long and tiring discussions of 8-10 years ago.

(NB: Please correct me if I am wrong (in my talk page if you want, I don't want to disturb other editors), but I don't get what WCMonster means when he says it has been clearly shown he is not responsible for the edit. The only edit I can see that says that Gibraltar is self-governing (in the last 8 years) is from him: [2]).

In any case, thanks for avoiding a long discussion. -Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough. I already gave you the diff. Please stop trying to raise tensions. WCM_email 12:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical documents of the village of Gibraltar

I made an edit to mention that the population of Gibraltar took the historical documents of the village together with their own belongings when they left it after it was invaded by Rooke's British-Dutch-Spanish forces in 1704. It is well documented fact, mentioned by:

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
• Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
• George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. p. 166. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.
• Isidro Sepúlveda (2004). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza (in Spanish). Madrid: Alianza. pp. 91–92. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.
• Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 54.
• Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. p. 117.

Kahastok not only reverted my edit, but deleted as well part of the previous text (which had been there for 8 years, after a long discussion that caused many users to be banned or blocked). I will restore the previous consensus while we discuss the new proposal (per BRD, as Kahastok has always done even when he had a different alias).

The previous consensus was:"The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."

My proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population. The most important settlement was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."

It seems Kahastok's proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population."

Thanks - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD - I suggest you read it. You don't come into a discussion, saying X edit was consensus 8 years ago, I don't like what has been done since so I'm reverting to that - that's not how it works. This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. I would oppose the addition of the extra extraneous information proposed and stick with the article in its current state. Oh and I just wish to check, do you have the sources you're quoting or are you relying solely on google snippets? WCM_email 13:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a change (adding content about the historical documents of the village of Gibraltar). You and Kahastok do not agree with it and want to make another change (removing content about the destination of the exodus). I have reverted (my own edit and yours) to the previous consensus (which included the destination but not the documents) and brought it to the talk page.

As Kahastok has repeatedly explained, when someone makes a bold (and controversial) edit to a long standing consensus and someone does not agree, the thing to do, as per WP:BRD (his words) is to return to the previous consensus and discuss in the talk page. Here there are four examples of Kahastok explaining the policy in an area of your interest: [3] [4] [5] [6]

Here there is proof that the previous consensus was "exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar" (for 8 years!!!): November 28 2018[7], December 2017[8], 2016[9], 2015[10], 2014[11], 2013[12], 2012[13], 2011[14]

I have to remind you that you have been banned and blocked from this article several times. One of them the sanction said that should you “return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.”[15]

I also remind you of the procedure included in the sanctions (on Kahastok, you, me and another editor) the last time this issue was taken to ArbCom. Discretionary sanctions were lifted some time later, but I think we should have learned the lesson by now and we shouldn’t need the intervention of ArbCom. The procedure said we should

'”not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit.”'[16]

Removing the reference to the exodus to Campo de Gibraltar (as you want) or adding details (as I want) are both substantial edits.

Let’s talk about the proposed edits here before we make any change. Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, the sorts of threats - and, let's be clear, they are threats - that we see in your above edit make it less likely, not more, that you will persuade other editors to agree with your position, because would suggest that you are trying to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We are supposed to be working together. All of us. You appear to be trying to work against other editors.

I also notice that you have also been trawling through my edits from nearly nine years ago, which seems more than a little creepy.

You are correct that you need consensus before you make your edit, and as such I suggest that you try to get consensus. Reality is that of course you can't expect every editor who edited this article in more than half a decade to have made a proposal on talk and waited 48 hours before making the edit, just in case you came back and objected to it. This is a Wiki, not a bureaucracy. Per WP:BRD you need consensus to make your edit. I suggest you make your case we can all discuss it.

And when you do it, if you genuinely don't want a repeat of what happened before, you won't mention personalities, you'll focus on the issues at hand with a constructive attitude (i.e. not trying to bait people after consensus has been reached as you did above), and you certainly won't bring up anything that happened back in 2010 and 2011. Kahastok talk 18:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reminded all of us (including me) what had happened the last time we discussed this in order to avoid it. It would not make any sense to make a threat including myself in it, would it?

Regarding your comments from years ago, I kind of had a dejá-vu when I saw WCMonster going in a loop about WP:BRD and I remembered that the last time this had happened we were able to solve it recurring not to my own arguments (which unfortunately tend to fire him up more than convince him, no matter what I say) but using your own words (Which seem to be much more persuasive for WCMonster). So I dived to find those diffs I had used 8 years ago... and it seems they worked!

To be honest, 'all' of this is a bit of a dejá-vu... Let's see if we are able to get through without falling into past mistakes. Thanks for trying to de-escalate the tension. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Wait! You just made an edit changing the consensus that has been standing there for 8 years (please see my diffs above). Please, self revert or we will repeat the story. I trust you will revert to the previous consensus according to your own words. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(In order to avoid a potential conflict due to misunderstanding, I have left a message in Kahastok's talk page explaining why the consensus version mentions the exodus to the surrounding areas of Campo de Gibraltar, before we go back to that version and discuss our proposed changes here. WCMonster, I know you feel uncomfortable receiving messages in your talk page from some editors, so I will please ask you to read my message in Kahastok's talk page. Thanks) - Imalbornoz (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on content or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ad hominem and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref content or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. WCM_email 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding content: please read the introduction of this section.

