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

Note - moving stuff to an archive as this page is too big. Lord Roem (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1 (Opening Statements - Specific text proposals)

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[1] 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)[2] (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[3]. 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.
• [4] 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 [5] as Page 55 appears to be about a much later period. This does illustrate the danger of using google snippets. And [6] The capture is much earlier in the book see [7]. P.55 appears to be about the period after Utrecht.
• [8] 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?
• [9] 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 [10] 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)

No that is not what Hills says at all. You've already acknowledged you don't have the reference, I do and I've provided quotes to show that. You take A and B and conclude C, this is your WP:OR and WP:SYN. The sources do not support your claim. Point of fact they say exactly the opposite.

You take Andrews and search for a phrase, you provide a quote from a period after Utrecht. The problem is your method of working, using google snippets is vulnerable to confirmation bias. Its like looking at a source through a straw. This is your problem, you can't see what you're doing is wrong and produces misleading results.

So I am not going to accept the simple caveat you propose as the sources flatly contradict it and continuing with the same bad faith attacks you repeatedly resort to is not a convincing argument.

I am not going to lower myself to defending myself against the same baseless accusations you raise time and time again to try and wind me up. I said none of those things, I have explained myself repeatedly and yet you persist with the same bad faith presumptions and misrepresent what I said - that reflects on you not me. If you're resorting to that tactic again, as far as I'm concerned you've run out of arguments and I'm moving on. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

[11] See what happens when you use google snippets - now I know the search terms. Well if you'd listened and looked at the links I'd provided earlier, you wouldn't have been making that claim again. See [12] and [13]. The capture is much earlier in the book see [14]. P.55 is about the period after Utrecht and is discussing the corruption among military governors. The reference to Shrimpton refers to the fact that during his term he sold brass cannons for personal profit, point of fact Hills shows that this demonstrates Shrimpton was a Hapsburg appointee as if he'd have been working on behalf of HMG he would have been cashiered and court-martialed. If nothing this shows the danger of using Google snippets and how misleading the results can be. Not only that but it also demonstrates that you didn't listen. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• tisk tisk tisk. We have moved back into viewing bigger picture questions rather than the first sentence. Let me give my take on the dispute; maybe I can propose a specific compromise provision as to this de facto determination.

WCM, I am a bit confused about your point there. What source do you rely on to dispute the de facto British control mention? Please be brief and post below. Lord Roem (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz includes a quote from Andrews above he claims supports his text. It doesn't it is from a period after Utrecht. He found it by googling Shrumpton in Google books and seeing the name on the page assumed the text referred to his period of Governorship. It illustrates why using Google snippets is inherently dangerous. Now I pointed this out above, clearly he didn't read what I'd written as he repeated the claim.

Not only that but when he finds a quote using google snippets, he doesn't share that. You'll note I always provide links if I can.

He demands we supply extensive quotes on any edit we wish to make, yet proposes edits based on looking at fragments of texts in books that he doesn't have access to. Not only that but the way he works has an inherent confirmation bias. He starts out with a premise he wishes to prove and searches for text that will support it. He doesn't read sources and proposes a text based on what the sources say, he decides what he wants to say and looks for sources to support it.

Further he claims both Hills and Jackson support his claim, based on looking at google snippets for events where the British made decisions and from that he infers de facto control. Both Hills and Jackson flatly contradict what he says - if you read them. He establishes de facto control by saying the British did this ergo they were in control and that the Governor appointed by the Archduke was British ergo they were in control. This is WP:OR and WP:SYN.

There is an error on the Governor article as it does not include the Spanish Major-General appointed following Shrimpton. All of which I have provided extensive quotes for above.

The fact is the sources don't support the edit he wishes to make and he reports others OPINIONS that British control started earlier than it did as FACT. This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with this. I would note that per WP:V it is for Imalbornoz to properly source his proposed text, not for Curry Monster to source its inaccuracy.

The arguments made rely on more interpretation of sources than can credibly be made. Queen Anne did this, therefore Gibraltar was under British de facto control. I don't accept that this is a logical point.

Curry Monster has a point when he notes that there is a habit here of looking for sources to back up pre-conceived ideas, as opposed to writing the text to reflect the sources. I can't imagine that this is just a Gibraltar thing - but it's not really how we should be doing this, particularly given the level of dispute.

On this point I would suggest that sources that deal with this period specifically, as opposed to noting it as background information, are more likely to be reliable here - and generally don't make this claim, rather reflecting the fact that the situation was rather more complicated than that. I would suggest that while there is a perception that British de facto control began in 1704, this is an oversimplification of the actual situation as reflected by sources that Curry Monster has cited. Similarly, there is a perception that the British took Gibraltar, whereas sources demonstrate that there were sizeable Dutch and Catalan contingents in the force that captured the town, and that the capture was led by an Austrian.

