Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar

Opening Statements

Richard Keatinge

The dispute (in this case) is about how we should deal with the 1704 capture of Gibraltar in our article. The current wording is as follows:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. ”

I don't think anyone is disputing the accuracy of this draft, but an alternative is:

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave. ”

The expectation of a Spanish counter-attack as a motivation to leave seems to be a reasonable guess, rather than a concept offered by sources.

The underlying problem here is of two competing national narratives in a real-life dispute that is protracted, seemingly insoluble, and often bitter. One holds that Gibraltar is an integral part of Spain and that San Roque, Cádiz maintains a degree of legitimate continuity with Spanish Gibraltar (see here for an illustration of feeling on the matter); as part of this, it seems important that the previous inhabitants were forced to leave by reasonable fears for their safety, and that the bulk of the previous Gibraltarian population settled around the hermitage and hamlet of San Roque, then part of the townlands of Gibraltar and soon to acquire a formal town charter of its own. The other narrative holds that Gibraltar is legitimately British (and now has its own population entitled to self-determination); as part of this, it seems important that the departure of the Spanish was for any reason other than justified fear (see [1] for an example of one comment and here) for another, and that claims such as those of San Roque are invalid and should be ignored.

I personally came late to this dispute and my attempts at resolution have conspicuously failed. I should perhaps repeat that my personal national narrative is British. However, I'm here to improve an encyclopedia. The facts are correct, highly significant to the then population of Gibraltar, have ongoing political relevance, and are well-covered by modern secondary sources. I therefore suggest that, in this case, an impartial article should include a very brief description, perhaps as in the first draft above, of the reasons why the inhabitants left, and the fact that most of them settled in San Roque. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On compromises, I'd probably accept almost anything that our mediators suggest. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk

The dispute (in this case) is about how we should deal with the 1704 capture of Gibraltar in our article. The current wording is as follows:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. ”

(Note that in most cases references can be assumed).

I contend that, while broadly accurate, this gives a biased description of events. It goes into far too much detail on the subject of the violence that occurred in the town, and not enough on the geopolitics involved in the capture. I contend that it was the violence collectively that led the townspeople to leave, as opposed to individual acts of violence. We have no evidence, for example, that had the sailors and marines had left the churches alone, the townspeople would have stayed. If it was the violence collectively that led the townspeople to leave, then there is no reason to mention individual crimes committed.

There is also a problem from a POV perspective. Spain has traditionally sought to highlight the violence, and thus to attempt to claim that the population was expelled (though sources state that they decided to leave of their own accord, against the wishes of the occupying force), so overemphasising the violence is Spanish POV. Given that violence also occurred the other way (by the townspeople against the servicemen), and given the strategic preferences of the Anglo-Dutch force, we must not present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by the evil British, nor imply that the violence only occurred one way.

It also adds a detail about San Roque. As a rule I would contend that we should determine relevance based on the practical effect an event has had on the later history of Gibraltar and on modern Gibraltar, and that the fact that many of the townspeople ended up in San Roque as opposed to Algeciras or Tarifa has had no such effect. It is also historically inaccurate because San Roque wasn't founded until 1706.

My own opinion would accord with an edit made by Curry Monster on 7 December, to give this text:

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave. ”

The arguments in favour of including the list of violent acts are primarily based on the fact that these points are included in several books on the subject: my response is that there are many things included in books on the subject that ought not be included in a 700-word history, and that there is nothing about these points in particular that would seem to lead to inclusion.

It is argued that there are more Google Books hits for San Roque in books about Gibraltar in the title than there are for World War II or the 1967 referendum. I contend that for various reasons the comparisons are flawed (that they include books that are not on the subject of Gibraltar; that books written in the nineteenth century are unlikely to include twentieth century events; that primary sources are included in a survey of secondary sources; that we do not and cannot know what proportion of books that could mention these events choose to do so).

A tangential issue is the use of the word "atrocity" to refer to the violence. This is biased, potentially offensive, and not used by any sources. I find the argument that it is fair in this article based on precedents provided by pages such as Nanking massacre, List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 4 to be distinctly illogical.

On possible areas for compromise, I would not object to making the mention of the violence rather more prominent than in Curry Monster's text, nor to mentioning words such as "violence" explicitly, but I am not willing to accept individual acts of violence be listed, nor that biased and loaded terms such as "atrocity" (which generally refer in a historical context to mass murder and suchlike) be used. I would note that I consider San Roque a lesser issue, and that the description of events is more significant from my perspective. Pfainuk talk 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster

I think there are a number of issues with the current text in the article. I don't believe it complies with our core policy of WP:NPOV for a number of reasons.

The current text is:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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.

Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. Spain attempted to retake Gibraltar in 1727 and in 1779, when it entered the American Revolutionary War on the American side as an ally of France. Gibraltar subsequently became a key base for the Royal Navy, first playing an important part prior to the Battle of Trafalgar. Its strategic value increased with the opening of the Suez Canal as it controlled the sea route between the UK and the British Empire east of Suez.

”

I have included a fuller quote, rather than just the text under dispute to demonstrate that compared with the rest of the history section of the article, a great deal of the text is devoted to these events. See Gibraltar#History. This coverage seems to me disproportionate, although this is an important event in the history perhaps not so.

The coverage also pays undue attention to what is repeatedly referred to as "atrocities" in the talk page. I object to this use of emotive language in the talk page, it does nothing for a reasonable discussion and is adding an unnecessary emotional element to discussions. No source per WP:RS refers to these events as "atrocities", so per WP:V it is inappropriate to use such terminology whether in a talk page or not. I would like this to stop.

I also object to the use of the term "desecrations" in the text. This is sourced by one reference (Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar) but per WP:LABEL I consider this a term to be avoided.

Again per WP:LABEL I would avoid the term "pillage", no source supports the use of this term.

And finally the use of "fled", the word implies a flight in the face of extreme danger, the exodus of the population was a slow moving procession as one author describes it "filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia." Not a description of people fleeing for their lives.

It is poorly written, it implies that promises were given, then reneged on and the people forced to leave by the evil British. It is claimed that we have to have a list of what are termed "atrocities" to explain why the people felt they had to leave. The explanation being that they left because of the violence. This is partly true.

From sources, several explanations are given.

From Jackson, two reasons are given. 1. Being the violence and 2. being the expecatation of a counter attack to retake the town.

Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.

The full quote I reference in the cite is:

“ Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain. ”

From Francis: The First Peninsular War: 1702–1713, 115, the population left because their priests promised them that it would soon be retaken.

Finally, from The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe, Frederick Sayer p115 comes the explanation that the population remained loyal to Philip V and refuses to swear loyalty to Charles III. It includes the translation of a letter from the town council of Gibraltar to Philip stating this. Further this states that the Catholic population would not submit to the rule of their Protestant conquerers.

So in the sources we have the following:

1. In the opinion of Hills et al it was the direct result of the violence during the capture.
2. Jackson et al comment on the expectation of a counter attack. There were two counter attacks in 1704, with further counter attacks right up to the conclusion of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
3. Francis comments on the role of the priests in urging the population to leave.
4. Sayer presents a letter from the town council stating they left as they remained loyal to Philip V and
5. As Catholics they refused to be ruled by Protestants.

If the stated purpose of the text is to explain why the population left, then per WP:DUE we should cover all the reasons stated in the sources. I have made this point several times but instead of considering it, it is claimed that the expectation of a counter attack etc is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Other points have simply been ignored, note all are sourced per WP:RS.

My personal preference is that this is not the article to go into the details of the capture. Properly this can be dealt with in the article History of Gibraltar. So my personal preference for this section is simply.

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. ”

See [2] for how this leaves the article. If you refer to other overviews as a guideline, then this is pretty much all you'll see.

I advocate a minimalist approach because to my mind, it is virtually impossible to achieve coverage appropriate for an overview including details of the capture. This is because it would require an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats these events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in Spain not Gibraltar, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as above, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. As I have pointed out many times, I do not feel the article benefits from a pre-occupation with what I coined the phrase "atrocity tennis".

If we are compelled to include details of the capture to achieve a NPOV requires the inclusion of the following significant facts:

1. Intention of the invading forces was to seize Gibraltar as a toehold, leading to gaining support from the local Spanish population for their Spanish allies in the War of the Spanish succession. The subsequent exodus of the population frustrated those aims.

2. Clear orders were given to protect the local population, the commanders sought to avoid a repeat of what had happened previously at Cadiz but the soldiers and sailors ignored those orders and some ran amok. There were instances of rape, pillage and Catholic churches were ransacked. The disorder was again counter productive to the aims of the allies.

3. Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples, the terms of surrender provided assurances of religious freedom and order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave. The reasons given vary but significant ones are listed above.

4. The local population did not believe those assurances and expecting a Spanish counter attack chose to leave settling first around the nearby hermitage of San Roque. They then dispersed into other nearby areas, the fishermen founding the nearby town of Algeciras and in 1706 the remaining refugees founded the modern town of San Roque.

On this basis I proposed the text:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines ran amok. This aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished and order restored but by 7 August the majority of the population felt staying was too dangerous and opted to leave. Anticipating a Spanish counter attack and that they would shortly return, they initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706.

Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles.

”

This was objected to on the grounds it was too long for an overview. On that basis I have proposed a shorter version:

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave. ”

This is objected to on the basis the expectation of the Spanish counter attack is WP:OR, this I fail to see as it is clearly supported by the inline citation. It is also alleged that it does not cover the violence of the capture, the capture is mentioned in the text and expanded upon in the cite. I suborn details of the violence to the cite together with details of the efforts to prevent and suppress it. The geopolitical aims of the capture was to bring Andalusia onto the side of the allies in the War of the Spanish Succession, this can be supported using Francis as a cite who goes into details of the rancour between the allies as a result of the alienation of the population by the events of the capture. I did not originally cite this as it is well known.

At this point I'm at a loss.

1. I've proposed reducing the coverage to a minimum appropriate for an overview. Rejected because it doesn't include the "atrocities".
2. I've proposed a text that covers all relevant details to balance the text per WP:NPOV. Rejected because it was "too long".
3. I've proposed text that covers most relevant details, balanced per WP:NPOV but of a similar length to the current text. Rejected firstly, because it doesn't cover the "atrocities", not a relevant criticism because it does and secondly, because it is allegedly WP:OR, despite the supporting citation.

I've asked what compromises would be acceptable to achieve a text that meets WP:NPOV but the only answer so far is an insistence to mention the atrocities and San Roque.

San Roque

San Roque, I've always seen as a secondary issue. San Roque as a modern town was founded in 1706 two years after the capture. It was founded by the refugees from Gibraltar who carried the original town articles with them. Although it is a tangential relevance to Gibraltar I have been prepared to consider some mention provided the historical context was correct. As currently written the article states they went to a town founded 2 years later. To me that is just irritating as it misleads readers as to the historical context of the founding of San Roque. Personally to me it is just a detail too much.

Relevance to Modern Claims

There are two aspects of the modern claims by Spain that need to be considered:

In the modern context, Spain claims the population were deliberately forced out and the population replaced by an implanted population. On this basis Spain argues that the current population do not enjoy the right to Self-determination.

Also, San Roque, is claimed as the real Gibraltar and that only the people of the San Roque have the right to decide the future of modern Gibraltar. It is claimed that the referendums rejecting integration with Spain are flawed because the real Gibraltarians didn't get to vote.

I don't consider modern nationalist claims to be relevant to deciding content on wikipedia, which is driven by the coverage in sources. In this respect, I find the essay WP:CHERRY of relevance in that care must be taken not to subconsciously select sources and quote from them to support a particular POV.

Nationality

Nationality should have no issue in deciding content. Nor does it imply neutrality, as those on the British left are just as likely to support Spain over Gibraltar. If it matters my mother is Spanish, my father is Scottish and I live in Glasgow. My mother is Catholic, my father was born Protestant but converted to marry my mother. So yeah cannae teach me much about religious wars.

Past Discussions

I would really, really prefer not to drag up past discussions and would suggest Richard resists the tempatation from doing so.

Conclusion

My main points:

1. Current text fails NPOV by using WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL, also using language that misleads by implying the population fled violence that had been brought under control and fails to address all relevant opinions in the literature per WP:NPOV.
2. I've proposed text that provides greater detail, similar detail or eliminates the details of the capture. I have no idea at this point, which if any are even close to meeting objections, which are only vaguely stated.
3. Text supported by inline cites is rejected as WP:OR when the cite directly supports the text.

Thank you for agreeing to mediate. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Vassyana

I will keep this brief. There are two main points of dispute that are interrelated and connected to a long, ongoing issue with the topic. Both disputes are directly related to the dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain, and the narratives created by both governments.

1. How to present the capture of Gilbraltar in 1704. The main points of dispute regard the presentation of the background behind the capture, the actions of the invading forces, and the resulting impact on the local population.
2. How to present the modern day dispute over the status of Gibraltar. Perhaps oversimplifying, the dispute is very heavily centered on sorting and balancing out the UK, Spanish, and UN positions on the dispute.

Various points to consider:

• Primary sources are often cited and form a focal point of discussion.
• These are both part of a very long-running dispute regarding Gibraltar, similar to other areas of conflict wherein there are competing national narratives (up to and including a visit to the Arbitration Committee).
• Discussion often breaks down with incivility and bad faith.
• Walls of text quickly overwhelm most discussions.
• Sources are often discredited due to perceived bias and other reasons unrelated to wiki policy, as is often typical in areas of nationalist disputes.
• Attempts to survey independent sources are noticeably absent from discussion history.

--Vassyana (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz

1. A summary of the dispute in your own words

We have disputed for very long whether (and how) to mention:

• The atrocities that were committed by the invading forces against the civil Gibraltarian population and their churches during the days that followed its capture
• The fact that almost all the Gibraltarian population of the time left after the capture, and the greatest part established themselves in a place which was called "San Roque" (a few kilometers away, which only gained the status of "Village of San Roque" 2 years later).

Very recently, Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk have added to the dispute whether to mention:

• the strategic reasons for the attack and how they were frustrated as a result of the violence against the civil population.

Therefore, we have:

• OPTION A: The current text which gives detail of the violence (both from the Dutch/British and the Gibraltarians) and the final destination of almost all the Gibraltarians living in 1704. It does not mention motives for the invasion or their frustration as a result of the violence.
• OPTION B: The text proposed by Wee Curry, not mentioning the atrocities or the final destination of villagers, and explaining the strategic reasons and result of the invasion.

