Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 14

Article Overhaul

Before somebody arbitrarily decided to archive the discussion page (July 09 - Aug 09) we were discussing how this article needs a major revision and reassessment, if not complete overhaul. It is written in a completely pro-British and anti-Spanish style and thus violates the Wikipedia principle of neutrality: WP:NPOV. Some good editors have tried to improve it by proposing small changes and additions to the article in the recent months, even years. However, their contributions have been repeatedly rejected and obstructed by some editors with an obvious pro-British bias. They impose their one-sided point of view with dishonesty, cynicism and even sarcasm. They prevent the article from being neutral and balanced by shoving aside constructive opinions and contributions. The result is a biased article which only reflects the British point of view.

For example, the British arguments in the sovereignty dispute are clearly presented at the top of the article. But there is no mention of the other side's point of view. It reads: "The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this [reunification with Spain] along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes." But then no mention of the basis of the Spanish claims: 1) territorial integrity, 2) UN Resolutions mandating decolonization, or 3) the debate about the "transfer of sovereignty" under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, by which property of the territory was transferred (real estate) not sovereignty.

In the latter part of the article, there is no mention either of the UN Resolution against the Referendum of 1967, or of the dispute on territorial waters, the shifting of the border by Britain, or the ilegal trafficking. But then, irrelevant information like the "Jane’s Country Risk" study is rammed into the Main Page (it helps create a positive impression of the colony) when no other country or region article in Wikipedia has this on their main page. The whole thing is so blunt in its pro-British bias it is ridiculous. Complete, neutral, verifiable information should be presented in this article, not selective facts that fit people's political points of view. Important facts like the Non-Self Governing status of Gibraltar, or the basis for Spain's claims should be included immediately to stop this bias and provide some neutrality to the article. JCRB (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from using insulting language referring to Gibraltar as 'a colony; is legally incorrect and most offensive. The article is about Gibraltar not a Spanish obsession. There is an article which deals with the dispute. It is not appropriate here. --Gibnews (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The UN Decolonisation Committee is in fact discussed in this article. Nationalist rants merely confirm your own bias and lets be honest here, you and your sockpuppet MEGV tried and failed to introduce your edit last time. The IP sock puppet you appear to be using is unhelpful. Discuss your proposed edits in a reasonable manner, without the accusations of bias and you may get somewhere. But if you plan to spam the page with tendentious arguments as you did the last time you will get nowhere. Justin talk 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is amongst the most blatantly biased ones in all Wikipedia, along with those devoted to the History of Gibraltar, Gibraltarian people and the Great Siege of Gibraltar. Give us a rest, you lot. And what JCRB says is true: why exactly a the "Jane’s Country Risk" ranking are placed in the lead section? Please, see WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Commenting on the OP, the talk page was archived, any discussion can be readily retrieved at any time. The bad faith accusation inherent in that comment was unhelpful.

To the IP above, will you please cease with the accusations of bias. You are welcome to discuss changes in the article, not to indulge in bad faith attacks on editors. Justin talk 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We are so welcome to discuss changes. But they'll never make it to the article, and will stay in the talk pages 'till the end of times. Or until you censor them, that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, you got me, I'm on a mission to abolish Spain from Wikipedia 'cos I hate it so much. Except I'm half-Spanish and you're just trolling to get a rise. I suggest you might think about coming back when you grow up. Justin talk 11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wich does not change the fact that you've censored a comment just because it was displeasant to you. That is so mature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No posting the bad faith attack (which you just admitted to) was the immature act, as is trolling a talk page to get a rise. I suggest you grow up. Justin talk 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments? I love them, Justin. Now, do you have something related to the article to say like why is Jane's Review relevant enough to stay in the lead section, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that its relevant and why would you wish to expunge it? Justin talk 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Expunge it? Not really, but it should be relocated to the Economy section where it belongs. The lede is not the place for such statements as per WP:LEAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]Gibraltar is a British Territory and its notable that it was rated higher than any other, including the UK by a prestigious and respected organisation. This seems to upset some editors. By way of contrast I saw that the Spanish wikipedia leads with a reference showing the Gibraltarians produce more Co2 per head than anyone else, and which has been used claim we are polluting the planet.

