Talk:Gibraltar

Sources

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

Panoramic Photo of airport and environs

All, I have my own panoramic photo of the airport, bay and La Linea uploaded, let me know if you think this would make a nice addition to the article.

Lipatden (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice image. I'd just suggest that, before you make a bold edit, that you check the opinions of the Good Article reviewer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar/GA1, who said: There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article." Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to mediation

I have seen that Wee Curry Monster has returned the article to his preferred version of an episode under discussion (removing the atrocities during the capture and the reference to the exodus to San Roque), without consulting the mediator or other editors. I kindly ask him and others to return to the discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Our mediator, Lord Roem, closed the case as you had not responded or participated for nearly two weeks. I can at any point make a bold edit if I wish, I agreed not to during the mediation case, which I remind you that I initiated. I have kept to that promise, so I would like an apology for the inference that I have breached that agreement. Further, the text is not my preferred text. It was proposed by another editor User:Pfainuk. My preferred text would be of much greater brevity, I chose a text written by another editor that covered the range of opinions in the literature. I object to the accusatorial tone of that comment and request that you apologise for it.

Again you refer to a claim that I have removed "atrocities", again please provide a reference to support the use of that emotive term or apologise and strike it out.

During mediation it was demonstrated that the text is not neutral as it does not provide due coverage of the range of opinions mentioned in the literature. It also omits significant facts as indicated by the range of coverage in the literature. It thus fails WP:NPOV.

It also emerged during mediation, that you do not have access to any sources at all. You rely on the use of google snippets to find fragments of text to support your edits. Your edits are not reliably sourced per WP:RS and WP:V. Pfainuk with access to multiple sources, has proposed an edit that represents the range of opinion in the literature. As such it is an improvement on text that fails to meet NPOV.

May I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". If you cannot elucidate an objection to my edit, other than "no concensus to change", can I ask you to self-revert to a version that meets the policy of WP:NPOV and engage in the discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have stated their objections for over a year (literally hundreds of times) to removing the rapings, desecrations and plunder during the capture (call them atrocities or whatever you want), and removing the exodus to San Roque. And you know this too well (you have been sanctioned several times during this discussion), so it's a bit surreal that you ask me whether I "cannot elucidate an objection" now.

I stated in the discussion four options in the mediation cabal discussion, which cover all posibilities of a specific detail we were discussion: Not mention A nor B, mention A not B, mention B not A, mention A and B. You have managed to discard all of them (which completely surprised me, I though this was an impossible outcome). I was completely despaired. I was hoping someone else would comment and help us out.

I am afraid you are pushing things quite a lot when you say I "do not have access to any sources at all". (at least, there are many books in my library and many books fully available -not only snippets- in google books...)

I pray someone helps us out, because I don't see how to go on with the discussion. Which, of course, does not mean that you (or I) are justified to remove anything you don't agree with without consensus after months of discussion. Let's engage in discussion and reach consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Imalbornoz. Is there anything that we haven't yet said in this discussion? I too am willing to try again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you both to comment on the edit not the editor.

One thing at a time, just so I understand you, if I were to include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty, then you would have no objection to Pfainuk's edit. Could you please confirm that?

For the record Imalbornoz, by your own admission, you acknowledged during mediation that you didn't have access to any of the sources you were using. Your sole source of access was Google Snippets. May I remind you that precisely the same texts (Jackson, Hills et al) are used to support the current text. If you have many books, then I suggest you bring some supporting cites from them and perhaps share with us the same extended quotations you demand of others. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us your suggested text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So the position is, Imalbornoz is not willing to make any compromises to resolve this point and is instead going to insist that we give massively undue weight to one particular point, regardless of the weight it is given by the sources?

We need compromise from you here, Richard and Imalbornoz. If you want to reach a solution, we need to see how you're willing to do it. Don't keep asking us to come up with the suggestions: you know what the objections are, how do you intend to address them. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How many more examples do you want from me Richard? I have already produced many suggestions.

Can I also address a question to you, Richard. Which sources do you have access to and how do you personally decide on due relevance, given you previously admitted to having no domain knowledge of the subject? Do you feel this is the best approach to writing articles?

So again I ask a simple question taking one bite at a time - if I were to include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty, then you would have no objection to Pfainuk's edit. Could you please confirm that? This is a yes/no answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, can we have a suggested text. Past experience suggests that this is the only approach with any chance of getting anywhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I currently have multiple projects on the go. I'm unwilling to take the time to compose an edit where I have to guess as to what precisely your objection is, to which you will then object if I guess wrong. Then demand that I again propose an edit, still not knowing what your objection is.