2. What you believe the central issue is

Disagreement about the notability, verifiability and relevance of the events mentioned in OPTION A and OPTION B (as well as the NPOV of the resulting text).

1) Atrocities and Exodus to San Roque: I think that nobody doubts their verifiability. The main dispute here is whether these facts are relevant to the history of Gibraltar and notable enough to be mentioned in an overview article about Gibraltar.

2) Strategic reasons and result of the invasion: Wee Curry and Pfainuk seem to say that they are more relevant and notable for the history of Gibraltar than the other two points, enough to be mentioned. This, along with its verifiability, is disputed.

3. What your opinion on resolving it (i.e. your position/your 'side')

I believe that OPTION A better represents Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines: notability, verifiability and relevance of the events, as well as NPOV; loads of evidence support this (see below). Regarding OPTION B, on the other hand, almost none (if any) evidence has been shown to verify its notability, verifiability, relevance or NPOV.

Notability

OPTION A: The violent events and the exodus to San Roque are mentioned in a large number of reputed secondary sources. For a sample, please see here.

These events are mentioned by a larger number of sources than other issues that are in the article and not disputed by Pfainuk or Wee Curry Monster:

• For example, the exodus to San Roque is mentioned in at least 37 books whose topic is explicitly Gibraltar [3].
• On the other hand, other issues never disputed by Pfainuk or Curry include a group of Conversos (converted Spanish Jews) from Cordoba who lived in Gibraltar for only two years and are only mentioned in 4 books about Gibraltar [4], the Battle of Trafalgar which took place 90 km away from Gibraltar and is mentioned in 33 books about Gibraltar[5], an “Operation Felix” which was planned in WW2 but never happened[6][7] with 22 books, or the Suez Canal during the British Empire[8] which is mentioned in 10 books about Gibraltar.

OPTION B: we are still lacking evidence of the notability of the strategic objectives and the result of the violent events.

Verifiability

OPTION A: All sources seem to verify the events described in it.

OPTION B: Not enough evidence has been provided, I'm afraid.

Relevance

The issues described in the History section of this overview article should be relevant to Gibraltar and its inhabitants in the past.

OPTION A describes that all churches in Gibraltar except one were desecrated, Gibraltarian women were raped, and many Gibraltarian homes were plundered. It also mentions the final destination of the largest part of the Gibraltarians of the year 1704 (San Roque) who took with them their traditions and archives. I would say that this is obviously relevant to Gibraltar and its inhabitants in 1704.

OPTION B describes some issues relevant to the War of Succession in Spain, not so much for the everyday life of Gibraltar and its inhabitants.

Neutral Point of View

Different POVs seem to emphasize different events in the history of Gibraltar, for different reasons.

• A tipically Spanish nationalist POV (in minority -I suppose- nowadays) is to use the events to ask for the return of Gibraltar to Spain because -they claim- the only real Gibraltarians are the inhabitants of San Roque, who were expelled by the violent actions of the invaders.

• A tipically British nationalist, also in minority nowadays, and old fashioned -at least amongst academics- POV is to simply ignore the violent events that happened during the capture. Like a very reputed and widely cited[9] academic (G. T. Garratt. Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)) wrote in 1939:

“ English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that 'the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .' The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books. ”

• An overwhelming majority of reputed academics simply mention the events and seem to support the POV that these events are so notable as to include them in a very large amount of their works.

In my opinion, Wikipedia should not reflect any of the two first POVs (simply ignoring the events or trying to support the POV that modern inhabitants of Gibraltar are not real Gibraltarians). Simply mentioning the events, like most academics do, would be more NPOV.

Brief aside about wording

Wee Curry Monster criticizes the use of –for example- the word “desecration” and says that it is not widely used in sources when they describe the capture. Please, check here[10] reputed sources describing the “profanation”, “desecrated”, “defiled” or “destruction” of churches.

Also, regarding his comment about the word “pillage”, in the same place you can find several reputed sources using “plunder”, “sacking”, “looting”, “plundering”, “sack”, “destroying”, “pillaging”, “sacked”, “looting”…

4. Possible areas of compromise among editors

I think that we should agree on the degree of notability of the several disputed issues, maybe asking outside opinion. I am ready to accept in the article any issue which outside opinion may consider with enough notability, verifiability and relevance.

I also think that we can agree on the specific wording for the article, as long as it describes accurately enough the nature of the events mentioned in the article. Maybe we should use as a reference the terms more widely used by the sources.

Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Next Steps

I would like to thank all editors for timely submitting your opening statements that will significantly aide in the process of mediation.

I ask all parties to put this page on your watchlist if you haven't done so already. I will take a day or two to look over the statements a second time, look through the requisite talk pages, and look at the related ArbCom case on Gibraltar, before proceeding with the first step. My idea of mediation is to build a foundation for later agreements by discussing very very small issues first. Questions that will frame the debate in a better light. When everyone sees where the situation stands, I will propose compromises from which new discussion can emerge. My hope is that this process will be able to put to rest this dispute, which all editors present are certainly passionate about. Passionate not in a way to alter the article for their viewpoint, but passionate in trying to help the Encyclopedia in the way they see best. I will post starting issues for discussion within 48 hours if not sooner. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of Good Faith

To demonstrate good faith, and the mere ability to see the other side and compromise, I invite parties to do a simple task. This may seem unorthodox to some, but I believe this to be a mechanism that will start the mediation off on a softer note.

Task: I ask all parties to (in "level 3" sections) post a brief statement which: 1) identifies a strong/compelling/good argument from an editor who is opposite your view and 2) to state your understanding of that argument and your ability to be swayed by it. The statement should be short, a paragraph at most.

You can choose any point, large or small, from another editor, as your 'concession point'.

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our own opinions that we enter long rambling speeches about why our edit is right or why their edit is wrong. I'm afraid that this is why this dispute has become to such tension - talking past each other. So...let's read our fellow editors' statements, and pick one thing from one other editor you can either a) understand or b) are willing to concede. This will show alot about you and your charachter. I wish you luck, Lord Roem (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster

I acknowledge that the strongest and most compelling argument is that the events are covered in reliable sources and are verifiable per WP:V. I fully accept that is is a valid argument and have attempted to accommodate it by including references to it in the texts I have proposed, supported by inlined citations. It is difficult for me to comment on my ability to be swayed by it, since IMHO I've attempted to address it in the texts I've produced, so you could say I have accepted it. On the other hand my acceptance of that argument is tempered by the requirement to write an overview and produce a compact, snappily written text, which requires the somewhat ruthless pruning of extraneous details. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge

Well, WCM's longer version struck me as rather good, apart from the length and inclusion of matters (such as the effect on the war) of peripheral relevance. I would worry that that insertion would probably be removed at some fairly early stage by a well-intentioned editor. But I'd be happy to accept the whole thing. After all, we aren't constrained by length in quite the same way as a paper publication.

Or, just taking and changing a bit of WCM's text, "they initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque... This ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706." seems perfectly acceptable; it adds a little more verbiage but does avoid the intractable disagreement with naming and foundation dates etc.

If the word "fled" is a problem, try "left" or "departed"?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz

I agree with all of Richard's comments: WCM's longer edit looked to me better than his other proposals. My main doubts about it had to do with maybe too much detail for this overview (pincer attack, situation of the defenders, ammunition, ...), and too little about the Gibraltarians (I'm not sure that "ran amok" is too accurate). Also, I was not too sure about the notability and verifiability of the results of the attack. Anyway, I'm sure we can solve these doubts. I was also happy that the exodus to San Roque was mentioned in this version. And, finally, I agree that there are alternatives to solve some of the wording differences we have.

Even though we have different interpretation about the relevance of the events, I am glad that we all agree on the general criteria we should use to prioritize them. I think that with this mediation and some outside comments we will be able to reach consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk

This question causes a problem for me because my habit is to accept arguments that I find persuasive, and build them into my proposals and no longer take them to be the "opposite" to my view. The aim of our being here is to build a good encyclopædia, and a necessary part of this, in my opinion, is editors' willingness to allow themselves to be persuaded by genuinely persuasive arguments, and to adapt their points to accommodate. Where I do not accept a point, it is generally precisely because I have not found the argument persuasive. I am unlikely to find too much to persuade me in points that I have previously found unpersuasive.

So, the most persuasive argument I see here is Richard's point about the two competing narratives. I'd suggest that the way he puts it is overly black-and-white, and that there are plenty of shades of grey in between the two - including the positions of the two governments. I'd also suggest that this is the place for a neutral description of historical fact, not modern arguments (which would go in the article on the dispute - not that he argues anything different). But in any case, I can't really see it as an argument for the status quo (and I acknowledge that it is not explicitly being used as such), but for change: from a text whose emphasis favours one of the two positions he describes to one that is genuinely neutral. Pfainuk talk 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I am glad to read the statements above and find that the parties above are open to positive discussion and compromise. I still will wait for the fourth party to write something in this section before we move on. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Listing of individual incidents

Let's begin discussion of the first issue here, whether there should be some listing of the specific incidents involved in the capture.

The relevant text:

“ ...soliders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. ”

There are thus a few specifics here mentioned. I number them thusly:

“ ...[1] soldiers lost control, sailors and marines engaged in [2] rape and [3] pillage, [4] desecrating most churches, and [5] townspeople carried out reprisal killings. ”

Words of issue: "rape", "pillage", "desecrat[e]"

Issues of discussion, for relevant discussion by participants; this is what should be discussed in this thread below this:

1. Whether it is appropriate to list the specific incidents which occurred

2. If 'No' to #1, what alternative suggestions are there? Feel free to list already-discussed compromises if you believe it is still a good idea.

3. If 'Yes' to #1, please state whether the three words of issue can be lessened to a more neutral phrasing.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I think you mean, not the individual incidents (which we don't mention now), but the types of violence? Yes. We have a very brief and commendably accurate account of what sort of behaviour persuaded the soon-to-be-ex-Gibraltarians that trudging miserably out of the town was a safer choice than staying. It's also important to mention the loss of control; the violence wasn't planned by the Anglo-Dutch command nor was it to their advantage. Some of the townsfolk did kill invaders. We omit many other details of those few days, but I think we have found a good place to stop.

2. If not, we could use a wide variety of less-specific descriptions - we have "running amok" as one suggestion. The only advantage is brevity, and of course less specificity tends to obscure what actually did happen. For example, I don't think the soldiers actually killed any civilians, nor did they burn the place down, but any less specific list leaves any reader familiar with a drunken riot to suppose such as possible.

3. I really can't think of anything better than, or even as good as, what we now have. Possible changes strike me as neutral only in that they split the difference between a very good encyclopaedic summary and a point of view which prefers to obscure the reality. But as I said I'd be willing to compromise here.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. With the text at its current length, it is inappropriate to go into this level of detail about what happened. The effect of this is that the text focusses in on the violence and only the violence, without considering any other factors that we can source as possible dimensions to the townspeople's collective decision, nor other anything about the historical context of the capture or the intentions of the capturing force. I contend that this is illogical.

I'd also say that the current text - focussing as it does on the violence - is distinctly non-neutral. The current text essentially says that the British and Dutch showed up, did lots of bad things, drove the townspeople out and never left. Neutral description of events? Not in my book. Of course we should mention that there was violence, but we certainly shouldn't focus in on it as the current list does, implying that it is the only thing worth mentioning.

2. Most phrasings would require the sentence be turned around in some way. This is doable. My preferences are for descriptive wordings such as "three days of violent disorder".

3. Since I feel that the existence of the list is a violation WP:NPOV, I'm not convinced that using less emotive words would make it not violate NPOV. Pfainuk talk 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Richard's comments:

1. I don't think that a list of the incidents is appropriate; a very brief summary of the events is better. That's what we have right now in only 20 words (we don't go into every and each incident such as -for example- the very notable at the time -and now too- desecration of the sanctuary of Our Lady of Europe and the rapings of the women that had taken refuge there). In order to have a good balance, we also describe -as suggested by Wee Curry and Pfainuk- the generous conditions of the surrender, that violence was not the intention of the commanders...

2&3. I agree with Richard. We use words that are used by most academic sources to describe what happened. If we are looking for alternatives, one source -for example- uses a more confusing (and longer) expression such as "women were insulted and outraged". I think "rape" is shorter and more to the point. It is also widely used in Wikipedia:[11]

-- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have the policy WP:LABEL as part of WP:NPOV for a reason. Words can be deliberately chosen for their shock value to favour a particular POV. In an overview I don't see how a listing that is tantamount to a charge sheet contributes toward achieving neutrality. We don't need a list, focusing as it does on the "violence" as it totally unbalances the text. Again simply look at how much coverage there is of these events in the history section that is supposed to cover some 10,000 years.

The assertion is that this is the sole reason that the population left and we need to have a charge sheet to explain why they left. This is also where the text falls down on NPOV, there are a number of reasons to explain why they left. And in Sayer, we have it in their own words, they left because they were loyal to King Philip V.

“ Letter Of The Authorities To King Philip V. 115

Sire,

The loyalty with which this city has served all the preceding kings, as well as your Majesty, has ever been notorious to them. In this last event, not less than on other occasions, it has endeavoured to exhibit its fidelity at the price of lives and property, which many of the inhabitants have lost in the combat; and with great honour and pleasure did they sacrifice themselves in defence of your Majesty, who may rest well assured that we who have survived (for our misfortune), had we experienced a similar fate, would have died with glory, and would not now suffer the great grief and distress of seeing your Majesty, our lord and master, dispossessed of so loyal a city.

Subjects, but courageous as such, we will submit to no other government than that of your Catholic Majesty, in whose defence and service we shall pass the remainder of our lives; departing from this fortress, where, on account of the superior force of the enemy who attacked it, and the fatal chance of our not having any garrison for its defence, except a few poor and raw peasants, amounting to less than 300, we have not been able to resist the assault, as your Majesty must have already learnt from the governor or others.

Our just grief allows us to notice no other fact for the information of your Majesty, but that all the inhabitants, and each singly, fulfilled their duties in their several stations; and our governor and alcalde have worked with the greatest zeal and activity, without allowing the horrors of the incessant cannonading to deter them from their duties, to which they attended personally, encouraging all with great devotion. May Divine Providence guard the royal person of your Majesty,

Gibraltar, August 5th (N. S.), 1704.