IF the article were so 'blatently biased' I expect someone impartial would have edited it by now, but its very factual. There are indeed people living in Gibraltar who's families had to leave when it was forcibly taken from Britain despite Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. But lets find some references to that instead of denying it happened. Gibraltar is not reverting to Spain any time soon, and rewriting articles on wikipedia, although preferable to firing cannon balls is much the same. --Gibnews (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Spanish wikipedia is wrong, be bold and edit there. You are welcome. But two wrongs don't make a right. As for the blatant bias and "no impartials editing", you've got a 13 talk pages archive... For god's sake... Anyway, the fact that you can't consider yourself impartial it's enlightening. A very touching revelation indeed.

PS: and it's blatant, not blatent. Have a nice and british day.

I suggest you try and edit on the Spanish wikipedia to correct the content, you'll find it illuminating. Its patrolled by an admin who was blocked on the English wikipedia for edit warring on Gibraltar. I note you're now in violation of 3RR but no one is rushing to report you. The reason we have a 13 page archive is due to the tendentious edits of ardent Spanish nationalists who have sought to overturn the balance of the present article. Oh and the lede is perfectly valid as is and in line with policy. So again why do you wish to remove material?

And while we're on the subject do you really think such a confrontational attitude is conducive towards convincing people of your argument? Justin talk 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, dear, you are also in violation of 3RR and I'm not rushing to report you either. On the other hand, it's also revealing (as it was in Gibnews' case) that you deem as "ardent Spanish nationalism" absolutely every content in the talk pages that does not fit into your own point of view (sorry, you were speaking about "overturning the balance of the present article"). And, again, I'm not advocating for removing material, but to include it in the correct section which is *not* the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no I'm not, adding incorrect information is vandalism and reverting it does not count toward 3RR. In each case I suggested you take the point to talk and to de-escalate the conversation by removing talk of bias. I disagree that the material doesn't belong in the lead, its perfectly relevant. JCRB's justification is that its an attempt to portray a positive image of the "colony". Mmm, lets see using a term that is known to be offensive really helps doesn't it? Justin talk 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are. I could use your very own argument to defend myself, as you are the one who in the first place reverted my edits pretending to defend the "neutral point of view". You can't be serious when stating that you tried "to de-escalate the conversation", when your textual words have been take it to talk and pls do not make POV accusations to the mere addition of a citation needed tag.

Sigh, whatever, if you merely wish to be unnecessarily confrontational you will get nowhere. You know full well I was referring to your talk page comments. If you think that saying please is confrontational there is little hope for you. Describing the Spanish residents of Minorca as British colonists was incorrect, you added an edit that you either knew to be incorrect or merely added a provocative POV edit for you own POV reasons in ignorance of the facts. Either way you don't come across as a positive contributor. Adding a citation tag where it is unnecessary is pointy, you're disrupting the article to make a point. Justin talk 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Calling "POV accusations" to a request for sources, is not only confrontational, but shows a real lack of understanding of what neutrality means. And if you want to speak about the Minorca bits, we could write a book on it:

1- Original sentence, which I am sure that will be displayed in the article for a long time (and which is incidental at most in the topic dealt with in the "nationality of Gibraltarian people" section): "Other groups include Minorcans (forced to leave their homes when Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802)".

2- Fact tag added to the phrase "forced to leave their homes" (a funny statement indeed, since the same article just says "the Spanish left" when those gentle British and Dutch soldiers were invited into Gibraltar).

3- Plain reverts without substantiating.

4- Then you add two sources. Namely:

- Britain’s Last Conquest of Menorca 1798 - 1802.

- Minorca, the illusory prize : a history of the British occupations of Minorca between 1708 and 1802.

5- To which I add that the last occupation of Minorca lasted for only 4 years, and that people expelled from the former British colony were British colonists.

6- At this point, you revisit my edition by stating that the information is incorrect as "they" were "Spanish people who feared reprisals from the Spanish Government".

