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)

I would first of all comment, that the comment "feeble grounds" is an indication of a presumption of a lack of good faith in the argument presented and is directed toward the editor not the content. As is the accusation of removal, when there is no intention to remove material merely summarise it.

I have no idea of Pfainuk's objections but let me offer my own.

I have never had a problem with the inclusion of this information. However, having access to sources I have been dumbfounded by the argument that inclusion of these facts is driven by WP:DUE, since the inclusion at length is grossly disproportionate to the weight attached to this by the sources. In addition, the text as currently written is far from neutral and definitively follows one line of the two national discourses and presents a one sided view favouring a particular national narrative. As it happens in this case it is that of the Spanish sovereignty claim as included in Spain's Red Book on Gibraltar. It thus fails NPOV.

There are a range of opinions put forward in the literature, if we are to include this information we should provide reference to all opinions in the literature giving due weight to each. However, each and every attempt to present the range of opinions has been vetoed with the argument "No Consensus to change". Simply reverting without dicussing the objections you have to an edit or stating "No Concensus" are not valid grounds for reverting.

With the latest text offered, Pfainuk asked a very direct question, given that his text refers to the violence and its consequences, why based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail? There has been no response to that, simply the reiteration of the same tired and worn argument that the more it is examined crumbles into dust.

WP:DUE is argued on the basis of Google Hits from carefully crafted searches predicated on key words. As best the results are confirmation bias in that the results are predicated by the search terms. In reality, this is not an acceptable way to determine due as we found at WP:NPOVN.

You don't have either Hills or Jackson to hand and the real clincher for me is that neither you nor Imalbornoz actually have any access to sources. As we've found Imalbornoz works from Google searches or 3rd hand information, you Richard have never had access to sources or even domain knowledge. How you can argue WP:DUE when you don't have access to sources to decide the weight of opinion is beyond me. Again we've found at WP:RSN unless you have access to sources you cannot quote them 3rd hand.

You repeat Garratt's accusation again and again that this is somehow embarassing to British historians. I do not accept this opinion of his is accurate. Byng's and Rooke's account included it in the 18th Century, as did Drinkwater later, it is in the 19th Century literature - Ayala's account was translated and published in 1845 for example, it is included in all the 20th Century literature including Garratt, Andrews, Hills, Jackson, Bradford and Francis. I am unaware of the basis for Garratt's comments but even a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be not founded on solid grounds. Now I have pointed this out to you repeatedly and yet you return to the same point again and again and again.

I would finish by pointing out that Pfainuk's edit does not remove this information, it summarises it and provides additional information to produce a text that is much better than what we have currently and has been crafted with access to sources giving due weight to individual points. This is an overview not an opus and as you yourself pointed out to Richard including all the details of who did what to who is just not appropriate for an overview. I personally still consider it is far more than is needed for an overview but am prepared to compromise on that to achieve a concensus. I would again ask you for a self-revert to a text that fulfills wikipedia's policies. As an experienced editor you must know that your objections to Pfainuk's proposal are not sustainable under wikipedia's policies. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is ironic that Richard starts by saying he is "repeat[ing] basic policies" to me - only to then fail to make any policy-based argument at all. The claim that the status quo is due weight, notably, does not make any reference to sources (even to back up its own highly debatable claims). The claim that it is neutral boils down to a statement that it is neutral with no attempt to back it up. The statement that it is verifiable is beside the point. The claim that I propose that there not be mention of the violence is patently false, and I learn that Richard and I have almost alarmingly different definitions of the words "very brief". The contrast with Curry Monster's source-based points on weight and neutrality is stark.

It is, however, a touch disturbing that a lack of neutrality (through the use of undue weight) - a failure in one of Wikipedia's core three content policies - is dismissed as "feeble grounds" to alter an article.

It's been just over twenty-three hours since my last post. I'm happy to wait the extra hour before re-adding, to see if any policy-based argument pops up. But I haven't seen one so far. Pfainuk talk 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't know how to make it any clearer, but this section does at least elucidate why we're never going to reach a consensus on this issue. I still don't understand how you can justify, even to yourself, removing very brief description of major elements of the story of Gibraltar and replacing them with whitewash, but I will simply have to accept this as one of the mysteries of life. I will comment that your attempts above to make this removal a matter of fundamental Wiki principles strike me as simply bizarre; this is a matter of editorial judgement. It seems clear to me that due weight requires or at least strongly suggests mention of why almost all the population left and where they went. I have yet to see any actual argument that suggets otherwise.