”

The list does contribute to the problems with WP:NPOV. However, the issue with the text is that multiple opinions are given by authors to explain the exodus, we present only one - namely that "violence" forced the population to leave. We don't present all relevant opinions in the literature and that is why it fails WP:NPOV. Worse still by doing so we are favouring a particular nationalist POV. And this is where the list comes in by focusing on the violence to the exclusion of all relevant opinions. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments about "generous conditions of the surrender" miss the point - the point being that the British and Dutch strategy relied on gaining the support of the townspeople. The generous conditions were there for a reason. Instead of explaining this important historical context to our readers - and indeed instead of explaining why the British and Dutch were there in the first place - the current text goes on and on and on about points that are not relevant (the violence is collectively relevant but the individual crimes are not).

The text does not say "that violence was not the intention of the commanders", only that commanders lost control. In my limited experience, this would not appear to be the same thing. The long list of violent acts committed does not reasonably constitute "a very brief summary of the events", and that the fact that it may be "only 20 words" (and I haven't counted) is not a logical argument for including such a list. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Answering the direct questions:

[1] No I don't think it is appropriate to include this list. Focusing on the list detracts from NPOV and unbalances the text.a

[2] I would prefer not to cover what each side did to the other at all. As I've said before it is just too much detail for an overview. If we are to cover it, it should be covered generally with reference to "violent disorder" or some other generic phrase. This doesn't detract from the events but covers it appropriately for an overview. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

---

It appears parties seem to be under the impression I want direct point-by-point answers...I rather am trying to stimulate conversation amongst yourselves. So please feel free to answer each others' statements and try to work together in this discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

OK so what purpose is served by having a list?

We have a charge sheet of "crimes", which seems to be more about WP:GREATWRONGS than informing readers. We have text that lists these crimes in details but we don't explain why the Anglo-Dutch force invaded, what their aims were or the fact that the exodus was counter productive to their war aims and resulted in a lot of recriminations among the allies.

We don't mention that specific orders were given to prevent such violence, the efforts of their commanders to retain control or that men guilty of such crimes were punished. We don't mention that order had been restored.

We do repeat the message which supports one particular nationalist POV that the people were forced out. We don't mention:

1. The expected Spanish counter attack. Cited by Jackson.
2. The role of the priests in urging the population to leave. Cited by Francis.
3. The loyalty of the population to King Philip V and their refusal to live under foreign rule - as quoted in Sayer, what the people themselves said as their reason for leaving.
4. The refusal of the population to live under protestant rule. Cited by Sayer.

So given wikipedia is about educating its readers, why do we have a list but ignore these significant details. Describing this as a "good place to stop" is not a sustainable argument under wikipedia's policies. Why do we have a list supporting one opinion favoured by a particular nationalist group, when there at least 5 separate reasons cited in the literature? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is about Gibraltar. The main reasons why the previous inhabitants left, and where most of them ended up, can hardly be more essential to this article. I don't particularly care if other details of military and European history, and peripheral considerations on departure or on the violence, go in - I merely think them somewhat excessive for this overview, and if anyone fancied deleting them in the course of working up to GA status I couldn't produce any good reason to keep them. The main issue is about a very brief description of facts that were absolutely central to Gibraltar at the time and have been relevant ever since. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The point being it does not give all the reasons why the previous inhabitants left, it promotes only one and with excessive detail for an overview. Could we start with a discussion as to why one reason should be covered in the article, when multiple reasons are given in the literature. Because what you're talking about here is not a brief description, its a flawed description which does not discuss all relevant opinions in the literature. I rather suspect that a neutral description will become excessive for an overview but its better than the current flawed description.

Secondly as I've demonstrated removing precisely those details doesn't detract from the article in the slightest. The details of the events of the capture are not absolutely necessary.

Thirdly I started the process of seeking GA status in April 2009, that has been frustrated by the fact any discussion on content is derailed by the insistence that certain facts must be covered. If we insist certain facts have to be included, NPOV usually demands other factors should be included to keep the text neutral. I simply make the point that there has to be a willingness to compromise and to listen. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, what would happen if we put in the current details and also all the stuff you think necessary to achieve NPOV on this issue? Do you have any suggestions, apart from the one we already have? Could you list the points you think required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see that this is possible unless you're prepared to lengthen the thing massively, to the extent that it dwarves the rest of the history section. Anything else puts serious undue weight on this point.

You argue that the main reasons why the townspeople left are crucial and relevant. But that's not the text you are arguing for. The text you are arguing for gives one reason out of several. It isn't even the one cited by the townspeople themselves. And yet it goes on and on and on and on and on about it, in violation of WP:UNDUE, and includes many details that cannot individually (as opposed to collectively) be described as reasons why they left. Or do you have a source that demonstrates that the townspeople would have remained had different crimes been committed?

And it just so happens that the one reason that is included is a reason that would promote one of the two national narratives that you have referred to, to the exclusion of the other. You argued that they should both be considered - but your argument does not consider them both. It only considers one of them. Fact is, we can demonstrate that there were many reasons why the townspeople left.

Do you seriously feel that the reasons for the British and Dutch to arrive in Gibraltar is not immediately relevant to the discussion the capture of Gibraltar? That this is not a distinctly important point, significant to an understanding of the later history of Gibraltar? I don't. Indeed, it would appear to me to be far more relevant than details of the crimes committed following the capture. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, rather than discussing these in theory, could we have a list of the things we could put into the account of the capture, in your priority order, until we get to the points we're discussing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean like the list I posted 17th January, see[12]:

“ 1. Intention of the invading forces was to seize Gibraltar as a toehold, leading to gaining support from the local Spanish population for their Spanish allies in the War of the Spanish succession. The subsequent exodus of the population frustrated those aims.

2. Clear orders were given to protect the local population, the commanders sought to avoid a repeat of what had happened previously at Cadiz but the soldiers and sailors ignored those orders and some ran amok. There were instances of rape, pillage and Catholic churches were ransacked. The disorder was again counter productive to the aims of the allies.

3. Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples, the terms of surrender provided assurances of religious freedom and order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave. The reasons given vary but significant ones are listed above.

4. The local population did not believe those assurances and expecting a Spanish counter attack chose to leave settling first around the nearby hermitage of San Roque. They then dispersed into other nearby areas, the fishermen founding the nearby town of Algeciras and in 1706 the remaining refugees founded the modern town of San Roque.

”

And

“ 1. In the opinion of Hills et al it was the direct result of the violence during the capture.

2. Jackson et al comment on the expectation of a counter attack. There were two counter attacks in 1704, with further counter attacks right up to the conclusion of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

3. Francis comments on the role of the priests in urging the population to leave.

4. Sayer presents a letter from the town council stating they left as they remained loyal to Philip V and

5. As Catholics they refused to be ruled by Protestants.

”

Just to make the point, I find it frustrating to repeatedly provide clear and explicit points, that are already in the narrative above for them to be demanded again like they never existed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. So, do I assume that you'd be happy to have the points we now have - lost control, rape and pillage, desecration of churches, and reprisal killings - as second priority after describing the intention and failure of the invading forces? What I'm trying to get is your list of things that could be put in, in your order of priority. We might end up with a list (and even a cut-off point) that we can all be happy with. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wee Curry. If those are the issues you consider important for the article in decreasing order of importance, I think it would be a good exercise to evaluate them based in some verifiable criteria. I suggest the following criteria:

1. Verifiability
2. Notability in reputed sources
3. Relevance to Gibraltar and, specifically, to the entire population of Gibraltar in 1704 (the year of the capture)
4. NPOV

Does anyone suggest any other important criteria?

(If we finally agree on a set of criteria, I think it would be very important -as a next step- to cite specific sources that support each issue (e.g. if we say notability in reputed secondary sources is important, cite the number of sources that mention the issue). That way, we can prioritize each issue with some empirical and verifiable basis.)

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No instead, lets stayed focused on the issue I raised for a change. Why do you both insist on text that reflects only one reason, when multiple reasons are cited in the sources? Noting that its a reason promoted one of the two national narratives. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, am I correct in assuming that we have your list in your order of importance? If so, we might even come to an agreement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already indicated a willingness to include such details, provided it is properly constructed for NPOV. I've made this plain many, many times. What purpose does it serve asking again and again.

I am trying to ascertain your position on this. There are multiple reasons stated in the sources for the exodus, why do you favour a text that supports only one, ignoring indeed the reasons stated by the very people who left. So could you please answer the question why you favour this? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is his list. But we have two issues here: the negative side of things (looking at this from a purely 'objective' view) and the more political side of things. In this we have to strike a balance. So, Imalbornoz and RK, do you have any primae faciae objection to inclusion of WCM's points? Don't think about the size/length or balancing yet. I just want to know whether on its face, you have an objection to its inclusion. Lord Roem (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have any prima facie objection to the inclusion of WCM's points, or indeed of many others. Just to repeat, I think we now have, in WCM's words and order of priority but with my headings:

“ 1.War aims of the invasion and their failure: Intention of the invading forces was to seize Gibraltar as a toehold, leading to gaining support from the local Spanish population for their Spanish allies in the War of the Spanish succession. The subsequent exodus of the population frustrated those aims.

2. Orders for protection given, disobeyed, specific crimes committed: Clear orders were given to protect the local population, the commanders sought to avoid a repeat of what had happened previously at Cadiz but the soldiers and sailors ignored those orders and some ran amok. There were instances of rape, pillage and Catholic churches were ransacked. The disorder was again counter productive to the aims of the allies.

3. Punishment and flight: Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples, the terms of surrender provided assurances of religious freedom and order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave. The reasons given vary but significant ones are listed above.

4. Where the refugees went: The local population did not believe those assurances and expecting a Spanish counter attack chose to leave settling first around the nearby hermitage of San Roque. They then dispersed into other nearby areas, the fishermen founding the nearby town of Algeciras and in 1706 the remaining refugees founded the modern town of San Roque.

”

Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems a touch bizarre. I see no basis on which to assume that this any kind of order of priority, other than the fact that you've decided it is. It doesn't make sense as an order of priority to me. Indeed, I would suggest that the points don't lend themselves to a priority order. I note that when this list was first provided (on this page), it was prefaced with the words If we are compelled to include details of the capture to achieve a NPOV requires the inclusion of the following significant facts. IOW, these are the points that are required if we have to have this long list of irrelevant details.

But these are not the points that Curry Monster has asked you about more than once today. Do you - and Imalbornoz - have any primae faciae objection to including in this article the five reasons for the departure provided by sources, as listed by Curry Monster above? If not, why do you feel that we must promote one POV in this dispute by only including reasons that correspond to their POV? Pfainuk talk 23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed that precisely is my question. Please let us stay focused on that. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I have no such prima facie objection. Do we have your points in an order of priority by importance, or can we have them in such an order? Or would you feel that "all or none" is essential? Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you that NPOV requires us to cover all relevant opinions in the mainstream literature. So again the question why do you feel that covering only one is appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, regarding Wee Curry's proposals (either the issues by order of priority or the reasons for the departure), I'm not sure about their:

• Verifiability (I have seen some cites from Wee Curry, but I'm not sure they supported his proposal; e.g. some of the reasons he gives for the departure; can you link here the sources?)
• Notability (please, can you list a number of reputed secondary sources mentioning each issue?)
• Relevance to Gibraltar (can you explain how it affected Gibraltar?)
• NPOV (for example, some sources seem to say that one of Rooke's main "strategic" motivations for the capture actually was to obtain Gibraltar for England, have you taken them into account?)

I don't want to give prima facie objections or support until I have some evidence to evaluate Wee Curry's proposals. I know some (not all) of this has been mentioned at some point or other of the discussion, but it would be good to have it summarized in just one place (like I did above). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz raises a good question. However, I would ask you (Imalbornoz) to look above in this section and in WCM's original statement where he listed cites for his proposed inclusions. Looking on that, do you have any objections? Lord Roem (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give some examples below to make my position clearer.

Some examples of reasons for my doubts on Wee Curry's proposals

On the punishment: I'm not too sure which is more accurate, "Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples" or "Not many perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples". “ Some attempt was made to stop the looting, but not many were punished. A few men were sentenced to death to discourage the others, the choice being made by throwing dice. One British marine 'was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman, who had 10 and the Englishman 9'. ” G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 41. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)[13] On the expected counter attack: Jackson does mention that "The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives." But -at least to me- it is not clear at all that Jackson's intention is to say that the population were expecting a counter attack and that's why they left. Also, I don't know how many authors say that the population left because they were expecting a counter attack. On the strategic reasons and results of the capture: I am not sure they are too notable or relevant to Gibraltar. On top of that, some sources mention different reasons from the ones Wee Curry mentions (e.g. some say that Rooke actually tried to capture Gibraltar for Queen Anne/England). Like the text that Wee Curry has repeatedly insisted to keep in Timeline of Gibraltar says: "Gibraltar has been a British colony ever since it was taken by Britain in 1704", "He [Rooke] had the Spanish flag hauled down and the English flag hoisted in its stead";, "Rooke's men quickly raised the British flag ... and Rooke claimed the Rock in the name of Queen Anne"; or "Sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation".

I agree with some of Wee Curry's proposals, but not all of them. These are just some examples of why I would rather see some more evidence before supporting Wee Curry's proposals. Otherwise, my first opinion on some of them would be that they are inaccurate, not relevant and/or not notable. It would be really great if he could make a summary of the evidence with regards to their verifiability, notability, relevance for Gibraltar and NPOV.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And WCM, a short summary would be great. Please don't make it too long. Just enough to give us a framework to work with. Lord Roem (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You've asked for a short summary and supporting cites, well I've already provided those. What more do you actually want?

On punishment I don't quote Garrat, I quoted Hills. Both cites in fact support the claim in the text I propose. That should be enough but instead we have criticism on the basis of something I never claimed in the first place. I'm being criticised using the opinion of an entirely different author and one from a much older text - and a text that we've already noted contains outdated claims. The criticism doesn't actually relate to the text I proposed, rather the goalposts moved claiming I'm misleading the readers as in the opinion of the author quoted they didn't hang or flog enough people. And hanging and flogging are apparently not severe punishments - which will be criticised as WP:OR and WP:SYN from past experience.