I would suggest that even the term "de facto control" itself is not easy to define the margins, such as we have here. It can be obvious that de facto control exists, and obvious that it doesn't, but when you're dealing with marginal cases, it becomes impossible for us as editors to judge. Do NATO forces have de facto control of Afghanistan? Does Russia have de facto control of South Ossetia? In both cases I'm sure you could find people who would argue it - on a similar basis to that which Imalbornoz is using here. And equally, there are people who would argue the opposite (not least NATO and Russia themselves).

On Google Snippets, you do have to be very careful about using them. The problem is that there is a complete lack of context - leading to a major risk of accidentally misrepresenting the source. I'm sure that Imalbornoz would not have quoted Andrews had he known that it wasn't talking about the period we're discussing here - but, however inadvertently, the source was misrepresented. I would also support Curry Monster's call for links to be provided. And if they aren't, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for them. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry, I think Lord Roem's question was pretty straightforward. Could you please answer it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

WCM, I understand your concern about snippits of documents that may be taken out of context. But Imalbornoz has provided a source for his usage of 'de facto'. I think the burden should shift to you now. And to Imalbornoz, please specifically provide links, if available, below this comment as WCM has reasonably requested. Lord Roem (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way I think you can reasonably expect Curry Monster to do what you're asking of him is by illegally copying out entire chapters from Jackson and Hills to demonstrate that they do not make the claim concerned. Clearly, this is something that he should not do per the law and per WP:COPYVIO.

The point is that blandly saying "It was soon under de facto British control" is the sort of oversimplistic point that authors who are writing about something else (such as the modern dispute) tend to make. Whether it's strictly accurate or not is not important to their topic - where it is important to us. It is no surprise at that the two sources that use that wording are the same sources that fail to note the extensive non-British involvement in the capturing force, for example, or anything about the Hapsburgs. It is also no surprise that they tell us that Gibraltar was captured by a country that did not even exist (noting in passing that Imalbornoz is claiming that Gibraltar was under the de facto control of a country that did not exist).

This is what happens when histories like the one we are trying to write fail to provide adequate historical context. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting copying chapters illegally. Rather, a source has been cited for the use of 'de facto'. A counterclaim requires a countersource of some kind. Lord Roem (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That being presumably the description of the situation from a book such as Jackson or Hills? You can tell from Curry Monster's previous edit (signed 23:00, 10 February 2011) that Jackson takes 20 pages over the period 1704-11, let alone the period leading up to the signing of Utrecht. Clearly, those books aren't literally say "it is wrong to suggest that Gibraltar was soon under de facto British control" or something, because they aren't written to determine whether Gibraltar was under British de facto control. What they will do is describe what actually happened. That same edit makes it clear that what actually happened is far more complicated than is allowed for by the proposed assertion that Gibraltar soon came under the de facto control of a country that didn't exist. Pfainuk talk 23:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is is just me? Again we see an example of Imalbornoz misrepresenting what a source actually says (Andrews, Hills, Jackson) and its simply ignored yet again. Does accurately sourcing not matter to anyone?

Imalbornoz has not sourced his claim, Lord Roem you're demanding that I prove him wrong, when he hasn't actually got any sources bar one to support it.

He claims Andrews Supports his claim, it doesn't the quote he gives is from a period after Utrecht. He hasn't even got access to the source, he did a search on fragments of text. Tell me Lord Roem, why are you not looking at the evidence and commenting on this use of google snippets as it so obviously produces misleading results.

He claims Jackson supports his claim, point of fact Jackson explicitly refutes it.

“ 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

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

Jackson, p 113

He claims Hills supports his claim, Hills refutes it utterly.

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 ”

Nowhere in either source does it say that Queen Anne was in de facto control, I have the references in front of me. IT does not say that anywhere in either Hills or Jackson. If he is claiming that either Hills or Jackson say that, then he can supply a page number - and I will post the results online.

Marley [15] it does not say anywhere that it was under de facto British control.

[16] Is the law book he quotes, it took me ages to track it down but its not a strong case for supporting his claim - it mentions no nationality and at p.482 where it does go into detail about Gibraltar it talks about the period after Utrecht.

[17] is about the one source that does support such a claim but the balance of the literature is overwhelming against such a bald claim as he wishes to make.

As I say the balance of the literature in reputable sources puts Gibraltar under Hapsburg control until Utrecht. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry, those cites suppor DE JURE Habsburg control (which nobody disputes): honorary salutes, etc. DE FACTO control would mean that Habsburgs in fact imposed their will, for example, regarding taxes and tariffs or the name of the Governor (like Queen Anne in fact undisputedly did). Lord Roem, maybe I am wrong: could we have some neutral opinion? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You have claimed above that both Hills and Jackson support a claim of de facto control. They do not, nowhere in either reference does it state that. I have them in front of me. IF they did you can state the page number and tomorrow I will upload an image of that page. Time to put up or shut up. Hills and Jackson DO NOT support the claims you make, they utterly refute them.