So could you please address the questions put to you. i.e. what sources are you using Richard and would you object to Pfainuk's edit if I modified it along the lines suggested. Please not the first question has been asked twice now and the latter 3 times. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You want my objections to a hypothetical text? I don't think this will get us anywhere useful. Let's have your proposed version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No I wish you to address the two questions I put to you. Asked 3 and 4 times respectively now. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what I might say in response to a text I can't identify with ill-specified additions, and I don't propose to carry on this conversation any longer. Unless you can draft a proposed version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What sources are you using Richard, its a pretty simple question - asked 4 times now.

Is your objection that I must include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty? Asked 5 times now.

I do not think it unreasonable that you identify your objections if you demand I must provide a new text for you to consider. How many times do I have to ask for you to actually delineate what your problem is, or identify where it comes from. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard: Curry Monster and I have both made proposals, and you have rejected them - but I for one am not at all clear as to why you in particular rejected them. Could you detail your objection to the texts proposed here - and in particular the text proposed here - please? Note that I would like more than vague references to previous discussions. This discussion has been so long that I would consider it unreasonable to expect any editor to trawl through the archives for objections made texts other than those being proposed.

Also, since we're all working toward a common consensus here, I believe that it would be useful for you to come up with proposals as to how you think we can most easily come to a consensus. The objections to the current wording that need to be addressed are described in some detail here, so there should be no problem in determining the issues that you need to consider. Your providing a text that attempts to address these objections would improve our situation by giving us all a greater understanding as to your view as to what the most appropriate text would be, potentially allowing for progress on our sticking points here.

If no reasoned objections to my proposed edit - as included by Curry Monster per WP:BOLD - are forthcoming, then I will reinstate it on the basis that no objection of substance appears to have been made against it. Simply saying that it needs to be discussed is inadequate unless you are actually willing to engage in discussion - discussion about the specific point. It is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia to revert solely on the basis that you claim no consensus. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, could we have this proposed edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Pfainuk talk 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're planning to make an edit but not to discuss it here first? And you'd like my agreement in advance? I don't think this is appropriate. Is it time to ask our mediators for help? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it as understood, therefore, that you are thus unwilling to explain what your objection to the proposals referred to in my comment of 19:17 (including the one that triggered this discussion) - nor to raise any counterproposal that would attempt to address objections to the status quo. If this were the case, it would imply a total unwillingness to engage in the consensus-building process in good faith and could reasonably be described as disruptive editing. Pfainuk talk 08:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't prevent you from taking things in any sense you like. But I am not giving prior consent to an edit that you seem willing to make, but not to offer for preview. Nor do I feel inclined to reprise kilobytes, possibly by now megabytes, of discussion in an attempt to identify, then try to find some new comment on, whatever I am to guess your proposal may be. I will say that per WCM above if we were to "include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty" or some other less-inflammatory agreed text about the misbehaviour, that would probably go a long way towards consensus. As we all know, there is a national narrative that finds these facts embarrassing and would like them consigned to oblivion, and oblivion does not sit easily with NPOV. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you presume my comments were intended to be inflammatory then let me be the first to apologise, they were not intended to be so. But I do find the constant use of emotive language such as references to "atrocities" and the almost theatrical outrage at the events of 300+ years ago to be most inflammatory. Equally the constant accusations of suppressing facts, when we have constanly and consistently indicated a willingness to work on a compromise text to meet your concerns. If we could actually focus on content without the use of inflammatory language or accusations such as the above, which have been a persistent feature of discussions, then perhaps the discussion might not become so heated.

You are mistaken about national narratives Richard. I presume you are referring to Garratt and claiming that the British find these facts embarassing and, please, let us be frank about where you're finger pointing. Those comments may have had a ring of truth in the 1930s but they are not representative of modern British literature or even 18th Century accounts. The problem as I see it, is that you are relying on 3rd party comments, you haven't actually read the literature for yourself and you aren't contributing based on an informed opinion gained from research; by your own admisssion Richard have no domain knowledge of your own. Again the comments and inferred accusation are inflammatory and hardly conducive to a reasonable dicussion.

The elephant in the room is not that British nationalism wishes to suppress these events but that Spanish nationalism promotes them to advance its modern sovereignty claim. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". The article as currently written promotes the Spanish national narrative and it fails WP:NPOV by not addressing the range of opinions in the literature.