Regarding WP:BRD, it's NOT something that happened 8 years AGO. The mention of the destination of the exodus has been in the article without interruption DURING 8 years UNTIL you deleted it on November 30 2018. Look here: November 28 2018[17], December 2017[18], 2016[19], 2015[20], 2014[21], 2013[22], 2012[23], 2011[24]

If you want to delete something from a text that has been there for a long time and someone opposes that deletion, you should have patience and try to find a new consensus in the talk page, especially given our history in this article.

I will give you the chance to self-revert the deletion and try to find a new consensus.

Please answer one question: Have you taken the time to click on the links above to check that the destination of the exodus has been there DURING all those years? - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-

The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.

Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history --Rockysantos (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a great number of reliable secondary sources explain that there were 1,200 inhabited houses and their estimation is that this would mean Gibraltar had around 4,000-6,000 inhabitants at the time of the take-over.

Those sources agree on the fact that all the inhabitants except 70 left Gibraltar on 7 August 1704, taking with them their belongings, the city council, banner, and records, and most of them establishing around the nearby Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" and became what is now the city of San Roque (you can take a look at the History section of the article on San Roque).

Several years ago, when the last consensus was achieved, I put together a summary of several sources (both English and Spanish) here [25]. I would recommend that you take a look at those sources and citations to make your own conclusions. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting for anyone new to this, that the editor known as Imalbornoz did not have previously have access to sources. His approach was to edit, then seek justification via google snippets. This is very dangerous and produced a number of misleading results, so I would be wary of his summary. If you wish to read a neutral and balanced view, with sourcing may I suggest [26],[27] So again, I'm asking Imalbornoz the question does he now have access to the sources he is quoting?

And again Imalbornoz is being asked to respond to the comment on content made above, which he has declined to do so repeatedly. WCM_email 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I will answer your questions:

Regarding content: most relevant sources mention that the main destination of the exodus was nearby Campo de Gibraltar, that they took with them the city council, records, banner, etc. to San Roque, which was called ""My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" by Philip V in 1706.

It's relevant because they were almost all of the existing Gibraltarians at the moment (all of the 4,000-6,000 inhabitants of Gibraltar, except 70 individuals), the historical documents of the city (all of them up to 1704) were moved to a nearby town, and this Gibraltarian historical heritage can still be consulted today in San Roque.

Regarding access to sources: In the last 8 years I have been able to access the sources (some via libraries and some I have purchased). As was expected, there is no text in those sources contradicting the excerpts I used (it would have been a bit absurd to expect that they would say "you know what I just said about those people going to nearby Campo?... well that text was put there just to confuse readers, it was a joke", but I checked anyhow). Those excepts are valid.

Now I have answered your questions (for the nth time). Please answer my one question: Is it or is it not true that the text mentioning that the destination of the exodus was the nearby Campo has been in the article without interruption for the last 8 years (please check the diffs I posted above)? - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No you didn't address the point, please resist the temptation for argumentative walls of text:

“ This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. ”

The question is not whether it can be sourced, its whether it belongs here. As far as I can see its not germane to an overview, which is intended to provide brief and minimal coverage.

And if you do have Jackson, the source you're quoting, then you'll note the comments I made below are accurate. Are they not? Please confirm you have read Jackson and can confirm. WCM_email 17:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have answered your questions so far and am willing to answer your new comments. But first, for the sake of engaging in a two way dialogue...

...for the third time, please answer my one question: Is it or is it not true that the text mentioning that the destination of the exodus was the nearby Campo has been in the article without interruption for the last 8 years (please check the diffs I posted above)? - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I was under the misleading impression I had made myself clear, apparently not. To be clear, I am only prepared to discuss content, nothing more. Now if you could address the content issue, it would be appreciated. WCM_email 19:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the text

it I note there are two inaccuracies in the text currently in the article. 1. It states the population left. This is inaccurate according to Jackson, who notes some 70 families remained behind. 2. It states that they left to the Campo de Gibraltar. Jackson notes those who left travelling quite widely as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga.

I also note the current text is perilously close to a copyvio of one of the sources cited. We cannot allow a copyvio to persist.

Noting this an overview article, which should be cluttered with tangential information, I would suggest we correct this with:

“ Following the occupation of the town by Hapsburg forces most of the population abandoned the town. ”

WCM_email 16:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Pro-Hapsburg" would be better, I think, as most of the forces involved weren't actually from Hapsburg territories. Kahastok talk 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made a question 3 times here (and several times to each of you personally) regarding the last consensus of the article. I must say I find it rude your ignoring it. Anyhow, I will answer your comments while I wait an answer from you:

1. No, neither Jackson nor other source that I know of (and I have done an important documentation job) say anything about "70 families" remaining. They do mention other numbers and measures, though (more than 98% did leave). Given the importance you give to having access to sources, I suppose you can look it up. Can you please quote Jackson's text about "70 families" here?