You have claimed Andrews also supports your claim, quoting p.55. The reference you have quoted was for a period AFTER Utrecht and the persistence with which you continue to pursue this claim that this reference supports you only illustrates just how misleading your techniques for research are.

You claimed every Governor after Nugent was English, as Hills notes Shrimpton was succeeded by a Spanish Major-General => appointed by the Hapsburg Charles III. Pointedly every Governor up to Utrecht answered to the Hapsburgs.

On the basis of some "selected" quotes you have synthesised a position, this is original research. We report what the sources say and we don't interpret sources to make claims like you're doing. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's go bit by bit and see if we find some agreement somewhere. Do you agree that Queen Anne (not Charles of Habsburg) did in fact declare Gibraltar a free port even though she didn't have powers to do so? (you can look it up in Jackson's book). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK lets go bit by bit.

Name the page in Jackson that states de facto control.

Name the page in Hills that states de facto control.

Name the page in Andrews that states de facto control.

This is your claim, back it up. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

p 114 (see above for the whole quote). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Addenda: This answer dealt only with my previous question about Jackson mentioning Queen Anne's declaration of Gib as a free port, not with all of the rest (following the bit by bit philosophy). Jackson does not talk literally about "de facto" control. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment particularly ironic given that you are the editor who insisted that anything short of a direct quote was original research. Your claim that one specific action that you can source that Queen Anne did implies that Gibraltar was under the de facto British control for a period of years falls well below both your own standards and the standards required by WP:SYN.

Could you provide quotes from Page 114 of Hills and Andrews please? Pfainuk talk 18:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hills p114 is about the period 1568 - 1570, are you referring to Hills? I guess not.

Presuming, you're referring to Jackson p114, this again illustrates again just how dangerous looking at Google snippets is.

Shrimpton being a Hapsburg Governor used the taxes you referred to, to enrich himself not Queen Anne.

“ 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. ”

If you refer to the text its all about the persist corruption among early Governors. This is nothing to do with the "taxes" being levied by the British in de facto Government.

But what's even more interesting.

“ The Dutch gave up their claim to share Gibraltar with Britain only very reluctantly. Their troops did not leave till March 1713. ”

So right up till Utrecht was signed, Gibraltar was not under de facto British control.

At no point on the page is the word de facto mentioned. Interesting isn't it, just how misleading your way of working can be. An utterly different picture emerges when you read the source. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so here we have a dispute on content. You contend that Gibraltar was de facto and de jure under Habsburg control until 1713. I contend that it was de facto under British control. I have offered several sources both on specific FACTS and on reputed OPINIONS (some of them including literally the expression "de facto" British control).[18]

Let's see if we agree on the FACTS:

First fact: Queen Anne (not Charles of Habsburg), although she didn't have powers to do so, declared Gibraltar a free port. This declaration was imposed by the English Governor citing Queen Anne's orders (without any mention to Charles of Habsburg). Sources:

• "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)
• "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)
• "The English thought initially that even though Gibraltar was never likely to be a true colony or a source of raw materials, it might still be of value commercially and a source of profit. Queen Anne issued a decree in February 1706 that officially designated Gibraltar as a free port—thus exempting all goods imported and exported from a duty or other taxes—was a deliberate attempt to increase trade. Since most European ports charged some kind of tax or fee in addition to any import or export tariffs, it would be less expensive to send goods into and out of Europe through Gibraltar so long as Gibraltar had the status of a free port." (The Dispute Over Gibraltar, Melissa R. Jordine, p 10)
• "By the Hon. Roger Elliot, Colonel of one of her Majesty's regiments of foot, and Governor of the city and garrison of Gibraltar.Whereas Her Majesty of Great Britain, &c. hath been graciously pleased, by Her warrant to me, dated 19th February last, to confirm her former declarations for the freedom of this port, and to regulate and command me, not to permit any duty or imposition whatsoever to be laid or received for any ship or vessel, or for any goods, wares, merchandise, or provisions, imported or exported out of this port; but that the same be free and open for all ships and vessels, goods, wares, merchandise, and provisions : These are to make known and publish Her said Majesty's Royal will and pleasure ; and all persons concerned are hereby strictly required to take notice thereof, not presuming to demand or receive any duty or imposition whatsoever for any ship or vessel, or for any goods, wares, merchandise, or provisions, as they will answer the contrary at their peril. Given at Gibraltar, April 1706." (A history of the siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783: With description and account ..., John Drinkwater, p 8)
• A further incentive to settle in the garrison was provided by Queen Anne in 1706, when she proclaimed Gibraltar a free port. More Jews soon arrived and began to dominate commercial life." (A New New English: language, politics, and identity in Gibraltar, Anja Kellermann, p 22)
• "Central to its development was Queen Anne's action in declaring Gibraltar a Free Port in 1706, a device which was at first designed to please the Moroccan authorities but which was later seen as 'a possible means of breaking into the closed Spanish market'." (Gibraltar, identity and empire, Edward G. Archer, p 51)
• "On February 17, 1706, Queen Anne also declared Gibraltar a free port, to ensure a flow of supplies from the Sultanate of Morocco." (Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the ..., David Marley, p 347)
• "Colonel Elliot has fame in that during his regime as Governor, Gibraltar was created a free port by Queen Anne on the 17th February, 1706. The warrant was issued to the Governor on the 19th February and by it, the Governor was commanded not to permit 'any duty or imposition whatsoever (...)'" (The story of Gibraltar: first outpost of empire, Henry William Howes, p 47)