At the moment we are at a point, where you offer no counter proposal to what has been suggested to address concerns over the current content but demand that we propose another content suggestions after you have consistently vetoed each and every suggestion put forward. Do you feel this is reasonable Richard? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We might constructively approach this from at least two angles; we could try Vassyana's suggestions at the top of this page and start by listing the point made by RS, or we could try discussing a possible text. Either might end in a consensus text. Endless complaints about other editors are unlikely to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to complain about texts being inflammatory, may I suggest that you should also be objecting to Imalbornoz's consistent use of inflammatory language to describe this subject.

I pointed you to specific proposals in my comment of 19:17 last night, and asked you to detail your objections to them. You have refused. I asked you to detail your objections to the edit that provoked this discussion. You have refused. Neither would have been difficult to find, and I don't think it unreasonable to ask you to tell us why you object to an edit when you try to veto it. I asked you to make a proposal that would attempt to resolve the objections made to the status quo. Again, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, but you have refused to do that as well.

There is little point in either me or Curry Monster blundering about in the dark, offering text after text, if you will continue to reject every one without telling anyone what your objection is.

As I implied this morning, amongst the definitions of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits". It seems to me that this would pretty well describe your behaviour on this article, and as such I would ask you to cease disrupting this article. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard to imagine how we might proceed constructively. Trying to force in an edit that has been repeatedly rejected probably isn't a good approach. But we could, as Vassyana suggests, start by listing the points that the sources make. Or we could start at the other end, by suggesting a text, preferably one that takes into account suggestions and discussion already available at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18. An idea that begins to look quite attractive is for all four of us to take a year's break from Gibraltar and related articles, so that we can use out talents more constructively elsewhere. Thoughts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard do you have access to any sources? I keep asking the question and you avoid answering.

As we found at Mediation, it would appear Imalbornoz doesn't have access to sources. And as I found at WP:RSN google snippets is not considered a reliable way of sourcing edits.

Pfainuk has earnestly tried to address problems with the text, which didn't accurately reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. Whilst I consider the edit is overkill for an overview it is much better than the text that preceded it.

I will be taking a break for a while but when my current projects are finished I intend to bring this up to FA standard as I have been trying to do for the last 2 years. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede Discussion

Income from the naval base was the predominant source of income till the 1980s. Since then the economy has diversified. It hasn't been the case for about 30 years. Is it worth mentioning in the lede per discussion tab. Dodds's paper for the BBC History would provide a suitable cite for its past importance and modern irrelevance. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, it doesn't seem current enough for the lede. It would be a real relief to stop going over old ground! What about moving from the present: "It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population.[dubious – discuss" to simply "It became an important base for the British Royal Navy"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I have no objection to that, my suggestion was going to be "It was an important base for the British Royal Navy but today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.[4][5]" Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me, but of course it still has some importance (let's not argue about exactly how much!) as a base for the Royal Navy. What about "it became" an important base, otherwise as you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] 2 x 16 m Patrol Launches and 3 x 6.5 m RIB. I'd say "was" is appropriate, we have no mediterranean fleet anymore. Per Dodds, the base is now a few % points of the economy, prior to 1980 it was 60%. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, do you want to make the edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. If the article stays stable for a while we might consider reviving our earlier text proposal on the sovereignty issue. I'm planning a break for a while. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's OK with me. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for Reverts

User:Pfainuk proposed an edit to deal with POV issues with the current text identified in mediation. There has been no objection that the POV issues existed. Various solutions have been suggested, we have asked you to explain your objections but there have been none.

The edit has gone unchallenged, a new consensus has been established and you cannot simply return and demand after an absence and demand we turn the clock back to your last visit. Explain your objections to Pfainuk's text please.

I do not intend to revert again but I will make a 3RR report if there is another revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could restart this discussion. I'm willing to try, though I can't think of much to say that hasn't already been said. I still think we'd all do better to concentrate on other issues for a long time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK here is a suggestion.

Lets take a couple of sources. Say Jackson or Hills or any one of a number of historical treatises on Gibraltar.

Lets look at the page space devoted to the capture in total.

Lets count how many sentences are devoted to detailing the exodus.

Lets count how many sentences are devoted to explaining why Gibraltar was selected for capture.

And then lets compare that data with the article that we currently have here. This will then give us a metric to identify whether the coverage in the article is proportionate to the actual coverage in the literature. Imalbornoz is always insisting on a metric for consideration of inclusion, what is wrong with what I've just proposed.