I have re-edited so as to replace the elements of the long-standing consensus. I have not simply reverted; other referenced details have been supplied which may well improve the article, and I have left them. I have also removed the reference to Andrews since the external link is defunct, I don't have immediate access to the text, and we have a perfectly good reference for the point anyway. I hope that this is time to move on to more fruitful endeavours. Failing that, perhaps a request for external comments would be better than this incredible, futile debate? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again there is the accusation of removing material, material has not been removed it has been summarised and in doing so better represents the weight of opinion in the literature. This is a fundamental wikipedia principle per WP:NPOV, the text you constantly impose does not - it represents a single opinion and you have vetoed any attempt to redress this imbalance. You must know this is not a sustainable argument.

Again please explain to us, how you are able to assess WP:DUE without recourse to sources. You do not possess any sources.

You refer to Jackson as a source, a source you do not possess. Please refer to WP:RSN#Is a cite reliable if it is 3rd hand? and I will quote one of the responses Editors are not allowed to use material from sources they have not seen. If they have not seen the sources — complete and with the material or quote in its full context, none of this "snippet" nonsense — then they cannot use them. If they don't have (have not seen) such sources as are authoritative for that topic then I would question their competence to do any substantial editing of the article. I added the emphasis as it had an empathic meaning for me. You suggest external opinion, well we have sought external opinion and with the information that has emerged your position is simply not sustainable under wikipedia's polices. You still have not stated what is wrong with Pfainuk's edit - you merely state your 'a priori' position.

If anything does give reason why there has never been any agreement, it stems from the fact that editors on one side have always been arguing on the basis of WP:DUE based on a reasonable view compiled from reading and collating sources. I am unable to understand how anyone can argue their edit is due coverage when they do not have access to sources and are relying on selected 3rd hand information or Google snippets. I have reverted your edit on that basis - you will note I have explained my objections by the way. We can perhaps reopen the debate when you have accessed and read the sources but I would confidently expect a competent wikipedian to acknowledge Pfainuk's edit as superior to the previous text. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I note the failure to engage in talk before reverting. I have clearly identified the problem with your edit and you've failed to address it. I have asked you to self-revert rather than edit war to impose a text that is not sustainable, please do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting even more strange. You have straightforwardly removed major points in the history of Gibraltar and justify this as giving a fuller range of opinions? I have restored the fuller version. I can only suggest outside opinion at this point. RfC perhaps, or would any concerned admins care to comment? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, is that a refusal to self-revert? Pls note the outside opinion I refer to above.Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting the outside opinion above, that it is not possible to determine due weight without access to sources and it seems clear that Richard is not going to self-revert I have reluctantly reverted. I don't plan on any further reverts and fervently hope Richard will engage in a constructive talk page discussion.

By this I mean recognising that summarising is not removing and recognising the need for edits to be sourced by editors who have access to sources and able to make a value judgement on due weight. I would hope there is no further comments about "bizarre" behaviour or accusations of censoring or suppressing material, or bad faith attacks labelling editors as "incompetent".

I would welcome outside opinion, please note this was sought before Pfainuk made the edit. Could we start by explaining why you think your edit merits inclusion based upon the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

3 reverts in one day to restore text for which the two editors responsible have no access to sources to back up their comments on WP:DUE. I am disappointed but not surprised. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Added back the NPOV tag and await with interest an explanation how you can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources. I will restore the edit in 24 hrs if one is not forthcoming. Note neither editor has chosen to engage the issue in the talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is becoming clearer and clearer what's going on here and it is pure obstructionism on the part of Richard and Imalbornoz. They repeatedly revert edits - citing WP:BRD - but in every case refuse outright to make any attempt to justify their reverts using policy or even argument, instead making accusations of bad faith against other editors. They repeatedly refuse to answer questions about their objections, something defined by WP:DE as a sign of disruption. The arguments that have been made for the status quo have all been well and truly discredited, and there is not a single policy-based argument - or even attempt at a policy-based argument - against the edit.