(please don't ignore this question too, or I will have to assume you have a case of "do as I say not as I do").

2. Yes, but. Jackson says that some travelled to other places, but "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."

I don't agree with the sentence. The nearby destination of the people that were displaced by the take-over is important and is cited by many sources. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To note, I have received guidance that close paraphrasing of the source is a copyvio. See Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. As it is almost a verbatim quote, as a copyvio it should be removed.

To answer the above:

• You are correct, I made a small error. But Jackson does support 70 people chose to stay, so to say the entire population left is inaccurate. I'm unsure why you are quibbling so much about details but the fact remains the text you wish to see in the article is inaccurate.
• You acknowledge that to claim the population settled exclusively in the area of the Campo de Gibraltar is incorrect. However, you don't provide a convincing reason why it is so necessary to mention the development of settlements elsewhere after Gibraltar was captured. There are many tangential facts on this topic, eg we could state as a piece of trivial information that during the great siege a number of innovations in firearms and artillery design were made. But we don't because its not germane to providing an overview of the history of Gibraltar. The main topic of this article should be the focus, it is not about San Roque.

So at the moment, you have reverted to restore a copyvio to the article, I am giving you the opportunity to self-revert whilst we discuss content further. WCM_email 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's first dicuss part 1 and then part 2, if you will.

Ok, so we agree that more than 98% of the population of Gibraltar left the city right after the take-over. We also agree that a bit below 2% of the inhabitants did stay. There's no discussion about those two points (thank god, or Jimmmy Wales, or William Jackson or George Hills or whomever).

You say the text is not right because it doesn't mention that some Gibraltarians did stay.

I think that those are details about less than 2% of the population and, therefore, are not germane to providing an overview of the history of the majority of the population of Gibraltar.

Anyhow, if you think that it is important, I am ready to accept a text that goes into details and says that not all of the population of Gibraltar left.

Once we go into details, I would ask you, in return, to accept (in part 2) that the article mentions that those 98% didn't dissapear into thin air or left randomly elsewhere, but that the most important part of them (as per Jackson and others) didn't get too far, but they established in Campo de Gibraltar taking with them their belongings and much of the heritage (documents, banner, etc.) of the city of Gibraltar. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I take it from the rather crude way you attempted to turn my argument against me, you accept the basic premise. Allow me to respond there is a flaw in your logic, we don't have to be inaccurate and the text I proposed already deals with it. Nor does it ignore the fact that the majority of the population left. There is also a flaw in your logic in asserting the Spanish heritage of Gibraltar went with them. Gibraltar has its own heritage and we should only include material germane to modern Gibraltar. If you're saying the Spanish heritage was wiped out, you're undermining yourself as it has become irrelevant. WCM_email 10:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The text you just edited deletes the mention of the destination of the exodus. It avoids a very important episode in the history of Gibraltar, cited by numerous relevant secondary sources. You will have to develop a new consensus before you edit the text, as per WP:BRD.

I see some logic in what you propose about the exceptions of the population that did not leave, but I think that the text has to mention the destination of the exodus and the legacy of Gibraltar in the nearby Campo.

I have taken note of your "citation needed" warnings and have extended the references so that we can now avoid those warnings.

I am returning to the previous consensus text (solving the citation needed problems that worried you). Please do not make unilateral edits for some days while we discuss here.

I haven't been able to find the text that you say violates copyright. Can you please quote here the exact text from the source so that we can compare it to the article? Thanks!

As you see, with some effort we can make progress, but we all need to be more patient and respect consensus. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given you a google books link to text, what is in the article is a close paraphrase of the text in that source. And I have made it plain that what I introduced was a temporary measure. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert but you chose not to. The tags I added were because the text was inaccurate and didn't reflect the sources, you've just added more sources and the text still doesn't reflect what the sources say. Much as I hate to comment on editors rather than content, I don't see your actions as being in good faith. You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. For the record I don't see a convincing need to delineate what happened to people after they left Gibraltar in an article that is intended to be an overview of Gibraltar. You haven't provided a convincing reason otherwise. WCM_email 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

re copyvio: I see three pages in the google books link you provided, but I can't find the phrase that you fear might violate copyright. It would be easier to discuss the copyvio if you quoted the text here.

re editing the article: Precisely, what BRD (and Kahastok) says is that if you make an edit and it is reverted to the last consensus, you should come here and discuss. You have made several edits, all of them deleting the reference to Campo de Gibraltar that was in the last consensus. You shouldn't keep reverting-the-reverts and making different tries of deleting what you don't like as "temporary edits".

This is not a threat to you, but to all of us. You have been blocked or banned in this article at least three times. Myself and Kahastok were banned once. The last time, the discretionary measures insisted that we find consensus here before making edits (temporary or not).

Getting back to constructive discussion, can you please quote here the text from the source that you say is violated by the article? - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Quotes in citations are not intended to be used for adding big (selectively picked) chunks of editorialising text. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)