So to start this process, could you and Imalbornoz identify the sources you're using. And by identifying sources, I mean sources actually in your possession. Whether it is Garratt, Jackson, Hills, Bradford, Francis or any of the commmon sources I have access to them.

Also the definition of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits".

So as previously requested, could you offer proposals to address the POV issues we've identified? Could you detail your objections to the edit proposed by User:Pfainuk?

Simply vetoing any proposal put forward claiming "No consensus to change", without explanations and refusing to engage in talk is disruptive. Please put forward your proposals for dealing with the issues identified. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To which I'd add a self-revert to the current consensus would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The revert was deeply contentious. Pfainuk and WCM (especially WCM, after several sanctions) know it. I have been away trying to forget a bit about this dispute already two years long and when I return I find that -yet again- some people want to remove some events. Please notice that the contentious edit has been there for 5 days (not weeks). The previous text has been there for months (or even a year).

If someone has a problem with the wording, please propose some new wording here in the talk page. For the sake of consensus, I will explain (again) my position:

• I am ready to agree with alternative wording (and I am sure WCM also is -yes, I believe there is some light here).
• The rapings, looting and desecrations that took place after the capture are very notable and relevant, so the alternative wording should not eliminate the reference to those events. If the words sound ugly to someone, propose a different wording that sounds better but does not eliminate those facts.
• The exodus to San Roque is very notable and relevant, so the alternative wording should not eliminate the reference to those events.
• If you want to include additional references to the capture "in the name" of the Habsburg Archduke, it's only fair to include some reference to factual English rules (free port declaration by Queen Anne, English Governors).

I am sure we can find some agreement between my position and yours. Let's try once more if you want. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are ready to accept an alternative wording, I believe it would be a good idea if you were to suggest alternative wordings that take account of the objections raised against the current wording here and here.

The violence was already mentioned by the text that you reverted. Please identify the basis on which you claim that the extra detail in your proposal is "very notable and relevant". Bear in mind that relevance and notability can only be defined in relation to the weight given to the point by individual reliable sources, so I suggest that you do this based on the weight given to this point by individual sources.

Please also identify the basis on which you claim that a mention of San Roque is also "very notable and relevant". Again, this can only be judged based on the weight given by individual reliable sources - in particular, it cannot be demonstrated by giving a raw count of sources. We are looking for the weight provided by individual sources, not the number of books that happen to mention a point that may also be significant to some other topic.

Please finally identify - again, based on the weight provided by individual reliable sources - on what basis you claim that, if we mention the fact that Gibraltar was captured in the name of Archduke Charles, "it's only fair" to mention Queen Anne's declaration as well. In particular, this would seem to require sources that both treat the latter point as a counter to the former point, and give it similar weight to the former point.

If you are not willing to do this, then I'm afraid I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect me to take vague statements that something is "very notable and relevant" as an objection of substance. Pfainuk talk 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would endorse those comments, with the addition of a note that the POV tag associated with this text has not been restored, the POV issues with the text have been clearly articulated and repeatedly this text is restored without inclusion that is has been tagged for POV issues. In the spirit of co-operative discussion I would request Richard self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think the main objections during these two years have been about too much detail regarding the rapes, desecrations and looting. I think those words are already a summary (they don't go into the details of the separate events of looting during and after the capture of individual homes and almost all churches, the rapings in Our Lady of Europe Chapel and other rapings, the desecrations of Our Lady of Europe and every single church except one defended by its curate...). BUT I am tired of discussing this and am READY TO AGREE to a summary of the summary (even though I think it is not necessary), with the condition (or the hope) that we finish this discussion so that we can dedicate this time to more productive things. Pfainuk already agreed to the current text but then changed his mind after "The Return of the Justin Jedi". Please, I am really hoping that we all are able to honor the consensus we reach now. Are you ready to agree to this?

(About the POV note: Sorry, I will restore it right now, WCM). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content not the editor. I would request you remove that personal comment and apologise for it. In addition, please remove the reference to my identity given that I have changed my editing ID for reasons of off-wiki harassment (you are aware of this). Using it again with a derogatory comment is doubly insulting and insensitive. I also note you fail to recognise that Pfainuk has already indicated that he felt pressured into that agreement and was never happy with it.

The text proposed by Pfainuk is already a summary and eliminates POV issues, on that basis I'd request you self-revert and yes I will be prepared to discuss it, as I always have been. And yes I have better things to do that argue for our WP:NPOV policy to be honoured and in particular for WP:DUE coverage per the sources. You've repeatedly requested a metric to judge WP:DUE, well I proposed one above. Please indicate your response to that.