On the expected Spanish counter attack I actually quote Jackson and Francis, Francis p.115 states that the priests urged them to leave telling them Gibraltar would soon be recaptured. The other source Jackson actually states:

“ Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain. ”

Jackson clearly supports the premise that a counter attack would shortly liberate Gibraltar and they could return. Claiming it isn't supported by cites just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And why text I never wrote and which is supported by citations is being dragged up is beyond me. Yes Imalbornoz wanted to remove it and I opposed it but what is the relevance here. Please I would really like to know why this is being brought up?

What is disputed and tell me why is there no response from either Richard or Imalbornoz when I ask why they insist only one reason is relevant, when the sources support multiple reasons? How many times can that be ignored? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And the more I look the more references I find see J. A. C. Hugill (28 October 1991). No peace without Spain. Kensal Press. ISBN 9780946041589. Retrieved 31 January 2011. p.97 Also supports the expected counter attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, Wee Curry Monster. So we now have:

• War aims of the invasion and their failure:

• 4 sources mentioning that Rooke took Gibraltar for England (so no aim apparently could have been frustrated by the violence).
• I am sure that several other sources mention that the only aim was to gain the support of the population, which would have been frustrated by the violence. Could you please cite those sources, WCM?

• Orders for protection given, disobeyed, specific crimes committed:

• Many sources support this. You can check at least 7 sources here:[14].

• Punishment:

• 1 source (Hills) says that at least one soldier was actually executed.
• 1 other source (Garratt) qualifies this punishment saying that "not many were punished" (i.e. the punishment is notable for its scarceness rather than its severity).

• Reasons for flight:

• Fear after the violence: 1 source (Jackson) explicitly mentions this. 1 source suggests it (Garratt).
• Expectation of a counter attack as a main reason for departure: 1 source (Jackson) stating the fact that "fortresses changed quite frequently" in the 18th century, but no mention at all to the expectations of the Gibraltarians. 2 other sources have been mentioned but we don't have any quote.
• Priests convincing the population to leave: We have 1 source cited (Francis), but we don't have a quote.
• Loyalty to Philip V: 1 source (Sayer) quotes what the population said in a letter to Philip V.
• They refused to be ruled by Protestants: I have seen no source cited supporting this assertion (but maybe there are some).

• Final destination San Roque:

• 9 sources explicitly quoted mentioning San Roque here[15]. 37 sources in total listed here.[16].

This summary surely needs some updates and corrections. I propose to update it when more information is provided (I offer myself to do it if you want). It can be very useful in order to evaluate the verifiability and notability of each issue. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, once again we see the argument that unfiltered Google searches and raw counts of sources are the only possible determiner of relevance and notability, and that factors such as neutrality, due weight, verifiability and the actual content and quality of the sources are subordinate to that. Indeed, the argument that a biography of an Austrian general is in fact a book about Gibraltar (that one's particularly amusing).

Perhaps we will also later see the argument that all books with Gibraltar in the title can be expected to include all historical events that occurred in Gibraltar, even if the book was written before the historical event took place, or if the contents of the book only deal with one specific part of Gibraltar's history? Pfainuk talk 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV specifically WP:DUE

“ 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. ”

Please point me to where it says in policy that unfiltered google searches are a suitable means of ignoring all relevant opinions to focus on only one. As noted by Pfainuk it is a belief based on very shaky grounds as the result depends on some bizarre connections. To me the use of unfiltered searches appears to be about as much use in deciding content as dismembering a goat and examining its entrails.

Show me where I made any claim about Rooke. The claims that Rooke took Gibraltar for England are based on a single well known reference. Long since debunked see p.36. Why raise it as an issue, I never did. Its also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so lets park that for later and not try to take the discussion down a rabbit hole. Focus. We're supposed to be discussing reasons for the departure. Similarly I have supplied a cite for the reason for the capture, Francis p104-105. Do try and keep up and stop asking for something already supplied. We can also park this for now, as indeed its not what we were discussing.

Orders? We can also park this for now, as indeed its not what we were discussing.

So now hanging and flogging are not "severe" punishments? Really we are trying hard to ignore any contrary opinion aren't we. But lets stay focused for once, we can return to this later - it has nothing to do with the current discussion

San Roque, we're not discussing that all. Again you raise it an issue which I don't actually dispute, something you repeatedly do. My issue as I have explicitly made plain is the way it is presented to the reader in a misleading way. Again we can park this for now, stay focused, as it has nothing to do with the current discussion

Reasons for flight? That was the focus of the current discussion.

Hills also cites violence as a reason. I can also provide a third. See below: Thats 3 sources

The sources do support the expectation of a counter attack, I just gave you a link to google books, so you could check for yourself p.97 of the reference I added today. Specifically 3 sources I have named and referenced per WP:CITE. This is magically reduced to 1 by finding a specious reason to ignore 2. Heres another google books reference Alan David Francis (1975). The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713. E. Benn. Retrieved 31 January 2011., relevant page is 115. Can we also stop this semantic argument that just because I don't use the exact same words as the source, that the source doesn't support the text. If we're going down that route, women weren't raped, they were "outraged" and by your own standard its WP:OR and WP:SYN to claim that this is a euphemism for rape. If this continues may I suggest our moderator makes a comment or takes this to a noticeboard for an opinion. Thats 3 sources

Remaining loyal to Charles III, not only Sayer, but I also cite Francis. To which I can add Kramer Dr. Johannes Kramer (December 1986). English and Spanish in Gibraltar. Buske Verlag. pp. 10–. ISBN 9783871188152. Retrieved 31 January 2011. p.10. Kramer also cites violence as a factor. Thats 3 sources btw.

I have provided a cite on the role of the priests - Francis, and you have google books to check for yourself. See also Hugill P.97. Thats 2 sources btw.

Refusal to be ruled by Protestants, I did provide a cite for that Sayer.

Can we actually stay focused on the question at hand. Noting that for each reason I've cited, is supported by a similar number of sources - they're all acknowledged in the literature as relevant opinions.

So here we are, you've links to google books to check for yourself. You acknowledge multiple reasons above. The question is given the quote from NPOV, which requires all significant opinions in the literature to be references why we are in a position where two editors insist on text that represents only one. Clearly by your own acknowledgement of multiple reasons it is not sustainable under wikipedia's policies. So why the refusal to address this issue directly? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to put some order in the discussion, only that. I am just putting together the sources that support the points you proposed above. That way we will have some common ground to discuss verifiability and notability/prominence (as per NPOV and DUE).

To make an update after your comments:

• War aims of the invasion and their failure: I'll accept that the incident where Rooke put the British flag instead of the Habsburg flag is not supported by modern sources. In any case, the aims of the invaders is still not too clear.

• I still don't see any sources explaining the aims you talk about but, I insist, I am sure that there are a few. 1 source (Francis) seems to support this, but no quote has been provided. Can WCM please quote it and provide some additional ones?

• Orders for protection given, disobeyed, specific crimes committed: OK. We can add Kramer (I saw that the link to google books).

• Many sources support this. You can check at least 8 sources here:[17].

• Punishment: to be clearer (my previous wording was not clear enough), I am not saying that the punishment was not severe, but that it is noted by one author for having been applied to "not many" soldiers.

• 1 source (Hills) says that at least one soldier was actually executed.
• 1 other source (Garratt) qualifies this punishment saying that "not many were punished".

• Reasons for flight: I still see that some theories are still not supported by sources. Can WCM please cite and quote them?

• Fear after the violence: 2 sources (Jackson and Kramer) explicitly mention this. 1 source suggests it (Garratt).
• Expectation of a counter attack as a main reason for departure: 1 source (Jackson) stating the fact that "fortresses changed quite frequently" in the 18th century, but no mention at all to the expectations of the Gibraltarians. 2 other sources have been mentioned but we don't have any quote. Could we have the text? (Google books does not seem to provide access to the text).
• Priests convincing the population to leave: We have 1 source cited (Francis), but we don't have a quote.
• Loyalty to Philip V: 2 sources (Sayer and Kramer) quote what the population said in a letter to Philip V. 1 source (Francis) seems to support this, but no quote has been provided yet.
• They refused to be ruled by Protestants: I have seen no source cited supporting this assertion (but maybe there are some). 1 source (Sayer) seems to support this, but no quote has yet been provided.

• Final destination San Roque: We agree on its verifiability, I'm only listing sources with regards to its notability. I have personally checked the 37 sources (out of several more) for the specific text, but I agree I have not yet quoted all of them. Only 10

• 10 sources explicitly quoted mentioning San Roque here[18]. 37 sources in total listed here.[19], but no quotes have been provided yet for all of them.

Let me explain why I insist in literal quotes: We have several times disagreed on their interpretation, so the literal text is very useful. In fact, some editors have in the past proposed cites that actually did not say what they were supposed to say (Minorcans, fear of revenge, ...) No bad faith assumed here, "errare humanum est" (and none of us is an exception).

Please, can someone provide additional evidence to complete the summary? Comments on each point are also welcome. I think we will be able to work constructively this way (I think we are right now). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am recognizing understandable tension and frustration between parties. Please remember that we are looking only at the 'alternate' wording sources now and we will of course move to the other side (sources on the specific incidents/bad things done on Gibraltar) later. When one party asks another to comment on something, please be direct about it and try to answer it in good faith. Let's not get on a tangent like general complaints about the way users are writing their responses. Always be constructive. Lord Roem (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be discussing on what basis to include or exclude certain facts from this list, here in rough chronological order:

“ War aims of the invasion and their failure: To seize Gibraltar as a toehold of support from the Spanish population for their claimant to the Spanish throne.

Military details of the assault: Orders of battle, pincer movements, etc.

Terms of surrender included assurances of religious freedom and security

Orders for protection given, disobeyed

Specific crimes committed: Rape, plunder, desecration of churches.

Restoration of order: including hanging at least one rioter and flogging others.

Decision to leave: order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave. The reasons given include that the population were in ongoing fear after the violence, they may reasonably have anticipated speedy recovery of the town, they were encouraged to leave by priests, they were reluctant to live under Protestant rule, and they were loyal to their King (or at least said so after the decision was made).

Where the refugees went: Mostly, San Roque, but also Algeciras and elsewhere. Some then dispersed into other nearby areas. In 1706 the remaining refugees obtained the charter of the modern town of San Roque.

”

If I understand the current state of the argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I am working hard on comprehension), it is that NPOV requires us to "cover all relevant opinions in the mainstream literature". That is to say, we have to include all of these points and possibly as many more as can be sourced, or none. Comments have suggested that including all of them is far too much for this overview, and I tend to agree. The only way out of this logjam is to come to some agreement on an order of relevance which will allow us to include the most important facts and exclude the rest.

In order to produce an order of relevance, we might need to consider:

• Verifiability (in particular, some of the reasons for departure may be subsidiary to fear and loathing, others may be ex post facto justifications)
• Notability (here, bibliometry may help, though it cannot be a sole guide)
• Relevance to Gibraltar and Gibraltar's population, at the time and now. (Here, national discourse may be important: if a fact is still widely touted in support of a national discourse, this in itself gives it some degree of ongoing relevance)
• NPOV (in particular, balancing national discourses with each other and with a truly neutral account)

Does anyone have an idea on other ways to produce an order of relevance? Or other relevant facts? Lord Roem, in your opinion, would it help if I produce my suggested order of relevance, or if anyone else does? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Lord Roem was asking that the question repeatedly asked is addressed. Which I'll repeat.

Multiple reasons are given in the sources, why are you and Imalbornoz suggesting we cover only one?

Whether they are ex post facto justifications or not is not for us to judge, that indeed falls into WP:OR and WP:SYN territory, NPOV requires we cover all relevant opinions.

All I see at the moment is the same position being restated over and over again, precisely the same walls of text that derails every discussion, please address this issue so we can move on. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And another one, this one is actually listed by Imalbornoz as being in his library, Ignacio López de Ayala (1845). The history of Gibraltar: from the earliest period of its occupation by the Saracens. W. Pickering. Retrieved 1 February 2011. see User:Imalbornoz/Gibraltar and I quote:

“ In this deplorable state of things, the unfortunate citizens who, having defended themselves with valour and obtained an honourable capitulation, might have remained unmolested in Gibraltar, embraced a resolution of which history affords few examples; faithful to their oaths and to their Sovereign, to whom they had sworn allegiance, they determined on quitting for ever the place of their birth, rather than submit to foreign dominion. ”

Are we still insisting the sources state only one opinion, Ignacio López de Ayala is flawed as noted above, but he also prints a copy of the letter quoted in Sayer. btw thats 4 sources stating the same now) Given that it is originally a Spanish source is this also a ex post facto justification? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither NPOV nor any other Wikipedia policy requires to cover all opinions on this issue, nor are we required to cover none. We can - if we feel so inclined - come to a consensus on what is appropriate in this article. A priority order would really help, but a way of assessing the relative significance of the various possibilities seems essential. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE,

“ 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. ”

Per NPOV we cover all significant viewpoints and "consensus" does not trump policy. So again why is there an insistence on text that only covers one viewpoint and one which favours a particular national narrative? We can agree that coverage of the reasons for the exodus is too much detail and suborn it to another article but what we cannot do is present a POV text that presents only one of many reasons and by doing so favour a particular national narrative. And its not like we favour what the people themselves actually cite as their reason for leaving - their loyalty to Philip V. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So, all or none? I still suggest that we could and should come to agreement about what weight we should give to different elements, and indeed that this is the essence of writing a good encyclopedic article. Lord Roem and Vassyana, do you have any comments at this point? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I note with interest that after all this discussion, Curry Monster's question still has not been answered.

The sources provide multiple explanations for the townspeople's departure. On what basis are you and Imalbornoz arguing that only one should appear? Pfainuk talk 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We aren't. We are trying to work out a mechanism for agreeing what should appear. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2011

Exactly. I mean, we're trying to put together the facts, souces, etc we all agree on so that we can prioritze the different issues and then achieve consensus on what to mention or not. To be clear: at the present moment I am not defending any particular option. Later on, I will, but not now. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How many ways can you avoid a question?

You're still insisting that the current text is a "sensible place" to stop and guess what, it lists one reason, and one reason only.