7- "So they weren't forced" Oddly, subconscious mind can be so treacherous. You contradict yourself, which brings up the question of what exactly say the references you've provided?". I'm still waiting for an explanation, but I do know what you are going to say anyway: Yes... I am disrupting the article to make a point. Good afternoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.56.185 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made your point. Be aware that dissruption articles and wasting everyones time is pretty pointless. There must be something better to do that continually attack articles about Gibraltar because they don't reflect your view of the world. --Gibnews (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see continuing with the bad faith accusations. My comments simply related to your earlier comments on the talk page. As regards the article in its current state, were you to make a reasonable suggestion as to a sensible alternative I'd happily consider it. Personally I think it could be better written, your edits showed no desire to provide something better. If thats what you expected, I'm sure you will be very happy. There is nothing subconscious in anything I've written, I didn't write that particular sentence anyway. Regards. Justin talk 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Guys, I am failing to see the virtue of this debate. No-one is getting anything from it, so why continue? Lets all just walk away for a couple of days. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Narson, but if this debate is not conducting anywhere is because you don't want it. Stating that some population just left while other was forced to leave in quite similar situations is showing a double standard. I have exposed this case in the Gibraltarian people article and, incidentally, also here as this article uses the same wording. The change has been reverted several times, so the use of such loaded terms is intentional.

And Justin, perhaps you didn't write that particular sentence, but you edited the text at least 8 times to keep it. Regards.

Huh? I'm assuming that the first sentence was meant to be 'If this debate is not going anywhere, it is because you don't want it to'? All I was saying was that the atmophere at the moment is combative which means nothing will be achieved, so everyone getting some time off and then coming back and seeing if there is still an issue would be a good idea. Wikipedia is about working together, and attacking /everyone/ on a talk page even if they havn't offered an opinion on the debate in hand is not going to win you support. Please take a couple of days, read some wikipolicies (WP:AGF appears to have died off on this page, on all sides. Also WP:CONSENSUS is a good one) and lets all remember this is not a battleground. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Err no, WP:AGF certainly hasn't died off as far as I'm concerned. I'm still prepared to listen to an alternative but do note that you sought to introduce a POV text, which was got reverted. You also introduced erroneous material. So once again, you are welcome to make suggestions, cut out the bad faith accusations and discuss it rationally and you may get somewhere. BTW technically you're blocked at the moment, I presume you're using another IP, so technically that is sockpuppetry and using it to continue with personal attacks is not conducive to going somewhere. Try talking to people, you might be surprised. Justin talk 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, stop behaving like the owner of this articles... "I'm still prepared to listen to an alternative but do note that you sought to introduce a POV text, which was got reverted". And you do note that the first additions to the text were citation needed tags which you reverted over and over. Your definition of "POV text" is certainly weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.58.247 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations, and read up on Wikipedia behavioural guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You've been pointed at them several times because you are not following them.

Arguing over past actions does not improve your chances of persuading other editors to accept changes that you would like to see. Remember that changes to this and other articles require a consensus of editors, and that if you are not willing to assume good faith in others, it will be impossible for such a consensus to form. If there is no consensus for change, there is no change. Pfainuk talk 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That editor has a point regarding the bias in "most of the population chose to leave Gibraltar peacefully" but again the usual editors reject a reasonable contribution. This is yet another example of the outrageously pro-British bias by those who repeatedly block good suggestions and contributions to this article. We argued this matter before and somebody produced verifable sources indicating that the Gibraltar population did not leave peacefully but in fact was forced to leave due to their fear of the British forces. This was actually justified as the town was later plundered by the Dutch and British soldiers. So for a change, stop obstructing verifiable information. JCRB (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We did discuss it before. The text that I proposed at the end of that discussion was:

Terms of surrender were agreed upon, and much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers. Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.

You'll note that that's entirely sourced. I'm still willing to accept this. I'm still willing to accept it without the words fearing reprisals if that will get consensus. But if you are, as then, unwilling to accept that the words:

Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen were thrown down wells and cesspits.

state or at least very strongly imply that the murder of Englishmen and Dutchmen occurred before the inhabitants left the town, then consensus is plainly impossible. Without consensus, there is no change.