In addition, you've been repeatedly asked to identify your sources to hand. You constantly refer to the importance of sources and have repeatedly stretched my good faith with the inferrence that I was not accurately sourcing my edits. It was particularly galling to find that you sourced your edits using Google snippets which is not a reliable source. So going forward I feel it is important to identify which sources are being used to identify the due coverage in the literature.

Finally, you've both been repeatedly asked to identify exactly what your issue with the current text is and to offer your own proposals. Please do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My objections (again):

• The rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned (not necessarily with those words): Pfainuk's text ("they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant") does not comply with this requirement.
• The exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History, and thus must be mentioned. Pfainuk's text does not mention this episode at all.

My proposal:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a largely Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. ”

That's it. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but I was coming to a very similar point independently. (Also I'd have reinstated the tag myself if it hadn't been done first.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You state (but do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned". Why, in your view, and based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail?

You state (but again do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History". Again, based on the weight given in individual reliable sources, in what way is this "notable and relevant"?

All you've done here is state a position. You've not made any attempt to justify it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you do so.

I would also note that I do not consider your paraphrasing of your point to be a "summary of a summary". Your text does not summarise the previous version, it merely uses euphemisms - which certainly does not address the serious undue weight that the existing text puts on the violence. I would also note that it entirely fails to provide adequate historical context, so it means that our readers still don't get told why Gibraltar was captured. This is a point that Jackson, IIRC, devotes several pages to, and that would seem to be very relevant to our readers' understanding of the capture. Again, I would like to hear the reasons why you feel that our readers should not be told why Gibraltar was captured.

Indeed, the only people who seem to be allowed reasons for their actions in this are the townspeople. Why is this? You say fairly explicitly that they left because they felt the town was too dangerous. But then promptly contradict that by pointing out that they themselves said they left out of loyalty to Philip. The sentence flat out contradicts itself in the space of barely twenty words. And that section where you mention Philip is itself distinctly strange. The Bourbon claimant to what? San Roque? How are our readers supposed to understand the relevance of Philip and the Bourbons when you've taken out the bit that explains it? Why, in your view, is the townspeople's support for the Bourbons acceptable but the largely Anglo-Dutch force's support for Hapsburgs unacceptable?

Given all of this, I think it's clear that I cannot support this text. But you will note that I have given rationales behind my objections here. I would ask you to do the same. Pfainuk talk 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I would endorse that viewpoint. This is doing nothing but state a national narrative, which was promoted by the Fascist Dictator General Franco in the 1960s. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". It is selecting and giving undue prominence to certain facts, to promote such a narrative. It directly contradicts what the population themselves gave as a reason for their departure; their loyalty to Philip (and I concur with Pfainuk that it is written in a contradictory manner). In addition, other factors are mentioned in the literature such as the anticipation of a counterattack and the expectation their "exile" would be short.

You might like to check your named sources as well above as the link to Andrews doesn't work. I suggest you also check the Andrews reference you have as checking on Google snippets indicates to me that the cite you made doesn't support the edit. Perhaps you could provide us with the extensive quote you repeatedly ask others to provide.

I also note that yet again I have proposed a metric for deciding on due relevance. Imalbornoz has repeatedly requested that we use such "metrics", although his metric has usually been unfiltered google searches. I believe I've proposed a relatively simple way to measure due relevance.

I've also asked you to name the sources in your posession that you're using to source this edit and determine due coverage.

Again I remind the pair of you that amongst the definitions of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits". Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. I note my request for a self-revert has been ignored. Could I ask whether either of you intend to respond to that? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What about a version that includes more of the well-referenced facts that various editors think are of enough ongoing relevance to be included:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. ”

Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would reject that for precisely the same reasons that are delineated above. Its giving completely undue emphasis to certain facts and in doing so results in text that does not comply with NPOV.

Again I have proposed a metric for providing an objective measure of what is due relevance. Do you have any comment on it?

Again I've asked you to name sources that you're using to decide on due relevance. Can you do so please?

I asked if you would self-revert. Could you indicate your answer please?

Could you please address the points put to you by Pfainuk? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your metric could at least be helpful, but I don't think it should be a precise guide - RS don't necessarily use encyclopaedic criteria to decide on how much space to give things. If you'd like to go through the exercise this might be illuminating. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Proportion of a given text (the metric that you propose) is more an indicator of the number of details that a given event has than its notability and relevance. A very important event can take only one paragraph and yet be crucial. Likewise, years and years of unimportant events can take several chapters of a book...