And you're starting from the flawed premise that you can decide a "mechanism" for "agreeing what to present". There is clear guidance on this from WP:NPOV policy "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. We represent all mainstream opinions on this matter. It doesn't say you get to "decide" which ones to present, we present all. I cannot and will not accept substituting unfiltered google searches as an alternative. Even if you dress is up as "Bibliometry", it is not in the slightest bit objective or scientific, the results are skewed by the search terms used and its useless for deciding content - as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

For example, this [20] is repeatedly cited by Imalbornoz to prove the notability of San Roque.

In this search which contains 16 results

1. refers to a vineyard near the hill leading to San Roque
2. is Alaya - we mention above regarding the exodus
3. is a book about the Great Siege referring to Spanish commander dining in San Roque
4. is the same book as 3. above
5. is the same book as 3. and 4. above
6. although about Gibraltar is actually discussing the founding of San Roque not the exodus
7. is the same book as 3., 4. and 5. above
8. is a British general dining with his Spanish counter part in San Roque
9. is a travel book, though to be fair it does mention the founding of San Roque
10. is actually about the founding of the AACR if you looked at it
11. is one of my references, Sayer, but the reference here is to "23rd of June a courier arrived in the camp of San Roque, bringing despatches for the Conde de las Torres and a letter for the Earl of Portmore"
12. is Hills but the reference here is the UN hearings in 1964
13. is the same as 11.
14. is a reference to Fox Hunting in San Roque, Tally Ho.
15. is Jackson but in this case the text is quoting a typhus outbreak, with a refuge at San Roque
16. is the same as 11. and 13.

So of 16 references

4 - are duplicates of the same book, reducing the number to 13
3 - are duplicated of another book, reducing the count to 11
No. 1 is nothing to do with the exodus, now there were 10
No. 3 is a book about the great siege, now there was 9
No. 8 is not related, now there was 8
No. 14 is Fox hunting, now there was 7
No. 9 is a travel guide and as we saw in Vassyana's exercise, Imalbornoz doesn't think these are reliables source of information for historical purpose, now there was 6
No. 10 is about an unrelated topic and only mentions San Roque obliquely, now there was 5

Of these 5, 4 are already used here

Sayer
Hills
Jackson
Alaya

And of the other, Mann, this mentions the founding of San Roque from the exodus only briefly. It doesn't materially explore the reasons why the population left.

Of the number claimed 16, 4 are relevant and already used here - thats a hit rate of 25% at best when you exclude the crap and the duplicates. Now really, Pfainuk has repeatedly demonstrated with various reduction ad absurdum that these google searches dressed up as "metrics" to "help" decide content do no such thing. I've just demonstrated above that its about as much use as a chocolate tea pot. So can we quit with the Voodoo dressed up as Bibliometry, because its about as accurate as Extispicy.

So do you accept policy requires us to represent all significant viewpoints or not? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to decide what is significant in this context... Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All the reasons I have listed are signficant. They're all covered in reliable sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:NPOV is clear on this point: that all these points are significant, and all must be given due weight. And if one point is to be given large amounts of extra detail (as some have argued), then it is clear the rest must be given similarly large amounts of extra of detail. Of course, IMO, it's better not to go into that much detail on any of them. Pfainuk talk 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe If I chipped in a third opinion, everyone could have more perspective on the issue. It appears that the reasons for the proposed 'political/war' goals in the 1704 takeover can be demonstrated by some sources. Also, the specific bad things which happened in the city (the raping and damage to churches) can also be shown. What I believe you all should do then, is provide a way to weigh this, or specific wording proposals to weigh the sides. Is it better for it to be shorter or more in detail? How much is needed? This should be where we begin the next cycle of conversation, as I think it would save time when each side has primae faciae good sources to back up their claims. Lord Roem (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My most important point here: we are trying to find a way to prioritize the issues in Lord Roem's question. It looks like you don't agree, so maybe some intervention from Lord Roem or Vassyanna could be very useful.

Regarding your last comment, it isn't about the 37 sources[21] which mention the exodus to San Roque and have Gibraltar in the title (and have been filtered by myself). It is about a quick secondary benchmark about books with "Gibraltar" and "History" in the title, where we just compare notability of several issues. Some of the sources will not go straight to the point both regarding San Roque and regarding the other issues in the Benchmark (like Cordoba or Suez). Anyway, undeniable, 37 checked sources (or more)[22] DO mention the exodus, while only 4 mention Cordoba, 33 Trafalgar, 22 Operation Felix, 10 Suez and British Empire and 30 the referendum.

Anyway, regarding your analysis of sources, Wee Curry, I must say you are wrong (maybe because you didn't make the effort to check what you were saying). Maybe you should look inside the books before you start accusing the effort of other editors of being "as useful as a chocolate pot". It is unnecessarily offensive and, if you are wrong (as you are now), you run the risk of discrediting yourself. Please look again: 16 books, 9 mention the exodus, 2 don't (and aren't included in the list of 37 checked sources), 5 are repeated sources. Bibliometry requires some effort, but I guess it's worth it). Please see below.

Analysis of 16 sources proposed by WCM

(Gilbard) Please check page 71 where it talks about the departure of the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar to San Roque, not a vineyard (there are 17 pages about San Roque, you could have easily checked this like I did before I listed this source). Ayala, indeed. That's why I said 10 quoted sources and 37 unquoted. (Drinkwater) Indeed, it is about a dinner at San Roque, that's why I didn't list it among the 37 unquoted sources. The same. Not among the 37. The same. Not among the 37. (Mann) "As to the Spaniards who reside in San Roque, a town which was founded in 1704 for the reception of those who were pitilessly expelled from Gibraltar by the English under Rooke, they still look upon themselves as citizens of the Rock (...)" Well, I would say that "were pitilessly expelled" describes some kind of exodus, doesn´t it? So, even in a history about the sieges of Gibraltar the exodus is mentioned. Quite notable, isn't it? The same as 3, 4, 5. That's why it's not among the 37. (Bradford) "Most of the original Gibraltarians settled in the area of San Roque, overlooking the bay and their ancient home." Well, it does mention the exodus to San Roque, doesn't it? Sayer DOES talk about the exodus (not only about a courier): "The exodus from the city was an affecting and melancholy spectacle. Overwhelmed (...) Numbers fell by the way, victims of hunger (...) while many, especially the authorities, remained at San Roque, keeping with them the archives of their ancient city." Please, you should make the effort to look inside books. (and is among the 37 sources) Madden says: "The original inhabitants had fled to San Roque when the Rock was captured". (Carter) Yes, even a travel book mentions that San Roque "built and peopled by the Spanish inhabitants of that garrison on its changing masters" Same as 9. Jackson DOES mention the exodus to San Roque: "But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque." (and is among the 37 sources listed and 10 sources quoted) Hills DOES mention the exodus (please look inside the book p. 166): "(...) all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia. The number of refugees was probably about 4,000. Some found shelter in the mountain villages and towns as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga. The wealthier refugees owned property within the extensive city boundaries beyond the isthmus. One of them, the regidor (town councillor), Bartolomé Luis Varela, gave houseroom in his country mansion to the city's standard and records; the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque." (it's among the 37 sources). Same as 9 and 12. (Gibraltar directory): Indeed, it's about hunting. That's why it isn't among the 37 sources I list.

Anyway, I will try to forget any offensive comments. Please, do you have any comments on the summary of issues and sources that I updated above?

Lord Roem, I agree, but I would like first to have some sources. One last questions, Pfain and WCM: Can you please confirm that you have already mentioned all the sources you want to mention regarding political aims of the capture (probably I am wrong, but I think I have seen none, please correct me)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

May I respond to that by pointing out that if you reduce it to the books that are relevant to dealing with the exodus, it reduces to texts we already have. If you find my sense of humour offensive, then I apologise for that, but please note the remarks were directed at the argument not yourself.

We have repeatedly pointed out that unfiltered google searches do not provide a metric, nor are they a reasonable alternative to reasoned dialogue and the repeated walls of text you generate with them are an obstacle to reasonable dialogue. Again I ask you to stop producing them and join in the dialogue.

In case you failed to notice, sources have been provided. You apper to want to ignore them by demanding I provide "extensive quotes". Well I'll do that for you, last night I did a special library order for a number of texts, I also ordered a new copy of the latest edition of Jackson. So you'll get them very soon, in the mean time I've provided google links for you to check yourself. I just checked again, you can access the material using google books, I suggest you just try a little harder. Indeed as you've just demonstrated you can do above.

Not only that but you could check your own extensove personal library of 37 books on Gibraltar, for instance you could help with this collaboration by referring to your copy of Jackson, Hills and Alaya and providing the extensive quotes that you require yourself. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: While I remember User:Imalbornoz/Gibraltar, I find this exremely frustrating as there are huge gaps in the quotes, only certain details are provided. Perhaps using your extensive library you could expand the quotations along the lines you suggest here. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Further addendum: I did request that Imalbornoz assist with the task of providing the more extensive quotes that he has asked for. I note that he has posted since, may I enquire if he is prepared to use his extensive library of books on Gibraltar to do so?

In addition, may I ask if he will comply with my request to fill in the blanks [[here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Gilbard (George James; Lieut.-Colonel) (1881). A popular history of Gibraltar, its institutions, and its neighbourhood on both sides of the Straits, and a guide book to their principal places and objects of interest ... Garrison Library Printing Establishment. Retrieved 2 February 2011. p.70

“ San Roque, the situation of an ancient Hermitage which had always been an object of great veneration to the people of Gibraltar, for when in 1649 an epidemic disease, having committed great ravages at Cadiz and Seville causing the ruin of these opulent cities, finally reached Gibraltar, all attacked by it fell victims, and as no human skill could arrest its progress recourse was had to the Hermitage to which processions and peregrinations were successfully made. It was observed that none died who retired to that eminence although attacked by the disease; whence arose the greatest devotion to the Holy Shrine, and the anniversary was celebrated by the people of Gibraltar by a devotional procession and much solemnity. The town was founded in 1704 by the Spaniards after the loss of Gibraltar, chiefly from the ruins of the ancient city of Cartei'a.

The account of the building of San Roque, for many years a most important town, and other neighbouring towns is so interesting that it deserves a somewhat lengthened notice. The Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar who, preferring the loss of their possessions and all they held dear, had left the fortress in a body when it fell into the hands of the English, proceeded to form for themselves new dwellings in different parts of the neighbouring Campo. They still considered themselves the representatives of the lost city, whose name and authorities they kept, as also were continued to them, by Royal command, all the privileges they enjoyed in their former city. Thus there may be said to have existed two cities of Gibraltar, one the actual, occupied by the English, and the other the moral, composed of Spaniards who had fled from that city with their archives and title deeds of their properties (Montero). No doubt there was as much lingering hope of again possessing the strong place they had wrested from the Moors in the minds of the Kings of Spain, when they contributed to keep up this contradiction, as it may be called; as a wish to soften the bitterness of their loss and to reward their loyalty to the Crown, when they conferred all their former privileges to their subjects, as if the city had never ceased ti be under their dominion, and that the exodus of the inhabitants to other parts had only been made for reasons of convenience.

Thus in all public acts the people of San Roque are still styled " the inhabitants "of Gibraltar, residing at San Roque."

It was to San Roque the greater part of the fugitives proceeded, and encamped near the famous Hermitage which recalled so greatly to their recollection the. benefits they had derived in the epidemic of 1649. Soon therefore a village, which afterwards became a town, was there established. Such was the foundation of the present San Roque, a place most convenient as being as near to the Rock as possible, to be well away from its guns; but the inhabitants still treasured the hope of recovering their own again; and this was the reason the town was not built at Rocadillo, a place in every way more suitable (Montero).

”

Another source that supports their loyalty to the Crown as their reason for leaving - make that 5 sources now. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Due Weight

Thanks Lord Roem. Let's try to outline the situation and a possible way through:

We have multiple reliable accounts of the 1704 capture of Gibraltar. These include a large number of verifiable facts - too many, I think we all agree, to be included in an encyclopaedic article and certainly too many for an overview article. The business of writing this article consists of selecting and expressing key bits of verifiable information, within the limits of accepted interpretation. I suggest that we have got stuck on something that we don't need to concern ourselves about, namely interpreting reasons for why people did things. The current wording is as follows:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. ”

It occurs to me that most of this is straightforwardly correct and gives facts that would be observable if we had a video recording of the event, but that we are hung up on attributing a state of mind to the population. And that we don't have to, even though reliable sources do mention their likely motives. We can leave those out entirely, and just give key facts generally agreed as important. Readers may draw their own inferences. I suggest therefore the following three sentences:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. On 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ”

We could of course rephrase the above, add to it or subtract from it, but I suggest that if we leave out any explicit statements about states of mind, which would not have been directly observable even at the time, we will greatly simplify our task. I'd personally be happy with the change suggested here. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is simply not acceptable, it is giving weight to one reason why the population left and one reason only. One that happens to lend weight to a claim made by one of the national narratives of these events. In their own words they say they left because:

“ Letter Of The Authorities To King Philip V. 115

Sire,

The loyalty with which this city has served all the preceding kings, as well as your Majesty, has ever been notorious to them. In this last event, not less than on other occasions, it has endeavoured to exhibit its fidelity at the price of lives and property, which many of the inhabitants have lost in the combat; and with great honour and pleasure did they sacrifice themselves in defence of your Majesty, who may rest well assured that we who have survived (for our misfortune), had we experienced a similar fate, would have died with glory, and would not now suffer the great grief and distress of seeing your Majesty, our lord and master, dispossessed of so loyal a city.

Subjects, but courageous as such, we will submit to no other government than that of your Catholic Majesty, in whose defence and service we shall pass the remainder of our lives; departing from this fortress, where, on account of the superior force of the enemy who attacked it, and the fatal chance of our not having any garrison for its defence, except a few poor and raw peasants, amounting to less than 300, we have not been able to resist the assault, as your Majesty must have already learnt from the governor or others.

Our just grief allows us to notice no other fact for the information of your Majesty, but that all the inhabitants, and each singly, fulfilled their duties in their several stations; and our governor and alcalde have worked with the greatest zeal and activity, without allowing the horrors of the incessant cannonading to deter them from their duties, to which they attended personally, encouraging all with great devotion. May Divine Providence guard the royal person of your Majesty,

Gibraltar, August 5th (N. S.), 1704.

”

In their own words they left because of their loyalty to Philip V (cited by Francis, Sayer, Kramer & Alaya). In addition, they also anticipated that there would be a counter attack (cited by Jackson, Francis, Hugill) - that might be a significant factor in any "danger". There was the urging of the priests, telling them there would be a counter attack (cited by Francis and Hugill).