Let's not try to interpret this fact at the present moment, let's just see if we agree on it being true. Do we? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The only person who is interpreting sources here is yourself. You're drawing together disparate facts to synthesise a position. You're always accusing others of WP:OR and WP:SYN and this is precisely what you're doing here.

Where in Hills, Andrews or Jackson does it state de facto control?

The answer is nowhere, I've asked you to name a page and you can't. It simply doesn't exist, I've posted plenty of quotes to refute what you claim.

Yet you're still claiming they support your claim. They don't, they utterly refute it. But instead of addressing that, you post the same wall of text you've already posted once. It didn't convince the last time, it doesn't now.

And you're still doing the same thing with Google snippets - partial quotes but not sharing any of the links so we can check for ourselves. Note that I always do.

So what can we conclude - you can't support your edit. I'm deeply unimpressed that having failed to substantiate your edit, you try and derail discussions with the tried and true tactic of walls of text. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hills p. 216 is part of Chapter 18, title Britain Acquire Gibraltar, 1711-1713.

“ Shrimpton as 'Governor' had behaved more as a potentate in his own right than as the representative of 'Charles III' or a senior officer in Queen Anne's forces. ”

Again, to make the point, Hills does not support your claim of Gibraltar as under de facto British control. Indeed, as we have come to expect, quite the opposite. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hills p. 218

“ The Dutch were not unnaturally enraged. It was total negation of the terms of the Confederacy. They refused to withdraw their troops from Gibraltar. ”

So much for de facto control, which is not mentioned anywhere by the way. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Some context: your quote is about the negotiations in Utrecht. It goes on to say that the Dutch had no alternative but to finally accept (a sign of "de facto" control): "(...)They refused to withdraw their troops from Gibraltar. They threatened to continue the war to oust Philip; but Britain had the whip-hand over the Dutch: any trouble from them and Britain would withdraw her support of their primary demand, the barrier of fortresses in the [Spanish] Netherlands to protect them from future French aggression." -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess you agree that Queen Anne (not Charles of Habsburg), although she didn't have powers to do so, declared Gibraltar a free port. This declaration was imposed by the English Governor citing Queen Anne's orders (without any mention to Charles of Habsburg). (The evidence above is overwhelming). I kindly ask you to confirm this. Please.

"De facto" is a clear concept, we don't need sources literally using that expression. We just need facts that can be summarized as "de facto" control (and there are several of those in Jackson, Hills, etc.). Just in case, regarding sources that literally mention "de facto" British control:

• "Prince George had been killed in the fighting at Barcelona in 1705 and there was nobody in Charles's entourage to take an interest in Gibraltar. The fortress was kept going by supplies and reinforcements sent by the British Government and Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, although it only became so dejure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713." (Gibraltar Heritage Journal, Isaac Hassan, p 73)[19]
• "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)[[20]
• "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)[21]
• "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)[22]
• "What happened in Gibraltar over the years from 1708 and how Gibraltar passed out of the hands of 'Spain' de facto first and in 1713 de jure, was consequent on the thoughts and actions of men not there but in London, Lisbon and elsewhere." (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 203) [23]

Cheers. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we seeing the fruits of your es.wikipedia canvassing? See [24].

No I don't see that declaration of Queen Anne as establishing de facto control. The allies were a confederacy, the Governor was still a Hapsburg appointee - this is what the sources said.

WP:SYN and I quote:

“ Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. ”

This is exactly what you're doing, you're combining material from multiple sources to reach or implay a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Seeing as you have proxy access to Hills/Jackson via your es.wikipedia connection, perhaps you would care to have it confirmed that none of the sources you've claimed support the bald assertion of de facto control. Please.