Anyway, if you want, you can make the exercise of finding out in books about the history of Gibraltar the average proportion dealing with:

• Neanderthal
• the Conversos from Cordoba
• Operation Felix
• Suez Canal
• Battle of Trafalgar
• Phoenicians
• Carthaginians
• American Revolutionary War
• The capture episode...

Then you can tell us. I am sure this will be a very interesting contribution to the discussion, although it probably should not be the main criteria (in my opinion). But, please, do not hesitate to try with a large enough sample of relevant sources. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever claimed that the history section is perfect. Indeed, as I recall I've said several times that it needs a lot of work. Once we have resolved this issue I will be happy to consider your reasoned proposals for change to other areas of the section. However, the fact that there are a lot of other problems with the history section does not mean that we should not try to resolve this one.

Given your later comments, perhpas you could explain what you are basing your claim that the details of the violence, in your words, "have to be properly mentioned" and a "requirement" on? Bear in mind that per WP:NPOV, the weight we should be putting on points should be based on the prominence given to the point by reliable sources. Could we perhaps compare the weight that Jackson puts on the reasons behind the capture and the violence that occurred, for example? We could do with similar such evidence for your claim that San Roque is "notable and relevant".

I'd note finally Richard's text does not address the issue I raised with the last sentence, which is that it takes a position on the reason why the townspeople left. It says that they left because they "felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous". The fact that the letter is mentioned as an afterthought does not change this. Fact is, reliable sources give multiple reasons for the townspeople's departure, so giving a reason outright without giving the others as per both proposals would appear inaccurate. This is why I worded my proposal the way I did: to give reasons for the departure without actually saying it was this and this alone. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think two people are labouring under the understanding that I am expected to do all of the leg work. Well this is supposedly a co-operative enterprise and I expected that if you accepted my suggestion then you would be prepared to do the work as well. This is why I have repeatedly asked you both to name the sources in your possession. I've asked many times but the request is repeatedly ignored, which leads me to suspect that neither of you have access to any sources.

I also note that Richard has repeated verbatim an edit that it is claimed is supported by Andrews. This seems a neat trick to me, as the link does not work as the copyrighted work it referred to was removed from archive.org about 2 years ago. Using Google snippets I have investigated that claim and it appears to me that the cite does not support the claim. So again either Richard or Imalbornoz can provide me with the extensive quote from the source that you believe supports that edit. Again this isn't the first time I've asked, you expect us to provide quotes, please reciprocate.

I also note that the following points are not addressed:

“ You state (but do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned". Why, in your view, and based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail?

You state (but again do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History". Again, based on the weight given in individual reliable sources, in what way is this "notable and relevant"?

All you've done here is state a position. You've not made any attempt to justify it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you do so.

”

So again, could you please respond based on the weight given by individual reliable sources.

And again I've asked you to self-revert, could you please give me a response. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been proposing to change the last consensus. Even so, It's me who's been providing most evidence to the discussion (just for you to question it). But the truth is that the onus has always been on you (and at the moment I don't have much time to keep doing your job). I will be happy to discuss the evidence that you bring to eliminate the detail of the atrocities and the exodus of practically all of the Gibraltarians of 1704 to San Roque (BTW, your question about why this is relevant to Gibraltarians in history answers itself if you look carefully). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no. The onus is on you to fully justify your reverts. You should not revert an edit unless you are willing to justify that revert.

The onus is also on you to fully justify the claims that you want to see included. If you just state something is "notable and relevant", or that details "have to be properly mentioned", but then repeatedly refuse to make any kind of argument to back that up when invited to do so, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that this is because there is no argument for them. Indeed, such refusal is explicitly mentioned in WP:DE as a sign of a disruptive editor. If you are not willing to make any kind of argument to retain something when it is removed by another editor, then you should not reinstate it.

Bearing this in mind, I await your answers to the questions quoted by Curry Monster above with interest. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT

OK:

• My arguments for notability: here.
• My arguments for verifiability: here.
• My arguments for relevance: here.
• My arguments for NPOV: here.

Now, can we see your arguments against the notability, verifiability, relevance and NPOV of the description of the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque as they are mentioned in the last consensus text?