If there is an actual policy-based objection to my edit, please tell me what it is. If you are not willing to, please revert back to it. These are the only choices that are available to you, Richard and Imalbornoz, according to policy and guidelines. It is fast approaching the point where I will feel I have no choice but to go to WP:AE and ask administrators to prevent the disruption caused to this article by the continual refusal to explain what the problem with this edit is. Pfainuk talk 17:11, 30 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)

I am trying to see if we need any more sources. If you wait a bit, I intend to be back soon with an answer. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully these will be sources you actually have. I'm still waiting for the extensive quotes from this full copy of Andrews that you have. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a consensus list of top-quality reliable sources, not to compete for the largest personal library. Any more suggestions? Pfainuk? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Recourse to some sources would be an improvement over none. I note I am yet to see the requested quote from Andrews to demonstrate that the edit is supported by the cite. From the evidence I have seen to date, it does not. I note you've dropped that particular claim but still cite sources you've never seen other than selected quotes from a 3rd party. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUE policy applied to this dispute

WCM and Pfainuk, you want to remove (at least from the overview article) the episode about the widespread rapes, looting and desecrations by the occupying forces during the capture & the later exodus of the largest part of Gibraltarians to San Roque, and you justify it with the WP:DUE policy. What WP:DUE says is:

“ Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief. ”

If we only look at this policy, the key questions are: 1. Are these events only in a minority view (like Flat Earth, for example)? If they are, then we should decrease their weight. Otherwise, I can find no rationale to remove them mentioning this policy (maybe some other policy, but not this one). 2. Are there different viewpoints about these facts (e.g. does any mainstream source say that they did not happen, or that the rapes/desecrations/lootings/exodus did not happen the way they are described)? If there are, then we should mention them giving due weight to each one in proportion to their prominence. If the current text reflects the overwhelmingly mainstream view, then we should not remove them (at least according to the DUE policy).

To make things clearer:

3. Can you please cite the part of WP:DUE on which you base the removal of these events?

4. Pfainuk & Wee Curry, have you found a majority view that denies these events? Have you found alternative theories?

Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For what must be about the three-hundredth time, the edit concerned does not remove mention of the violence that occurred. I know you've ignored that point every other time, but that doesn't make it not so. All the edit does is reduce the prominence on this point.

WP:WEIGHT notes that

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

It also notes (emphasis mine) that:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

And that:

in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

The notion that it isn't a problem if we give something massively more weight than is present in reliable sources is a novel reinterpretation of the rule, and it seems particularly shaky when the sections that are given this massive undue weight also happen to be the very points that one of the modern claimants currently uses as part of its modern arguments in a dispute - as in this case. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Again: What "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" are not mentioned in the fragment you dispute about the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque?
• You raise an interesting point: Which is the weight "appropriate to its significance to the subject" (Gibraltar and its inhabitants) in the case of an episode of widespread rapings, desecrations and looting of the city of Gibraltar and its inhabitants? And the significance to Gibraltar and its inhabitants of a massive exodus of almost the whole town, the largest part of which went to San Roque (as mentioned by almost all sources)?
• "Prevalence: the quality of prevailing generally; being widespread" Are the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque not widespread among almost all of the sources?

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the problem of giving massively undue weight to facts from reliable sources is given in the essay WP:CHERRY. In favouring one national narrative and neglecting to reflect the weight of opinions (note plural) this text you favour seems to me to be an example of just that. I note that we still have not seen precisely what your objection to the Pfainuk's text is, and your only comments misrepresent what the edit says.

Tell me again, as I have asked this repeatedly, how can you decide due weight when you don't have access to sources? I also ask you how you have established due weight without recourse to sources. Pfainuk's edit is based upon giving due weight to these events, based upon reference to reliable sources. I only repeat these questions by the way as you have repeatedly avoiding answering them.

The principle sources cited are Hills and Jackson you admit you have neither. Both are only available in Google Books in snippet view. There is no way you can establish the weight of opinion in the sources attached to these events from snippets. We sought external opinion at WP:RSN and the weight of external opinion there supports this viewpoint.