Joshua Hassan? So when Joshua Hassan asserts Gibraltar is "self-governing", do I take it we can now use that as a reliable source to put "self-governing" in the lede of Gibraltar? [25] Does this fragment of text that we can hardly see really support your claim, see also [26] where is the date to establish the start of British control? I'll quote the snippet we can actually see "The fortress was kept going by supplies and reinforcements sent by the British Government and Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, although it only became so dejure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713." I don't see anywhere text that sufficiently supports your claim.

[27] Take a look at the text again. This neatly illustrates the problem with snippets. Notice a pattern emerging the first sentence refers to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704 but the second part of the sentence is not necessarily associating de facto Government with that event. The very next sentence refers to the Treaty of Utrecht. Working with fragments of text doesn't lead us to definitive conclusions at all.

[28] Well I already dealt with this source, no it doesn't support your claim.

[29] Is about the one source you've managed to dredge up that supports your claim. But the important point to note is that the wealth of the literature actually contradicts this.

I don't know if this is penetrating your consciousness in the slightest but you persist with a method of working that is producing misleading results. Instead of poring over google books searching for snippets to try and support a pre-conceived point, go to a library, get a book out and do some research. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Wee Curry, I suggest that you avoid comments like the ones you just made: e.g. "Are we seeing the fruits of your es.wikipedia canvassing?" They are disruptive.

Secondly, I suggest that you READ other editors' sources before you try to discredit them. For example, the author of source # 1 is ISAAC HASSAN, not Joshua Hassan (therefore, all your ranting about Joshua H. is just wasting my time, your time, and everybody else's time).

Third, please do not discuss in circles. I asked you whether you accept that "Queen Anne (not Charles of Habsburg), although she didn't have powers to do so, declared Gibraltar a free port. This declaration was imposed by the English Governor citing Queen Anne's orders (without any mention to Charles of Habsburg)." But you keep answering questions I have not made. Please answer this.

Fourth, please do not repeat it is unsupported to say that Gibraltar was "de facto" under the British before Utrecht when I've provided 5 sources saying LITERALLY that. Really, no offence intended, I'm starting to wonder whether you have been able to grasp the concepts of "de facto" and "de jure" (have you thought why would someone mention "de facto" before Utrecht and "de jure" after Utrecht like all those sources do?).

Finally: Please, Lord Roem, would it be possible that you make a summary of this dispute and ask for outside opinion in some noticeboard? (I'm not sure we should do this ourselves according to Vassyana's framework). This is a very small point in a bigger dispute, and I'm sure we would all love to move on before we start throwing our books and snippets on each others' heads. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to each point:

1. WP:CANVAS - you contacted another editor on another wiki to get their support. You are well aware of this being unacceptable behaviour ie stealth canvassing as you have been warned previously about it. What I find slightly interesting is the way your question illustrates how you work:

“ Me preguntan qué es lo que dicen las fuentes habituales (como Hills o Jackson) sobre el control "de facto" de Gibraltar tras la captura. ¿ ”

or

“ I wonder what do the usual sources (such as Hills or Jackson) say on "de facto control in Gibraltar after capture. ”

In other words, not what do the sources say but what can I use to support a pre-defined position.

2. I've struck my off-topic comments on Hassan, so that you can't distract from the actual point I made. To repeat it, the point is you cannot read the source as it is a fragment of text. I haven't rubbished the source at all, merely pointed out that I cannot actually read it and more importantly neither can you. Yet you persist with the same way of working as in (1.) you start with a premise, then look for sources to support it.

3. I'm not discussing in circles, you simply keep stating the same point, then claim it isn't addressed.

4. It is completely unsupported by the sources. None of the sources state that. You are synthesising a position by pulling together a series of points ie WP:SYN and then making a conclusion ie WP:OR. Ironically the very thing you accuse others of repeatedly when the source doesn't use the same words. Again - name a page in Hills, Jackson or Andrews where the phrase de facto control is mentioned. You claim the sources LITERALLY say that, you should then be able to prove it. And I've offered to paste the entire page here.

You're making a huge mountain out of a molehill over a trivial point. There is absolutely no way the sources would support in a summary the bald statement you demand. The problem here is your refusal to recognise that the sources contradict such a bald statement and continuing to use a flawed method of researching after it has been repeatedly demonstrated to be problematic. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You know Ecemaml is a usual editor in en.wp Gibraltar related articles, with access to sources, and he has offered help several times. You know it because he has been here discussing with you for many months before he got tired. Asking for sources to a usual editor is not canvassing. To repeat that accusation is very disruptive, and I don't have to put up with that.