The half-way house where selected events are put into the text is no such thing, it misleads by the omission of other relevant facts that are needed to balance the POV. This is an example of WP:CHERRY, where either consciously or sub-consciously, the text is biased by picking certain facts to create a misleading impression. It implies they left because of "violence" but doesn't mention the other factors involved and by doing so it favours a particular POV favoured by one national narrative.

If you want a short snappy text to cover the event for an overview you could simply state the bare facts:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. ”

If you wish to include these other details, it require an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats these events in a neutral manner. I'm prepared to do that, what I won't accept is maintaining the status quo because as has been repeatedly demonstrated it falls down seriously on the wrong side of WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss details of what facts go in, but can you agree with the idea of leaving out speculation on the state of mind of the Gibraltar population? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I would but equally you would have to agree with the idea of removing text that is used to infer the state of mind of the Gibraltar population and by that inferrence support a position on one side of the sovereignty dispute. That is reasonable is it not? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To remove all basis for inference is simply to remove all the facts, and indeed all the contents of an encyclopaedic article. But I'm glad that we can omit comments on states of mind. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've reached the knot of the discussion with this last comment, thanks Richard and CWM. I get that WCM agrees to everything Richard proposes, except mentioning the violent facts because someone may infer that it was a cause for the departure of the population and that would support one side of the sovereignty dispute? I tend to agree with Richard, and I don't agree with WCM's comment that it's reasonable to remove the violent facts because they would indirectly support one side of an international dispute. But we can ask for third opinions. Maybe Lord Roem can help us post the question if we all agree. I hope we are able to solve this soon. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue with the habit of misrepresenting my position. I did not say we had to remove it, if we include it then other relevant and pertinent information needs to be included.

Your stated reason for the inclusion of this material is to explain why the people left. I am correct in that presumption?

If we take that away, then there is no longer a reason to include this information. Does that not seem logical?

If you still include this, leaving it for the reader to infer the reason, without all relevant facts, that is just as misleading and POV. That is a logical and reasonable deduction.

I still propose we include relevant facts such as the seizure and the ceding of Gibraltar. And as I've shown the article doesn't suffer. But I'm prepared to go down either route, I won't however settle for text that is misleading either directly or by omission. May I also remind you that we have a logical place for more detailed text in History of Gibraltar Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We are awaiting comments from Pfainuk and of course anyone else with the stamina to follow this lot through. However, I hope it will be helpful if I give some alternative possibilities:

1. The short version, omitting the facts which embarrass one national discourse:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. ”

2. The median version, including the facts important to one national discourse and rejected by the other:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. On 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ”

3. The long version - my guess at including all the facts that WCM and Pfainuk might require for their idea of NPOV (feel free to amend it so as to include everything required):

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. The terms of surrender provided assurances of safety (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar). Admiral Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz, but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. Order was restored by measures including hanging and flogging of some rioters. Priests addressed the population encouraging them to leave rather than submit to the government of Protestants, and the town wrote to King Philip expressing its loyalty. The population may also have anticipated that the town would shortly be re-captured. On 7 August, almost all the population of Gibraltar departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, thus depriving the attacking forces of their hopes of a base of support in the Spanish population. In 1706 San Roque obtained its formal charter as a town. Several counter attacks by sea and land were made, but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles. ”

Before we get on to the merits of each version, could I ask for any amendments to these three alternatives, in particular for any additions which anyone thinks are required for version 3 to be really NPOV? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. "The short version, omitting the facts which embarrass one national discourse:" That is unbelievably POV Richard and completely unhelpful. I have no problem or embarassment with what happened and I'm happy to have it mentioned. The correct point is that is omits facts that favour one national discourse. I am not an apologist for the British Empire, never have been and consider the way you've phrased that to be a deliberate personal attack on my integrity.

1. "including the facts important to one national discourse and rejected by the other" The facts again that favour one national discourse and omit other significant viewpoints in the literature. Again I ask you to stop these personal attacks and attempts to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you. This is completely unhelpful and I am tired of it.

The comments are intended to describe a national discourse - not your motives. (See Imalbornoz's quotations from Garratt above for a description.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't describe a national discourse at all. The national discourse you refer to includes those events in the literature and has done so since 1704. This is a complete misrepresentation of both national opinion and literature. Its unhelpful and its intended to paint one side as unreasonable. This is not acceptable and I will ask for admin intervention from Vassyana if it persists. Please remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The long version:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. The terms of surrender provided assurances of safety (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar). Admiral Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Commanders lost control and sailors and marines ran amok: there were some instances of rape, looting and Catholic churches were ransacked. The townspeople murdered soldiers and sailors in reprisal, hiding the corpses in wells and cesspits. Order was restored by measures including the hanging and flogging of some of those who had committed crimes against the inhabitants. Priests addressed the population encouraging them to leave rather than submit to the government of Protestants and that the town would surely be retaken shortly. The town council took the decision they would prefer to remain loyal to King Philip V and leave, rather than swear loyalty to Charles III. On 7 August, almost all the population of Gibraltar departed to the nearny hermitage of San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, thus depriving the attacking forces of their hopes of a base of support in the Spanish population. In 1706 San Roque obtained its formal charter as a town becoming the modern town of San Roque, Cadiz. Several counter attacks by sea and land were made, but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles. ”

My suggestion. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful draft. Perhaps we'd better wait for Pfainuk's comments before we proceed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the long version, but in order to make it more complete I have some suggestions:

• I would also include the "fear" as an additional cause for the exodus.
• If it has to include details such as "pincer attack", that the garrison was "outgunned" or that some corpses were thrown into "cesspits", I think it could include also that only "one" rioter was hanged.
• I believe it should also include the fact that "all churches except one" were desecrated.
• Additionally, I have not yet seen a source supporting the expression "depriving the attacking forces of their hopes of a base of support in the Spanish population" (especially, when this took place after the atrocities in Cadiz, like Jackson says).
• I would also like to see the quote for the priests addressing the population.
• Given that this is a longer text, it should also include that San Roque was considered the "new" Gibraltar by the King.
• I finally think that the term "some" is not evenly distributed.

Here's my version of the long paragraph:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. The terms of surrender provided assurances of safety (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar). Admiral Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Commanders lost control and sailors and marines ran amok: there were instances of rape, looting and Catholic churches were ransacked. The townspeople murdered soldiers and sailors in reprisal, hiding the corpses in wells and cesspits. Order was restored by measures including the flogging of some of those who had committed crimes against the inhabitants and the hanging of one British troop randomly chosen among the rioters. Priests addressed the population encouraging them to leave rather than submit to the government of Protestants and that the town would surely be retaken shortly. The town council preferred to remain loyal to King Philip V and leave, rather than swear loyalty to Charles III. The population also thought, after the violent incidents, that it would be too dangerous to stay. On 7 August, almost all of the inhabitants of Gibraltar departed to the nearby hermitage of San Roque and other areas in the proximity, thus depriving the attacking forces of their hopes of a base of support in the Spanish population. In 1706 King Philip V granted San Roque its formal charter as a town, addressing them as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo, resulting in the modern town of San Roque, Cadiz. Several counter attacks by sea and land were made, but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles. ”

To make my position clear, I support the inclusion of the violent incidents not (only) because they were a cause for the exodus, but -mainly- because they were very notable then and now, and because they were very relevant to the Gibraltarians of 1704. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to make the point, this is an article about Gibraltar not San Roque. I oppose any text which represents a WP:COATRACK for sovereignty claims. I'd also add sources have been provided for the points indicated above, which will be amplified presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so maybe you've provided the sources (1.the part about priests/protestantism/expectation of short recapture and 2. the part about depriving the hopes of support in the Spanish population). Can you post and quote them below or some place where they are easy to consult? Note: Please, let's not interpret sources. If they say that "fortresses often changed hands" (without any mention to expectations of the population), let's just say that (what the sources say). Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case remove rapes and replace with women were "outraged". And by the way check Garrat for the hanging reference, changing the text accordingly. And I would appreciate a response to my request above. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The text is wearing me down

To put it lightly, I just **love** reading long blocks of text. I believe I have a) forgotten where everyone's position is and b) I feel people are not actually responding to each other's questions. So...we need to get focused.

I think I see the problem - and maybe this is the cause of the constant debates on the Gibraltar talk page ---> you are all talking about *so* *many* *issues* at once, and not grappling with the smaller prongs which could help build a larger compromise. So let's have a little restart. I see Richard has posted different versions of the text. However, I want each party to post the final text they want. Do one paragraph, whatever length you feel is appropriate. Include what you think is fair to include and exclude what you think is not. After this, we can go through each version to pinpoint objections, and then go through each objection. THIS WAY, we can actually collaboratively work on a text. So please, post a text, and I hope you agree with a change in process. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - When you make your text proposal, please limit commentary to your view on this change in process rather than commenting now on others'. You will get your chance to make objections and suggestions, just wait. ;-) Lord Roem (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my preferred version is the text upon which we reached consensus in the last discussion (and is currently in the article):

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. ”

Sorry for the long texts and very emphatic thanks for your patience. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Addenda: I support this version because it very briefly mentions historical facts that are 1) overwhelmingly notable among secondary sources, 2) are very relevant for the history of Gibraltar and for the Gibraltarians of 1704 themselves, and 3) they neutrally mention facts considered important for academic sources not silencing facts that might not fit with the preferences of nationalists from either Spain (reprisal killings, British officers trying to control, assurances being provided...) or Britain (rapes, desecrations, etc).

In fact, and this should be enough justification, these facts are well above the standard of notability of the History section of the article, which mentions episodes that are objectively much less notable among secondary sources about Gibraltar and (I think) much less relevant to Gibraltar: the Spanish Conversos from Cordoba who only stayed for two years in 1474, the Battle of Trafalgar, Operation Felix, or the Suez Canal during the British Empire. Like Richard, I think that an outside opinion would save all of us many hours and days of tiresome discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lord Roem. I sympathize very deeply with your desire for focus. The text I personally would prefer is what I describe as the median version, little different from the current:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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 departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ”

It's short, but gives a clear idea of the salient points of major events in Gibraltar and for the then-Gibraltarians, and it gives a basis for understanding some ongoing issues. The short version does neither, per Garratt it omits facts which were highly significant at the time and are still important now.

Compromises - this is Wikipedia not print, and if consensus can only be achieved by inserting lots of other things then I for one would be willing to insert almost anything, certainly anything that has been proposed as part of the long versions. Not my favourite option but to me an acceptable one.

Personally I feel that hell will freeze solid a long time before we reach consensus on the issues here - if you really want huge blocks of text check the last two years of the talk:Gibraltar archives. I suspect that only a definitive choice from an administrator prepared to enforce a ruling will settle it. I think I'd accept with relief absolutely anything that you and Vassyana may choose to recommend. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster

I think it is instructive to consider this book, Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011., produced by Spain when it was under the Government of the Fascist Dictator General Franco. And particularly this quote:

“ It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked ”

p321

This is pure propaganda of the worst kind but sadly it has become an entrenched position; its still promoted by the far right in Spain. It actually bears no resemblance to the historical events at all. In order to get a balanced text that treats these events neutrally a great deal of information has to be included. Which I am fully prepared to do, though suggest it is better suited to an article like History of Gibraltar.

What I do find unacceptable is promoting only part of the story, since this is actually favouring a side in the sovereignty either directly or by omission.

What has lead to an entrenched position in my opinion is an insistence on including partial details in the text that do promote a view in favour of a particular national narrative. And further denying that other factors came into play.

I find the argument that these events are an "embarassment" to one side to be not founded in fact. The British literature does include these facts and has always done so, if you refer to texts from the early 18th Century quoted by Byng they are fully acknowledged. Worse still I consider this an argument in bad taste and one designed to promote tension and conflict by portraying those holding a contrary opinion in a negative light.

The stated rationale for inclusion of these facts has always been to explain the exodus. If as suggested we take that motivation away by not trying to explain the reasons behind the exodus, then there is no need to include them. I have no problem with such a rationale. If we wish to explain certain aspects of the current national narratives, then to me an excellent place to do that is in the History of Gibraltar. The more detailed article lends itself to exploring the details of the issues. If we consider how other overviews treat the issue, they find no reason to discuss it all. Hence, the argument these are relevant and essential facts I find far from persuasive

Concluding, my personal preference is to cover the events as a bare summary of the notable facts, without favouring either side, so my suggestion is simply:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. ”

I am of course fully prepared to consider longer texts if that is what is needed but I do feel that any text that covers all relevant facts will be long. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll wait for the fourth party to submit a text. Lord Roem (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk

I know what you mean about length. I haven't read most of the above since I last posted.

My preferred text would go something like this.

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.

I would note that:

• Wider historical context is useful to give the reader a clearer understanding of the war that we describe. Not only that, but I feel it is significant for our accuracy here. As has been demonstrated by sources, Gibraltar was captured by powers supporting the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. That they happened to be the British and Dutch as opposed to the Prussians and Portuguese is significant, of course, but only to later events. As such, we must certainly not treat it as some kind of land-grab.
• This text improves neutrality by balancing the reasons why the captors did what they did with the reasons the townspeople did what they did.
• The names used for the two claimants used are those used in the article War of the Spanish Succession.
• This text gives a brief description of the multiple reasons for the townspeople's departure as provided by sources, and does so based on the provisions of WP:NPOV that require that all significant viewpoints be given due weight. The current text fails to do this: it treats the violence as the only significant thing about the capture, going into vast quantities of detail about it, and as such promotes one POV over the other.
• There may be other points - Gibraltar's strategic location and poor garrison as a factor in the decision to capture the town, and the role of the priests and the very real possibility of a recapture in encouraging the townspeople to leave - that may properly belong in a more neutral text. I don't claim my text as perfection - but I do believe it's quite a lot better than what we've got. Pfainuk talk 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Of the options above I have to say I think that Pfainuk's is quite probably the best option put forward so far. It includes all the information on the geopolitical reasons for the Gibraltar seizure and informs readers why the population left per sources. His rationale is well argued and rooted in wikipedia's policies of covering the main points. My only criticism might be, as he himself observes, that there were other factors that could be taken into account but I think he has found a good place to stop.