I also think that the question Richard posts below is very relevant. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Imalbornoz. For two years or more there have been suggestions that we should remove from this article a very brief and encyclopaedic description of the major facts about why the previous population of Gibraltar left, and where they went. These points are central to an understanding of major issues in Gibraltar at the time and now. To suggest removing them is, at best, a strange idea; it would require strong arguments and we have seen absolutely none. After so much time and so much raising of peripheral or frankly-irrelevant issues, I suspect that no such strong arguments exist. In fact, even a weak-but-relevant argument would make a welcome change. To put in more information is also perfectly defensible, but to remove what we have is not. Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that yet again the questions are avoided to instead indulge in bad faith attacks suggesting that editors wish to suppress facts. You state repeatedly in your opinion these facts are relevant and notable but you don't justify it on the basis of the weight given in the sources. Please do so.

The constant bad faith accusations of suppressing information is getting rather tiresome. The point I've made for some time is that of due relevance and if we are to disregard that then you do indeed have to include an awful lot more information that you have done. I've done precisely that and you both rejected it.

I also repeatedly asked you to state what the sources are that you're using to establish due relevance. You've failed to respond, am I to conclude you don't actually have access to sources? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned that including more information may indeed be a way forward. Can you put forward a draft of a consensus text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done so already - you vetoed it.

Again I ask the question, what sources are you using to establish due relevance? I mean how difficult is to answer such a simple question. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Given recent discussion, it is becoming clearer and clearer that there is no policy-based objection to this edit at all. From Imalbornoz's quotes above, the "argument for notability" is not accepted by policy, the "argument for relevance" is not an argument (let alone policy-based) and the "argument for neutrality" is not an argument for the existing text. And we can verify a lot of things, but that has never meant that they have to go into this or any other article. Richard makes no policy-based argument either.

At this stage, therefore, it seems reasonable to say that unless there is a policy-based objection to the proposed text forthcoming within the next twenty-four hours, I intend to restore it. Pfainuk talk 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor and I don't usually feel the need to repeat basic policies to you. But, to reiterate yet again, we are discussing (I think) your proposal to remove from the History section a brief comment on the violence that helped to persuade the previous population of Gibraltar to move out in 1704, and where they settled? The words are verifiable; they are suitably re-edited versions of those used by reliable sources, specifically Jackson and Hills (and I believe Sepúlveda, though I haven't yet verified this myself, an omission I will soon rectify). They are neutrally phrased and a lot of thought has gone into that neutrality - as Garratt points out these facts are discreditable to the invading force and some historians have preferred to omit them to avoid national embarrassment. They are given due weight by their very brief current mention - they were of prime importance to the Gibraltarians of the time, they determined much of the historical course of Gibraltar since then, and they have ongoing significance in the context of national discourse. I'm not puzzled by your preference to remove them - these things are, as we've recently been reminded, ultimately a matter of good editorial judgement, and in an overview article it's always arguable that any fact beyond the most basic should be pruned out. I accept that you have no national motives in trying to remove these items. But I am genuinely puzzled by why you should insist on their removal at such length and on such feeble grounds. Can you enlighten me? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources, a way forward?

Would it help to list what we consider reliable sources for the history section? Hoping to head off arguments about who is and who isn't a reliable source, perhaps a list of up to, say, half a dozen comprehensive histories would be acceptable? I hope also that this won't be too difficult to draw up. (If it is, this will be a fairly good sign that any proposed bibliometry is doomed from the start.) We could then all work from the same basic reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we have some sources we have used in the discussion:

• Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar.
• Dr. Johannes Kramer (1986). The History of Gibraltar: English and Spanish in Gibraltar. Buske Verlag.
• Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire.
• Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
• G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
• George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
• Ignacio López de Ayala (2010, first published in 1782). The History of Gibraltar: From the Earliest Period of Its Occupation by the Saracens. BiblioBazaar.
• Isidro Sepúlveda (2004) (in Spanish). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza. Madrid: Alianza. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.
• Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:
• Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.
• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.

I hope they are useful. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And how many of those do you have in your possession? As opposed to relying on google snippets. I'm happy to list what I have, I note you have both repeatedly refused to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The name "google snippets" is not accurate; it's "Google Books", actually. Therefore, "As opposed to relying on google snippets" is not accurate either, you know. In google books there's: Full View, Limited Preview, Snippet View, and No Preview Available. I recommend that you read the google books help page here.

Some of the books in the list above are in full view, others are in limited preview (with enough open pages dealing with our issue), some are in snippets ... Some of them were in full view outside google books when I consulted them (like Andrews), and others were in the possession of Ecemaml when he made the summaries and found them relevant to the article.