You have been very disruptive in the past and are starting to be disruptive again with that accusation. You have already been topic banned for 3 months by the Arbcom, then you have been topic banned for 1 month by Vassyana (although it was downgraded to a 0-revert sanction with my agreement). I have enough patience to discuss with you now in spite of all that past disruption, but I don't have to keep putting up with it time and again. I have had enough.

Please, retire that unnecessary and disruptive accusation. This topic is already time consuming enough. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wished to ask for help, why didn't you ask him on his talk page on en.wiki? That is appropriate, asking on es.wiki isn't. I've struck through my comments for now but your conduct was and remains inappropriate and you know that.

Per WP:CIVIL bringing up past actions long since apologised for is inappropriate and you know that, I for one am fed up with you doing so.

So now you can tell which page number states de facto control in either Hills, Jackson or Andrews. You stated that is what the source LITERALLY says, so that should be trivial. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So far, I can see that Jackson and Andrews talk about a series of facts whereby the Queen of England or her Governors established the rules in Gibraltar (e.g. declaring it a free port) without making any mention or consultation with any Habsburg. You can call that "de facto" control or any equivalent expression.

Hills says that "What happened in Gibraltar over the years from 1708 and how Gibraltar passed out of the hands of 'Spain' de facto first and in 1713 de jure, was consequent on the thoughts and actions of men not there but in London, Lisbon and elsewhere." (p 203).

Please notice: de facto first and in 1713 de jure. That means that Gibraltar was in the hands of the British first "de facto" (before Utrecht, which took place in 1713) and afterwards "de jure" (after Utrecht).

Finally, you have at least 4 other sources saying explicitly that Gibraltar was "de facto" in British or English hands before 1713 (and many of them making the comparison with the "de jure" situation of 1713). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you'd taken the trouble to peruse some of the quotes I'd supplied, you have noted that I'd said Hills dated the transfer to British control starting in 1711, when they starting covert negotiations with the French behind their allies' backs. This does not support the bald statement that soon after 1704 Gibraltar was in de facto British control - point of fact as I also noted from Hills the control was vested in the Hapsburgs. If you look at the Chapter devoted to this period, Chapter 18, title Britain Acquire Gibraltar, 1711-1713 note I have already supplied a title. 7 years, when a week is a long time in politics.

Again the point is what you are doing is WP:SYN and WP:OR, you're drawing together disparate facts to draw a conclusion. So no the sources do not support that bald statement.

I have looked at the sources you claim supports your premise. They don't, they're fragments of text from which you cannot draw definitive conclusions. How many times do I have to say it before you get the point, searching through fragments of text for the one line that supports a pre-conceived premise is not how to do research. Get thee to a library. Read the sources, draw a conclusion, compose an edit. Don't start with the idea and look for sources to support it. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan is not, and was not at the time, under de facto Spanish or Bourbon control. While there are often cases where it is not clear what power has de facto over territory, I believe that that statement is uncontroversial. Was it, and is it, therefore under British de facto control?

According to Imalbornoz's argument above, the answer is clear. Yes. It is. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Google snippets should not be used to source edits as it can produce very misleading results. Any quote sourced using google books, the editor should provide a link to where they found it so that other editors can verify it.

Please indicate your agreement below:

1. Agree Wee Curry Monster talk 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
2. It's probably a good idea to avoid Snippets generally. Or at least, editors should note that Snippets was used, to allow everyone to take the potential for user error into account. I would also suggest that links to Google Books searches ought to be available, either up front or on request (i.e. if someone forgets, it's not the end of the world). Pfainuk talk 14:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that you remove this and the section below. I believe that looking at the whole text at the same time as created a situation where hundreds of objections are raised, and text flies past each other, never answering a point. I would urge you to focus in on one sentence at a time so this can be a successful mediation. You are free to decide whether to remove it though, at your own discretion. Lord Roem (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this here and withdrawn the text you requested. I'm disinclined to withdraw this as the misuse of google snippets is one of the problems we have here. I will if you insist but I do think this has to be tackled as an issue. At the very least sources and links should be shared - we are supposed to work co-operatively not with sources clutched like cards to our chest. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text

It seems that instead of the present text "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar." we are proposing:

"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.

On re-reading all the snippets produced, they seem to make the point about de facto control quite clear. Searching for snippets of text is indeed an imperfect method of research, but it all depends - in this case, where we simply want to demonstrate the use of a term for a specific description, it seems entirely adequate. All the argumentation seems to betoken a deep reluctance to include the term however well-referenced it may be. Would we be better off just keeping the present text? This does mean omitting two points (de facto control and the Archduke Charles) of some slight relevance to present national discourse, but they are not, I'd suggest, of enough salience to require inclusion here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Snippets DO NOT make the case, time and time again they've proven to be fatally flawed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point. But not in this case, where they seem to provide good evidence. To elide the issue, would it perhaps be simpler to stay with the existing text, which doesn't arouse so many strong feelings? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No they don't, time and again its been demonstrated they mislead and its too simplistic to make such a bald statement. You can't make any judgement on the source from that fragment of text and if that is what you're searching for, its merely confirmation bias. Look at how this is dealt with on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar and its far from straight forward for such a simplistic sweeping statement.