May I also suggest that accusations of "silencing facts" stop. This is a bad faith accuation, no one is suggesting facts are silenced. If anything more coverage is suggested as a means of overcoming the POV issues with the text both Richard and Imalbornoz suggest. In addition, quoting an outdated source from 1939 to imply that these facts are "embarassing" is in bad taste and however you justify them, its an accusation designed to paint an equally valid viewpoint in a negative manner. If you want mediation to succeed then you're going to have to stop doing this. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to think of anything new to say. I'll repeat once more, nobody's accusing anybody of bad faith. Vassyana comments: "Attempts to survey independent sources are noticeably absent from discussion history." Does anyone think that such a survey would help, and if so do you have any ideas on how to conduct it so that it will help to bring about agreement? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you bring it up then Richard, seeing as it is of no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. And accusations of "silencing facts", when no one is trying to silence anything. These are indications of bad faith and are problematic in a civil discussion.

I have a suggestion, if you wish to conduct a survey I will be very happy to support it. But in the mean time I would request that the problematic text is removed from the article as a good faith gesture. What do you say to that suggestion? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the survey as well. I propose that each one of us compromises not to make any comment there, like Vassyana proposed. Maybe Lord Roem can conduct the survey?

I don't agree with changing the article now. Basically, Pfainuk and Wee Curry want to omit some facts while Richard and I want them mentioned. Removing those facts would obviously not be consensus. The article currently shows the last consensus before this dispute was raised. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Back from another long and busy weekend, apologies for the brief absence.

I have read the comments in the meantime and from Vassyana. While I support the idea of a survey of independent sources, I believe this is something to be done on a second track to this mediation. As I wrote above with the concept of the different proposed texts by all parties, I want discussion directly on language. Therefore, I will begin a discussion on the first posted text and begin looking into specific objections. I understand the larger issues at hand, but looking at the problem this way may be more productive in achieving a satisfactory end result. Lord Roem (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again can I ask that bad faith accusations please stop. The persistent accusations of wanting to omit certain facts are rather obviously untrue and their continued presence is unhelpful. My suggestion was to remove contested text, whilst a consensus discussion proceeded. It was a suggestion for a temporary measure nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Text 1: Imalbornoz

Proposal one is here:

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. 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. ”

Let's review the proposal line by line. So firstly, "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar."

Are there any disputes to the inclusion of this sentence in one form or another in the section? Do *not* debate anything other than this focused question. If we agree on inclusion, we then will proceed to discussion of the text itself. But first review the primae faciae issues. If consensus is reached there, we can move on. Lord Roem (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that this depends on what you mean by in one form or another. I'd suggest that it is obvious that we can't not mention that Gibraltar was captured - it's one of most significant events in the history of Gibraltar, crucial for understanding later events and the current situation. But I have concerns both with the sentence's accuracy and its lack of historical context. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The pedant in me wants to point out that the force included a number of Catalan supporters of Charles III, so it wasn't solely an Anglo-Dutch force. The accuracy issue I have with the text is that Gibraltar was captured in the name of Charles III, though the armed forces were predominantly Anglo-Dutch. So whilst I have no objection on inclusion, there are accuracy issues to be dealt with. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to include it all. Much more could be said especially about context and details, but it's good as it is. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the misunderstanding. I am talking about including the general fact included here. As it seems there is no objection there, let's begin with specific problems/concerns people have. Please each person make a bulleted list so we can review one at a time instead of debating five issues at once (this also should resolve the issue of text walls). Lord Roem (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster Bulleted Points

Minor quibbles really, easily dealt with I would imagine.

• Force was Anglo-Dutch and Catalan supporters of Charles III
• Capture was done in the name of Charless III, "to the King of Spaine's obedience"

I'd suggest including this as Pfainuk has suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't myself, as being not quite important enough to Gibraltar itself, but have no particular objection if the consensus is to expand. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so I understand your argument, are you suggesting that the reasons why Gibraltar was captured in the first place are not important or notable? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Merely a matter of fine editorial judgement whether they should, in this article, be expanded from the present mention of the war. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Composition of the force: Accuracy vs brevity. Wee Curry is right to say that about 100 soldiers were of Catalan origin (<5% of the total). I should add that there were some Austrians as well (e.g. the commander, Prince Hesse, was Austrian himself). But the overwhelming majority were Dutch and English (95%+ of the total). Would it be correct to say that this was an Anglo Dutch force? Or is this detail notable and relevant enough to be included in an overview article (it is already explained in Capture of Gibraltar)? How does it compare to other issues under discussion?

• In the name of Charles III: We can consider this a fact, but if we go to this detail, the article should briefly consider other issues in order to have a balanced view. Charles III never really controlled Gibraltar: It was taken in the name of Charles III, but England kept its control as it was considered of great use for its own trade interests (I personally think that the latter is of more practical relevance to Gibraltar).

• Many sources say that it was "officially" taken in the name of Charles III. We can consider this a fact.
• It is documented that the English very quickly controlled Gibraltar for their own use: "A month after its capture Secretary of State Sir Charles Hedges described it as 'of great use to us [the English] for securing our trade and interrupting the enemy’s'."
• Some sources, like Gibraltar ex-Prime Minister Bossano, say that it was English since 1704 (i.e. "in the name of Charles III" does not seem of much practical consequence to them, they emphasize English control).

-- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No that is not correct, Gibraltar was placed under the command of the Archduke of Hess from memory. Could you refresh my memory as to what Hills and Jackson say on the matter? The allies were very careful to ensure that Gibraltar was under Hapsburg control and be seen to be so. I am interested in historical accuracy not re-inforcing any particular revision of history to support modern claims whether they are Gibraltarian or Spanish or British.

As to force composition, it was predominantly Anglo-Dutch but there were significant minorities. A simple caveat could cover it in an overview, I don't see it as a sticking point. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hesse was Governor only from 4 August 1704 to 6 August 1704 (see in Governor of Gibraltar). All other Governors were British. Even though the first two of them were appointed by the Archduke, they were so on the recommendation of Queen Anne. Please also look here[23] for some opinions on British control over Gibraltar.

Regarding the caveats, OK. If you want we can use something brief. -- Imalbornoz 14:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is accurate, could you tell me what Hills and Jackson say? May I also remind you of FACT vs OPINION. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. It's a fact that Gibraltar was taken "in the name of Charles III" (although I don't see much relevance of this to Gibraltar). It's also a fact that all the governors were British since the 6 of August 1704. It's also a fact that it was under Queen Anne's rule (for example declaring Gibraltar a free port in February 1705)[24] (I would say that these two are very practical facts with lots of relevance to Gibraltar).

So, let's not get lost. What is more relevant: a) that Gibraltar was taken "in the name" of Charles III, or b) that in practice the Governors were British military men under British discipline and Queen Anne's orders were law regarding (e.g.) taxes (remember that together with death they're the only certain thing ;-) )? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes very intersting, we're actually discussing the capture here and the forces were acting for and on behalf of Charles III to bring Gibraltar and the rest of Spain "to the King of Spaine's obedience". It is frustrating when I ask a direct question for it to be ignored. You have a much better library than all of us, so how is this covered in Hills and Jackson? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I had a delivery today and checked on the Governors you mentioned. You must not be aware that Nugent was an Irish Catholic mercenary in the employ of the Archduke who had fought for William of Orange, not as you assert a British military man under British discipline. In fact he faced a lot of prejudice from the aristocratic British officers who bridled at being under the command of a "papist". Shrimpton although British was also under the command of the Hapsburgs not British discipline. In fact Hapsburg control of Gibraltar was maintained till at least 1707. So on those points you appear to have been mistaken, may I enquire as to what source you based your comments on? On the face of it, it appears to be WP:OR that Gibraltar quickly defaulted to British rule, the sources I have to hand utterly contradict that assertion. I also note they utterly reject Ayala's account of it being seized on behalf of the English Crown, no source accepts that account as accurate and even independent sources like Jordine contradict it. All the sources I can find say Gibraltar was taken on behalf of the "King of Spain" Charles III and remained under Hapsburg control for some time.

This leads me to my second point, you say that 100 soldiers were of Catalan origin or approximately 5%. My source suggests nearer 500 or about 20% were Catalan. Thats quite a difference. Could you please indicate your source? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Or we could concentrate on the point at issue: does the present text say enough about the context of the capture, in which case arguing about the details is a waste of more innocent electrons? Or do we really really need to add more? The issue of the exact degree of Hapsburg and of British control at different times is one we've never felt the need to include before, nor does it seem to have been totally clear throughout, nor does it seem to be of immense importance at the time or now. 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think belittling any editor's comment is helpful here Richard. I am allowed to change my mind and be swayed by others arguments and to introduce new ideas, this is all part of consensus building. The issue of the degree of Hapsburg control and of British control wasn't raised by me, it was raised by Imalbornoz to dispute the bulleted points I made. On the face of it, the sources contradict the points he makes, which could quite legitimately be described as WP:OR. The bulleted points I made are backed up by sources and I think they happen to be relevant and notable. The issue here is explaining who by and for what reason Gibraltar was attacked in the first place and surely that has to be significant and notable. We were simply asked to make bulleted points, I have merely amplified my own contribution in response to criticism. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT

About Richard's and WCM's last comments: I am saying that if we mention Gib was taken on behalf of Charles III, then we should also mention that Charles didn't have much control since (at least) Henry Nugent's death 3 months after the capture. Otherwise it would seem Charles was in command until... Utrecht 9 years later?

About Henry Nugent: WCM, you're right and I was wrong (I quickly jumped to conclusions seeing that he was Irish and had previously fought under an English king). My mistake, thanks for the info.

On the other hand, I am right about the Secretary of State saying right after the capture that it was 'of great use to us [the English] for securing our trade and interrupting the enemy’s'. I am also right about the following Governor in November 1704 (he was a British military man, recommended by Queen Anne) I am also right about Queen Anne sending orders to Gibraltar shortly afterwards. Which was of more relevance to Gibraltar: the "official" statement "on behalf of Charles III" or these other facts? I am not saying we should not mention "on behalf of Charles III" right at the capture. I'm only saying that if we say that, we should also say that Gibraltar was under English control in (at the most) a few months afterwards, and the Government considered right after the capture that it was something very useful for British trade. (actually, I don't know what practical consequence "on behalf of Charles" had after Nugent's death).

Regarding Catalan soldiers, I think we have agreed on how to deal with this one, haven't we?

Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, could you please provide the context that leads you to the conclusion that "us" in this case means the English and not the alliance of countries supporting the Archduke Charles? Bear in mind that Hedges' full quote, taken from page 415 of Trevelyan, is:

"A footing for the King of Spain in the strongest fort belonging to that country, and of great use to us for securing our trade and interrupting of the enemy's."

Making it abundantly clear that Hedges viewed Gibraltar as Spanish territory, under the rule of the "King of Spain" - presumably Charles (in accordance with England's position at the time and because the sentence would make little sense if it was Philip).

Not that I find this point particularly relevant: it is clear from sources that Gibraltar was captured to further the war aims of countries supporting Charles' claim to the throne of Spain, and not out of any British or Dutch territorial ambition. The wording you propose is so simplistic on this point as to actually be misleading about those aims and about the reasons for the capture.

I would note that the point we are discussing is about the events of August 1704: I believe that an explanation of the historical context of these events is important to allow our readers to understand about them. The more I have read of our discussions here and of the sources that have been provided, the more I am sure the historical context is crucial to for our readers' understanding of events. Pfainuk talk 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Lord Roem asked me for a bulleted list, here it is. It is similar to Curry Monster's:

• That "combined Anglo-Dutch force" is inaccurate, in that it implies that there were no other countries involved. The force was in fact Austrian-led and had a significant component of Catalans. This point has not been settled, despite Imalbornoz's comment.
• That as per my above comment, the failure to include historical context means that the text is misleading. This is also a question of accuracy: that it was mostly an Anglo-Dutch force does not change the fact that the territory was captured in pursuit of Archduke Charles' claim to the throne of Spain. This point would seem to me to be crucial to the understanding of the capture. Pfainuk talk 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "us": I don't have direct access to the source. I got it from the cite [User:Rebel Redcoat|Rebel Redcoat] wrote in the Capture of Gibraltar article[25]. I suppose that, given that you guys have visited the article and didn't propose any correction, it wouldn't be problematic now. Also, it seems Redcoat was quite knowledgeable about this time period (he created articles about quite a few battles in this time period).

Anyway, here you have some other quotes:

• "It was valued chiefly for the purpose of trade defence — in the words of the Secretary of State, Sir Charles Hedges, for ' securing our trade and interrupting of the enemy's '" ([A naval history of England: Volumen 1], Geoffrey Jules Marcus, Little, Brown, 1962)
• "Even in those days the importance of Gibraltar was appreciated by English people, and we find Secretary Hedges describing Gibraltar as 'of great use to us for securing our trade and interrupting of the enemy's'" (Contemporary review: Volume 210, Contemporary Review Co., 1967) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you as you appear to have missed it, that Pfainuk pointed out above that Hedges recognises Gibraltar as being "A footing for the King of Spain in the strongest fort belonging to that country, and of great use to us for securing our trade and interrupting of the enemy's." Giving a partial quote provides a very misleading picture as Hedges clearly sees Gibraltar as Hapsburg and the cause as being the Hapsburg one. I've often asked for a rather fuller quote than you typically provide. The essay WP:CHERRY is helpful in this regard.

I've now got copies of both Hills and Jackson and will provide a more detailed quote later. Both references clearly support the argument that Gibraltar was captured, on behalf of Charles III, and was put under the command of his representative and remained so for some time. Do you have any source that backs up your claims other than your own WP:OR that because a Governor was of British origin Gibraltar must have been under the control of the British?

I endorse Pfainuk's bulleted points, I too consider these are essential to helping our readers understand the capture. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It may help to point out another national discourse here, without accusing anyone. One view is that the British wanted Gibraltar in the long term long before the actual attack, so the (fairly rapid) British takeover must have been planned, was the "real" reason for the operation, and all this stuff about supporting a claimant to the Spanish throne must be a cover story. (It is true that we had long wanted a base in the area, mainly to protect trade from the Barbary pirates, we had spent a lot of time and money failing to hold Tangier, and Gibraltar has been of great strategic importance for centuries.) I'd suggest that this is a viewpoint of no great ongoing importance, and that we could stick with the present wording. Or put in something as Pfainuk suggests, perhaps: "During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of the Archduke Charles." Does that seem to offer a solution and an answer to Lord Roem's question? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Except Richard that isn't the case. The British wanted Minorca, with its deep water port as base, not Gibraltar. Almost immediately after the Treaty of Utrecht the horse trading to find ways of getting rid of Gibraltar started, ie there were no long term plans to hold onto Gibraltar. Again, and frustratingly, this is for the 3rd time of asking, do you have a source stating any other reason behind the attack and capture in 1704, apart from the discredited account of Ayala?