You claim notability on the basis of counting Google Hits. Again we sought external opinion at WP:NPOVN as to whether this was a valid argument. The weight of external opinion we found there is that this is not a valid means to establish notability.

You state you have no sources and have relied on a 3rd party to provide you with quotes. Again we have sought external opinion at WP:RSN and this is not acceptable.

We acknowledge these events are mentioned in reliable sources. That is not the issue. We do mention this in the edit but at a summary level appropriate for an overview. And to be honest even at this summarised level, the weight attached to these events is still disproportionate to their coverage in the literature.

And I can illustrate just how much your edit is giving undue weight with a simple metric based on bibliometry. Let us take Jackson as an example. He devotes Chapter 7 to the Capture. p89-93 are devoted to establishing the political landscape leading up to the dispatch of the forces including the various options to attack (inc. Gibraltar), p 94 is devoted to the decision to seize Gibraltar, p96-99 are devoted to the capture, p 101-103 covers preparation for the counter attack, p104-111 describe the siege and p112-p114 cover the period leading up to Utrecht. The events you attach such weight to merit a paragraph of a 1/3 page on p99 and the exodus a similar sized paragraph on p101. In one chapter of 25 pages, 2/3 cover these events (approximately 2.6% of the chapter) in a book of 311 pages (approximately 0.2% of the book) yet you dedicate 14% of the history section of this article to these events. You claim these events are more significant than Gibraltar's role in the Battle of Trafalgar, which Jackson devotes the whole of Chapter 11 (21 pages).

And again I would re-iterate Pfainuk's point, we do not remove anything merely summarise it appropriately. In insisting on this text, you have repeatedly excluded the weight of opinions in the literature to focus on a single opinion in the literature. As it happens that focus on a single opinion favours a particular national narrative.

I note yet again you use emotive language and refer to atrocities, yet when repeatedly asked to provide a reliable source to substantiate this you have utterly failed to do so.

Let me offer you a quote from Bradford, p101

“ To the citizen of the 20th Century, accustomed or the civilian casualties in war, and dulled to the annihilation of whole cities (or even nations), the horrified reaction of Gibraltar's garrison to the shelling of the town and its inhabitants may seem a trifle naive. But it must be remembered that in those days there was still a code of conduct in warfare, and some elementary humanity in those who waged it. ”

Should we be covering this noted atrocity, addressed in the very same sources you refer to? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Add from WP:WEIGHT

“ An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. ”

Which pretty much covers what is wrong with the current text. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it covers what's wrong with bibliometry as a device for deciding on due weight. To give a different illustration, I pick up a reliable source, Esmonde Cleary on "The Ending of Roman Britain", which has about one third of a page on the actual record of the ejection of Roman officials, in over 200 pages of detailed discussion. To take another page at random, it's a ground plan of Water Newton, and a random text page discusses the minimal archaeological evidence for possible overlap between Saxon and Romano-British populations. Our article Roman_Britain has about the same amount on the ejection, and very little of anything else - editors have correctly identified the due weight to be given to the central issue. The reasons why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went, are similarly central to our topic. Who's for an RfC? Admittedly the last one brought me, but I can't see us agreeing any time soon. Failing that, an admin prepared to issue a firm ruling? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I note two things. First of all you didn't address the point on WP:DUE, again, and your response is nothing but criticism by speculation.

Interesting. I have for some time argued that Bibliometry was not a suitable basis for deciding due relevance. From Day 1, Imalbornoz (example here) has argued on the basis of Bibliometry based upon the very crude measure of the number of raw hits in Google searches. The most crudely absurd bibliometry possible and yet you backed that argument. What I offered above, although crude is far more relevant. 20% of one chapter devoted to geopolitical considerations, 2.6% the details of the events of the capture - yet you insist on devoting 14% of the entire history section to discussing details rather than notable events and claim geopolitical considerations are not "notable".

And we are discussing relevant weight attached to details of the capture, not the capture itself which is the notable event. You're equating coverage of notable events with the details of those events and that is not the same argument. Its akin to discussing the luggage of the Roman officials, whilst discussing their expulsion.