But I do note how always returning to "lets just keep the status quo". Are you prepared to change the text Richard - yes/no? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, yes. But it doesn't seem to be necessary and it does seem to be difficult. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well actually it is necessary and that is because, as has been demonstrated there are POV problems with the text as it stands. So for instance do you accept the first line - without the unnecessary and overly simplistic caveat? Yes/No Wee Curry Monster talk 13:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would:

• Leave the first sentence as it is.
• Or mention that Gibraltar was taken in the name of Habsburg AND became "de facto" under British control before it was ceded "de jure" in the Treaty of Utrecht. It is also true that Queen Anne and the English Governor very soon (in 1706) declared Gibraltar a free port without any intervention or mention of the Habsburgs.

We don't need to mention the year (some sources say 1704, others say 1708, others 1709...) What do you propose? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the same proposal as you made last week and that we have been discussing for the last week. I have no idea what, in of the reams of discussion that it produced, gave you the idea that proposing it again would be useful here. I still oppose.

The sources are bad, and in some cases directly contradicted by other, more detailed and more reliable sources - sources that are actually focussed on the subject at hand. Not all of them make the claim concerned - I see, for example, that you too are now arguing that British de facto control extended to every part of the globe not de facto controlled by Philip. Does this apply - as Imalbornoz appears to argue - before the Union as well?

The best solution here would seem to be to leave the point out entirely. To stick with the first sentence. Any attempt to claim de facto control for any party - other than a construction such as "forces supporting the Hapbsurg claim" - is likely to be awkward because the detailed sources that we have describe a situation significantly more nuanced and complicated than that.

Whereas I'm perfectly willing to accept that some authors have made such a point - generally as background for some other point - that does not mean that we should repeat their oversimplification when it could seriously mislead our readers, particularly when other, more reliable and more detailed sources that are actually discussing the period in question flat out contradict it. Just as Imalbornoz suggests that his Queen Anne point argues for British de facto control, others might point out other facts: that the governors were appointed by the Hapsburgs and not the Stuarts; that the Dutch didn't withdraw troops until the run-up to Utrecht; that there was a Spanish governor of Gibraltar during this period - which they might suggest argue the other way. This is precisely the kind of interpretation that WP:SYN tells us to avoid. Better for us not to make such a claim when it is this arguable. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely.

I also want to point something out. It is demanded that I provide extensive quotes from sources to support any claim that I make. However, fragments of text from google snippets are apparently enough to justify any edit you wish to make.

Google snippets are clearly not suitable:

1. Frequently the text doesn't actually support the text. For example, Andrews p.55 is focused on the period 1713-1727 a period after Utrecht. The only reason it was jumped on, was the Governor Shrimpton from 1707 was mentioned in passing, related to an earlier act of corruption. Even after this was pointed out, the same claim was continued in the face of evidence to the contrary.

2. More importantly, the results can be and often are misleading. It is claimed Hills and Jackson support this claim. Point of fact they do not, they cover the period extensively and the one thing they do illustrate is that Hapsburg control in various forms persisted till Utrecht. If anything they show a far more complex picture than is painted by the overly simplistic claim you wish to make.

3. You don't actually possess any of these sources. It is simply confirmation bias, you're finding something to re-inforce a pre-conceived notion. Its not a case of objectively evaluating what the sources actually say. Please provide extensive quotes from these sources, as you demand of me.

Earlier Imalbornoz quoted Hills p.202. Looked it up and strangely the quote isn't there. Its on p.203, over p.203-213 Hills discusses the transition but he also makes an important point on p.203 "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" In fact its the preceding paragraph to the one you quoted.

I do note one thing for Lord Roem, all of us have agreed now on the leading sentence, on that we apparently have consensus. Taking Lord Roem's point of one thing at a time, we can leave the necessity of any caveat on de facto control for later. There is clearly not a consensus for it and the sources show there is too much ambiguity for any such bald statement. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I first wish to applaud you all. This was seemingly impossible, but your diligence has found a good resolution.