I'm afraid that informing readers why Gibraltar was captured in 1704 is a matter of importance. Gibraltarians may claim Gibraltar as British since 1704, the history is rather different and we shouldn't change the historical narrative to fit in with modern dogma. I'm afraid your suggestion falls short of that and I prefer the text offered by Pfainuk. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is more than one national narrative here, and none seem of great importance. Fortunately, we don't necessarily need to argue them through. Per Pfainuk we then have the text: "During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of the Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. It's a bit longer than I'd think ideal, but does anyone else find it acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Fine by me, I must admit to being kinda non-plussed that what I saw as minor points took so much discussion. Though the google link is in error by the way. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Accept "largely" or something similar if you insist (although most sources summarize it by just saying "an Anglo-Dutch fleet": Peter Gold, Sir William Jackson, Melissa R. Jordine, Edward G. Archer, Great Britain-Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ...)
• Support mentioning "Archduke Charles", although I'd prefer to say "on behalf of" or "in the name of". In order to be consistent, and summarizing all the discussion above, I expect that if we say this, we will also mention afterwards the facts that reveal British 'de facto' control after the capture (i.e. the first British Governor in November 1704 appointed on the recommendation of Queen Anne, and the appointment of Gibraltar as a free port in February 1706 by Queen Anne). Does anyone disagree with this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. So that gives us something like: ""During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of the Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. It was soon under de facto British control. Again, as a personal preference, I'd stick with the current wording, but I'm happy enough with this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we mention British control after the capture episode (in chronological order). I also prefer the current text, but I'll accept this. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, just to confirm, its "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. It was soon under de facto British control."

Yes?

Confirm with sig here, just to say yes/no without comment.

1. No I want a source for de facto control. I've asked 4 times for this to be blunt, this appears to be entirely WP:OR at this time based on a Governor being of British origin or appointed on recommendation of Queen Anne. All the sources refer to the period as "Hapsburg Gibraltar", the sources do not support this. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

2.Yes. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

3.

4.

Answering WCM's comment: Would he agree to include after the capture episode a brief mention of the first British Governor on the recommendation of the Queen (nov 1704) and the declaration of Gibraltar as a free port by Queen Anne?

It would be something like this (it's taken from the Timeline of the history of Gibraltar#During the rest of the war (which WCM and Pfainuk have never disputed or claimed that it was unsupported):

"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. (...rest of sentences pending to be reviewed...)"

"Although nominally in the hands of the Archduke Charles, and garrisoned with both English and Dutch regiments, Britain began to monopolize the rule of the town: In November 1704, the first English Governor of Gibraltar was named on the recommendation of Queen Anne; in August 1706 the Prince of Hesse and the remaining Spanish troops left the town; and in February 1706 Queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port. In 1707 Queen Anne directly named the Governor and in 1711 the British Government covertly ordered the Governor to expel any foreign (not British) troops."

"Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. (...)}"

Regarding the second paragraph: would you guys want to just leave the first sentence "Although nominally..." (literally copied from the "Timeline" article") or should we keep the examples of British domination to support it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Provide a source, if it is verifiable per reliable sources that should be no problem. This is the 5th time I've asked for a source. How many times can you avoid sourcing an edit once it has been challenged. If it can't be sourced it shouldn't be in the article. And the argument that unverified material has been left in the Timeline article is not a valid argument. There are many aspects of the Timeline article that need work, claims that are unverified, or claims based on discredited sources like Ayala. Cleaning it up is something I would have done years ago if every single edit wasn't subjected to this level of scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, sources:

• "In 1706 Anne had declared Gibraltar a free port, that is to say ships of all nationalities, including those with which Britain was at war, were to be free thereafter to trade with Gibraltar" (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 216)
• "Although Gibraltar was surrendered to the archduke, it was utterly dependent on Britain. The displaced Spanish citizenry created a new town around the San Roque Hermitage and revived the abandoned Algeciras to serve as their anchorage. Gibraltar soon became an exclusively English enclave. When the war was winding down in 1711, London even secretly instructed its governor to remove any foreign troops, so as to bolster the British claim." (Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the present, David Marley, p 347)
• "On 17 February 1706 Queen Anne, though she had no powers to do so, declared Gibraltar a free port because the sultan of Morocco insisted upon Gibraltar being given this status in return for supplying materials for rebuilding the city and for providing fresh food supplies. This was to Shrimpton's benefit. He imposed his own duties on the traders, and took "key money" from the richer merchants, many of whom were Jews, in allowing them to occupy the best of the vacant Spanish houses, from which he evicted officers of the garrison to enable them to do so." (The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar, Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson, p 114)
• "And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55)e
• "In 1704 the fortress of Gibraltar was won by us in open war with Spain, and with her de facto government. At the conclusion of that war, by the treaty of Utrecht, the place was deliberately ceded to us by Spain and by Europe." (Illustrated Naval and Military Magazine: A monthly journal devoted to all subjects connected with Her Majesty's land and sea forces Vol 1, p 164)
• "Gibraltar [has been an enclave] (as from 1704 de facto, from 1713 de jure)." (International Law in Historical Perspective, J. H. W. Verzijl, pp 443 444)
• "Gibraltar became de facto a British possession in 1704 when it was seized by Admiral Rooke during the War of Spanish Succession, and Britain's legal title to the Rock was enshrined in the Treaty of Utrecht (1713)." (Political change in Spain, Edward Moxon-Browne, p 92)

I hope these are enough sources to support "'de facto' British control". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite:

• Hills - 1706, 2 years later. See below other quotes from Hills that paint a very different picture.
• [26] Marley - 1711, 7 years later. And utterly consist with the accounts below.
• Jackson - 1706, 2 years later. See below other quotes from Jackson that paint a very different picture.
• No date supplied. But note the comments below. See [27] as Page 55 appears to be about a much later period. This does illustrate the danger of using google snippets. And [28] The capture is much earlier in the book see [29]. P.55 appears to be about the period after Utrecht.
• [30] the source stated. An article on Major General Sir Charles MacGregor, I could be mistaken but i don't see any relevance to the matter at hand?
• [31] See the google snippet I presume you used. I'm afraid I cannot accept this fragmentary quote taken out of context as a sufficient cite. As I have frequently pointed out, these fragmentary quotes are not sufficient to cite a fact. If you take the text either side a considerably different nuance emerges. Do you have the book or do you rely on google snippets for just the phrase you wanted?

So no I don't accept these as supporting the text "soon to be under de facto British control". More importantly the quotes are very selective and when you read the sources a radically different picture emerges.

The argument you appear to be presenting is that because a Governor was appointed by the Archduke on the recommendation of Queen Anne it must have been under British control and the British had always wanted Gibraltar and that the invasion in the name of the Archduke merely a pretext.

Jackson, p93-94

“ Before Rooke sailed for the 1704 campaign Queen Anne wrote to him in her own hand instructing him

"to pay the same obedience to the King of Spain (the Archduke) as to the time and manner of his setting sail and as to the number of ships which shall be in readiness to attend him, as you would do to myself."

Thus when Rooke set sail at the end of February 1704, with both the Archduke and Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt embarked, he was acting in the service of the Hapsburg cause.

”

“ In the debate, three reasons were given for selecting Gibraltar as the target: the place was indifferently garrisoned; its possession would be of great value during the war; and its capture would encourage the Spaniards in southern Spain to declare in favor of the Hapsburgs. ”

Jackson, p96

“ as the record of the council of war expressed it, "reduce it to the King of Spain's obedience" - the king being Hapsburg Charles III ”

Jackson, p99

“ Later that morning, 4 August, Hesse took possession of Gibraltar in the name of Charles III of Spain. ”

“ The story that Rooke, realizing the military importance of the Rock, ordered the Hapsburg flag to be lowered and the Union Jack to be raised is apocryphal. ”

Jackson, p101

“ Rooke sent his fleet by squadrons to water at Tetuan and left Hesse to with eighteen hundred marines and sailors to reorganize and hold the battered fortifications. ”

If we go on its not till 1711, that the British and French tired of the expense of the war start talks behind their allies backs and it is only with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 that Gibraltar passes from being a Hapsburg possession to a British one.

Jackson, p 113

“ As the ink dried on the Treaty of Utrecht, which turned Gibraltar from a Hapsburg into a British fortress and city... ”

Jackson, then devotes the whole of Chapter 8 to "Gibraltar, the Bargaining Counter", detailing the various horse trading to get rid of Gibraltar in various ways - though he does note the British attachment to the Rock.

Hills, treats the matter slightly differently. But he does note p202:

“ Though Shrimpton was "Governor", the garrison continued to acknowledge His Most Catholic Majesty's possession of Gibraltar ”

“ The records of what happened in Gibraltar in the years 1705-1712 are not plentiful. A 15 gun salute was fired in Shrimpton's honour on 5 February 1707. Almost certainly that marked his departure - any other reason for the salute would have been most irregular. Almost certainly his successor was the Spanish Major-General Ramos, sent there by the archduke ”

That may be woth a correction on the other page. Crucially, Hills p202:

“ The record of the salutes fired shows clearly one point of importance. From 1705-1712 the garrison commander recognized Gibraltar to be "the King of Spain's". Right from 1705, however, there were men in London, Lisbon and elsewhere anxious to make it the "Queen of England's ”

But again Hills, like Jackson, devotes the next chapter to the various horse trading that went on.

And with Garrat, pretty much the same story [32] The sources are remarkably consistent when you look at the details.

To conclude:

• Seized and remained under the "King of Spain's obedience"
• Much later control passed to Britain with the Treaty of Utrecht as a the result of some back handed deals behind the Spanish allies of France and Britain's backs.
• Confused priorities as to whether to retain Gibraltar or trade it for something else. Certainly nothing to support a long term ambition or a pre-planned strategem to use the Hapsburg cause as a pretext.

So while Pfainuk's text is fine, I do not support augmenting as proposed as it creates a misleading narrative. Lets stick with what the historians say. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Step by step.

Please look at de facto: "It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation."

I suppose that you accept that the following quotes prove English "de facto" control (without any WP:OR) at some point after the capture (long before Utrecht), in spite of Gib being "nominally" or "de jure" under Charles of Habsburg:

• Sir William Jackson explaining that Queen Anne, in spite of not having legal powers, declares Gibraltar a free port in order to get help from the sultan of Morocco (me thinks this example should be in the definition of "de facto" control).
• "Gibraltar [has been an enclave] (as from 1704 DE FACTO, from 1713 de jure)"
• "Gibraltar became DE FACTO a British possession in 1704..."
• "In 1704 the fortress of Gibraltar was won by us in open war with Spain, and with her DE FACTO government."
• (I won' repeat the rest of the sources)

Can you please confirm that you accept (or not) that these sources support British "de facto" control? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the word "soon" in the context of history can easily span 1704 to 1713. (In the context of geology I've seen it applied to the span from the formation of the Earth to the origin of life, a mere 300 million years or so.) As I say I'd prefer the current wording as being sufficient and shorter, but would accept the current proposal. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources you quote do not support the edit you propose. Point of fact they flatly contradict it - if you read them as I've shown. Trouble is they're not read. Google books is searched and using google snippets to find a fragment of text you think supports an edit and thats what you quote. Selective selection of quotes, can and does give a misleading impression of what the source actually says. I've repeatedly asked quotes to be expanded to no avail. And these are sources you claimed to have in your possession - now you say you don't.

Take for example Hills and Jackson - they both state as a matter of FACT that Gibraltar was under Hapsburg control.

You present a quote Andrews - which is discussing a period after Utrecht. This is an obvious abuse of sources.

So step by step:

• Selective quotes from Google snippets is not an acceptable way of sourcing edits - the results frequently are misleading
• The selected quotes from several sources you've selected, well the sources themselves flatly contradict you. I've supplied you with quotes to show you that.
• You need to reconsider your position or find new sources. Simply restating the same discredited points is a classic example of WP:IDHT.

And semantic arguments on a decade being "soon" on a geographical timescale is a frankly ludicrous argument; a week is a long time in politics. So again no I do not accept the caveat you wish to add. It doesn't satisfy your own benchmark of Verifiability, Notability, NPOV or Relevance. Its original research to synthesise a position to support an a priori presumption based on a national narrative. Again let us avoid all that by sticking with what the professional historians have to say, rather than cherry picking from them to support our own prejudices.

We should simply say that Gibraltar passed under British control after Utrecht, which is what the sources actually say and pretty much what Pfainuk proposes. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. You say those sources do not support "de facto" British control after the capture and before Utrecht. In my opinion they do so OVERWHELMINGLY, and your interpretation is very wrong (with good faith, of course).

• You say, for example that Allen talks about the period after Utrecht (1713)... when he is mentioning Shrimpton, who was governor from 1704 to 1707!!!
• Hills says that Charles of Habsburg was "aknowledged" in his possession of Gibraltar ("DE JURE"), while Queen Anne "ordered" ("DE FACTO") that Gibraltar be a free port and the British Governor had the "DE FACTO" power to ask for money from traders and kick people out of their houses.
• And we have at least 3 sources mentioning literally the expression of "DE FACTO" British control before Utrecht (after Utrecht, it would be absolutely nonsense to differentiate between "de facto" and "de jure" because both belonged to Britain, don't you see?)

I don't know what to do if you don't see this. I honestly think you need some outside opinion (it wouldn't be the first time that some outside opinion makes you reconsider your arguments, like for example when you said that Spaniards left "for fear of reprisals" -thank God, outside opinion made you change your position- or when you tried to impose some text saying that there were 30,000 Gibraltarians in Gibraltar -same here- or ...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text

As Pfainuk's text has pretty much majority support I propose:

“ 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.[12] The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain,[13] 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.[14] Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity by Spain to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which concluded the war. ”

Short and snappy. Yes or no.

1. Support Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)