I not you don't even have access to relevant sources, so how can you argue due weight and notability? If you remove this crude bibliometry, then there is absolutely no argument for continued inclusion.

And just to re-iterate the same point again. Richard. The exodus is not solely explained by the violence that occurred during the capture, there a multitude of opinions given. Your insistence on allowing only one and one that favours the Spanish national narrative is problematic. I note you do not address this but allege the converse that, like other British historians, we are "embarrassed" by these details and "eliminating" these details is the British national narrative. This is untrue and that can easily be demonstrated by two points. First of all, we have consistently suggested the coverage in the History of Gibraltar needs to include these details, secondly all British sources named include them, as the literature has consistently since the 18th Century. Finally, the claim we are "eliminating" these details is a false premise, they are not eliminated they are summarised. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would point also point out that above there are 3 examples of external opinion that basically say this situation is untenable under wikipedia's policies. Yet you still insist on perpetuating it, whilst demanding more external opinion, without responding to a simple request to identify how you can establish due weight without recourse to sources or to identify your issue with Pfainuk's edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually your comment that all recent good-quality sources do include these details, crudely backed by Imalbornoz's ingenious search, do provide a relevant (though far from decisive) bibliometric argument for inclusion, certainly more relevant than the space taken in individual sources. Just to reiterate, this is about including reasons why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went. I'd be happy enough to include more detail but not to leave out the bare essentials, for the experience of the population at the time, for local and international reaction, and for a long-term understanding of ongoing issues. This we have most recently expressed as:

“ ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances. These aims were frustrated when commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. 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 Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. ”

Shorter versions have been suggested and indeed one is in the article as I write - the one above included extra details suggested by yourself and Pfainuk. The current version is:

“ The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. 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. ”

Your version was:

“ ...but 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. ”

I don't see the outside opinions you describe, perhaps you could give diffs? Shall I start an RfC or does anyone have a better idea? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, so now your argument is that crude hit counts based on Google Searches are a measure of notability in direct contravention of the external opinion we have received. Interesting, so basically you're ignoring external opinion. "Imalbornoz's ingenious search" are you serious? You're continuing to insist this is a valid means of establishing notability?

Inclusion of details in a historical treatises on the complete history of Gibraltar are not compelling arguments for including said details in an overview, particularly when it excludes the inclusion of significant events as you are doing right now. Mere inclusion does not decide due weight and depth of detail, quantity of text are also a factor.

And how can you decide due weight, without recourse to sources?

Really, how can you do that, decide due weight, without recourse to sources?

Your argument boils down to include these details, 'cos I said so.

You want diffs? Well you can go to the noticeboards and read them, the dicussions are still there. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section

It is proposed that the following text be added to this article, to replace the paragraph currently directly underneath the "undue weight" banner:

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, 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, but 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. ”

The objection to the existing text is that it gives undue weight, per WP:WEIGHT and per WP:CHERRY, to the detail of the violence, thereby biasing the article in favour of Spain's POV in the modern dispute that the inhabitants were driven out.  The weight given to these points in the current text is very significantly greater than the weight that they are given by the reliable sources cited both in the current text and in this proposal.  The proposed text summarises the detail of the violence that occurred, giving it a weight that more accurately reflects the weight given to the point by reliable sources.  It also adds appropriate historical context to the capture of Gibraltar.

Those who have opposed argue that raw counts of hits from a Google Books search, or books that reference these events, should be used in place of the weight given to the points by reliable sources as a means judging the appropriate weight given to points in this article (this is presented as “ingenious” bibliometry). It should be noted that they do not have access to sources, rather they are relying upon searches in Google Books, where the principal sources are only available in Snippet view or selected quotes from third parties; they do not have access to sources themselves.  They argue that the detail of the violence caused the townspeople to leave, whereas reliable sources suggest a variety of reasons, including the violence in general (but not necessarily each of the details noted), and also the townspeople's loyalty to Philip (as noted by the proposed text), as well as the expectation of an imminent counter attack to retake Gibraltar. It should be noted that there exists a letter writtten by the townspeople that cites their loyalty as the reason for leaving. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)