Could you please answer Richard's question now? Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I indicated I would answer Richard's question and will happily do so, delineating all of the sources I have either borrowed from the library or I actually own. As I'm at work it will have to wait till I get home.

Thank you for the lecture on Google books, I think you'll find I was referring to your use of Google Snippets to "find" cites to whatever content you wish to add. This is kind of putting the cart before the horse so to speak, as the recommended process is to read sources (note plural) and to decide content based on the weight given in reliable sources. As we found at WP:RSN, your practise of citing using Google Snippets was in the main not reliable sourcing.

I was also surprised to find during mediation that you didn't have either Jackson or Hills, since you use those sources to cite edits. That seemed most odd to me, as you continuously refer to the need to reliably source edits and have regularly made bad faith accusations as to my own sourcing. So I would really like you to name the sources you actually have access to.

You also claim Andrews is in full view, wonderful, I don't actually have a copy and I can't find one at the moment. I was most concerned when I looked at Google Snippets that it appeared your edit wasn't supported by the cite. I'm also slightly confused as you gave a reference to a snippet copy in mediation, repeatedly claiming it supported your edit, when it was actually about a much later period. Seeing as you have access to a full view of Andrews then you can provide extensive quotes to clear this up can't you?

So can we see those quotes from Andrews and have a list of sources you actually own. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT the relevant quote from the policy being Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. You can't use cites provided by Ecemaml, you have to do it for yourself. So to re-iterate, Google snippets are not WP:RS and cites provided by someone else doesn't meet WP:V. You have to see the source for yourself and in sufficient context to establish WP:DUE weight. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point - I just note that "sufficient context" doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing and "seeing it" does not have to imply holding it in paper form. What I'm trying to do is to establish, so that we can get on with our attempts at metrics, a reasonably short list of central references which we should all have access to in some form. Your list of sources follows; could I ask you to indicate which of them are in your opinion up-to-date, authoritative secondary accounts by recognized scholars in the area? If we are all working from the same set of authorities we might even manage to have a constructive discussion. When I have your list (or anyone elses's) I'll also search through "History of Gibraltar" on Amazon Books and see if we've missed anything obvious. And then I'll spend some money (my library isn't very accomodating with long-term loans), not too much I hope on not too many books, and we can have a discussion on really solid foundations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say it had to be in paper form? Sufficient context implies that you have sufficient access to the source to establish due relevance per the weight of opinion in the sources. If you don't have access to sources then I am at a loss to see how either of you can argue from the base of due relevance. Only now are you talking about accessing sources, you've obstructed edits claiming points were of limited relevance when you yourself had no access to sources whatsoever. Whats plain is neither of you have been in a position to argue on WP:DUE as plainly neither of you had access to sources. I would urge you to now self-revert and restore Pfainuk's text that replaced text that violated our NPOV policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster's Sources

I either own or have on long term loan from the library the following:

Hills, G. (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale.
Jackson, WGF. (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: A History of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Books. ISBN 9780948466144
Dodds, K (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: pp 18-21.
Bradford, E.(1971), The history of a fortress, Gibraltar, Rupert Hart-Davis
Francis, AD. (1975), The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713
Garrat, G.T. Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, 1939
Spilsbury, John. A Journal of the Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783.
Sayer, F. (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
Ancell, S. (1784) A Circumstantial Journal of the long and tedious siege of Gibraltar.
Mann, JH. (1873) A History of Gibraltar and its sieges
Field, Dr HM (1890) Gibraltar
Martin, RM (1887) History of the British Possession in the Mediterranean
Drinkwater, Col (1824) A History of the Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783
Acton, J. (2009) The Constitutional Foundations of Gibraltar; the EU and the Law, Triay & Triay, Gibraltar
James, T. (1771) A History of the Herculean Straits. Ignacio López de Ayala, The History of Gibraltar (I have the 1845 translation into English).

I have a number of other works on Gibraltar but they are rather specialist in nature and not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Of the above I would concentrate on Hills, Jackson, Francis and Bradford if you're going to purchase sources Richard. I've finally tracked down a copy of Andrews and will let you know if it is any good. Garratt was a free download from archive.org, though I'm not sure it still is.

Ayala I wouldn't rely on too much, modern historians (and I would emphasis both British and Spanish before I am accused of racism or suppression of facts) tend to discredit his account of the seizure. It was based on Romero's account written 20 yrs after the event and which misrepresents certain aspects of the events. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So we have Hills, Jackson, Francis and Bradford as suggestions so far? Garratt makes some useful points but I'd have said that 1939 is a bit too far back for us. Any other ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)