The next sentence --> firstly, we will take the first clause because it contains lots of disputed issues (i.e. the listing of things which occurred in the city). So the next wording is posted below in a new section for new discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeepee!!! Just to confirm: we have decided to leave the first sentence as it is (not mentioning "in the name of...), haven't we? Then, I also agree with Wee Curry on this: we don't need to talk about de facto control because we are not mentioning nominal possession either (I just wanted to point out that this is happily a double agreement). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You agreed to this sentence above in principle, we've simply left the need for any caveat to a later discussion. One thing at a time as Lord Roem proposed. If you're withdrawing your agreement in principle, with a demand it must have a caveat based on sources that don't meet the standard you demand of others, and which stems from WP:SYN and WP:OR then I am very disappointed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems each one of us understands "the first sentence as it is" in a different way. I meant the sentence as it is now in the article and in Richard's comment at the top of this section. I get that you understood otherwise. The reason for you not wanting to mention de facto British control is that you think it is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Maybe we should check it in some outside opinion noticeboard and end all this suffering. Would it be possible, Lord Roem? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a reasonable thing to consider. Maybe at WP:NORN since that is the allegation here? Lord Roem (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free, but in view of the four RS uses of the term de facto I don't really see the point. Repeating the references from above:

Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, though it only became so de jure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713

In 1704 the fortress of Gibraltar was won by us in open warfare with Spain and with her de facto government.

Gibraltar (as from 1704 de facto, from 1713 de jure)

Gibraltar became de facto a British possession in 1704...

So, I'm a bit confused after all this discussion of the easy bit. Have we consensus on leaving the first sentence as it is in the article now? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you and Imalbornoz now withdrawing your agreement in principle to the sentence as provided by Pfainuk? Lord Roem's proposed approach, which you and Imalbornoz have agreed to, is one thing at a time. We were discussing the first sentence, to which you have now decided to tag on a caveat. You have both agreed in principle to this text and as it satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V there really is not much cause to reject it. So do you continue to accept Lord Roem's proposed approach? - Question 1.

When I ask for the extensive quotations from these sources that put these fragments of text into context you can of course provide them? No, you can't because your approach is to define the outcome you want, select search terms to provide it and then comb google snippets for fragments of text that support the pre-determined outcome. What you see is confirmation bias, nothing more. What has repeatedly been shown is that this approach produces misleading results, its not reliable. So can we see the same extensive quotations you demand of me for any text that I propose? A YES/NO answer would would appreciated - Question 2.

The point is made repeatedly that sources do not support a bald statement as you wish to make, supported by extensive quotations from reliable sources per verifiability. WP:OR and WP:SYN stems from the repeated attempt to take one isolated event in 1706 and from that synthesise an argument it somehow proves de facto control. The sources actually describe something decidedly different to that simplistic statement, so much so that to use it would be deliberately misleading. This point is simply ignored by you. Is it your position that you wish to add a simplistic caveat, where the sources don't support such a simplistic approach? - Question 3. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it your response below please:

Richard:

1. 2. 3.

Imalbornoz:

1. 2. 3.

Have we, as we thought, consensus on keeping the present opening sentence "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar."?

Or do you want the alternative, with multiple RS for the term "de facto" and leaving out the events on which the judgement of de facto control has been made: "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.

I do agree that putting in all the details of government in the period 1704 to 1713 would be inappropriate, and so would OR on the subject as the sole supporter for the term de facto control. But have you another alternative in mind? If so, what is it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that you're ignoring the points I made, to re-iterate:

There are three issues here:

A) Your approach is to pre-decide the outcome, search for confirmatory text in google snippets and thats what you quote. All we see with that is confirmation bias.

B) The second plank of the argument is based on certain events, you claim this confirms de facto. No that is WP:OR and WP:SYN

C) You are simply ignoring the ample evidence that has been provided that this simplistic caveat is over-simplifying a far more complex picture.

Frustratingly you ignore the comments to re-state the same positon and demand a maintenance of the status quo, whilst claiming to be amenable to change.

Lord Roem's process is one issue at a time, what you're doing is to ignore that by adding an issue that is completely unrelated.

The next question I have is, how come for any text I or Pfainuk propose we have to make a huge effort, going to the library, getting books, perusing sources and providing extensive quotes. But the same standard is not provided to anything you propose. Do you think this is a reasonable approach? Answer: YES/NO

There is no way that the sources support "soon", in fact the sources you've provide offer a range of dates, none of which could be described as soon. Some say 1706, some say 1708, some say 1711 and some say right up to 1713. So why are you insisting on this caveat? I don't see a logical argument for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence

And here it is: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control..."

So there are two claims here, firstly about the terms of surrender and secondly about the later result. Let's discuss this with the already-agreed upon sources/sentence in mind. Lord Roem (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well to open discussions, having explained who captured Gibraltar now we need to explain why. I feel this is misplaced. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The present text seems good to me and is nicely placed in chronological order. The surrender terms were important and so was the fact that the commanders of the invading force were not able to enforce them effectively. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)