On a separate point, you're still failing to assume good faith. Please reread WP:AGF. Pfainuk talk 17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much my recollecion Pfain. But then, it does not quite fall into the black and white that some editors prefer. Lets not revisit past subjects though without something new, we don't need to waste the bandwidth. JCRB? Please cut the hyperbole. It only serves to polarise things even more. IP? Please do read the policies, especially those on blocking policy and blocking evasion, as well as those mentioned above. An argument made from policy is likely to get more widespread support. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. If there's no new arguments, there's not much point in going over and over old ground. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi

The anon is blocked for 3RR but is IP-hopping, so semi-protecting this page seems easier than a range block. Complaints? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not from me, though I'd prefer it if they could just cool down and engage with other editors. Regards. Justin talk 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Improvement

I had forgotten that Pfainuk had proposed an improved text to the historical section. Personally I'd be happy to see what he proposes included in the article as being more accurate and NPOV. Regarding the exodus from Minorca, personally I would like to see the current text:

Other groups include Minorcans (forced to leave[57][58] their homes when Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens)

Replace with:

Other groups include Minorcans (who left Minorca fearing reprisals from the Spanish Government when the island was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens)[57][58]

More elaborate but perhaps better from a POV perspective. And it is balanced by the preceeding proposal from Pfainuk. I would suggest we include both. Comments? Justin talk 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly acceptable, and accurate. The initial wording may be concise but in being so concise it looks like it is randomly put there. I do still wonder if we wouldn't be better dedicating a sentence to the minorcan immigration rather than going 'Other groups', listing 3+ and only having a reason for one. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the references specifically say they feared reprisals, we could leave that out, the Minorcans who came here did so because they preferred to live somewhere British. --Gibnews (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The references support it, I'd be happy to work in Narson's suggestion. Justin talk 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Overhaul (2)

To the editors who continuously obstruct the improvement and neutrality of this article: what gives you the right to semi-protect this talk page? Everyone has the right to participate in the discussion. Everybody, specially those editors who put forth constructive suggestions and provide verifiable information. So for once and for all STOP THAT DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR.

Second, since when is the term "colony" offensive? Is it offensive to those who have a political agenda in trying to depict Gibraltar as an independent country? Third, refrain from accusing editors of "bias" or of "nationalism" when they are only trying to include a small dosis of NEUTRALITY in a constructive way. And don't accuse others when it is you who repeatedly rejects verifiable facts like the Non-self Governing Status of Gibraltar, the basis of Spain's claims, or the UN Decolonisation mandates. Fourth, please stop your ridiculous "sockpuppetry" accusation. If you put your glasses on you'll see that I am signing my messages with my own name, JCRB, not an IP address. Fifth, don't tell me to "discuss my proposed edits in a reasonable manner.. and you might get somewhere" because I already have: here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Many editors have already discussed edits in reasonable and constructive ways, and their sound proposals for improvement and higher neutrality have ALL been rejected through twisted arguments or questioning of sources or other stratagems to finally prevent their inclusion in the article.

If you want to prove your good faith and your neutrality start by completing the sentence about the sovereignty dispute with the other side's point of view:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return based on the concept of territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonisation" JCRB (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Lets start at the start, it was semi protected to avoid block evasion and it was done so by an admin whose involvement in this page is peripheral at best. So do a bit of thinking before you bandy around accusations of disruption.

If you truely believe you have no POV on this matter, then I fear there is little hope of a rational and productive conversation. Once again JCRB, bring something new to the table or there is little point in discussing it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Though I would then add that I find it amusing that an editor whose messages are so filled with accusations of bias and nationalism is demanding that editors refrain from making accusations of bias and nationalism. Pfainuk talk 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain does not have any colonies, it has overseas territories. Gibraltar is not a colony and anyone who calls it that does so in order to insult its inhabitants and to deny us our human rights. At one time black people in America were slaves, you can refer to it in a historical context, but using terms related to that period today is simply not appropriate.

This article is about GIBRALTAR, not the Spanish claim, there is an article that describes the basis of that claim and its rebuttal fully. The article is there to inform people of that which is in Gibraltar. An American tourist to Gibraltar is interested in things here and not some outdated claim. A businessman wanting to set up a company here might want to be assured that there is no prospect of Gibraltar becoming Spanish as that would affect his operation, but he does not care about what was said at the UN C24,stuck in a time loop, makes no difference. So we are focusing on important things about Gibraltar, not Spanish dreams and delusions. --Gibnews (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The term colony is archaic and its only use in modern law is where the term is used in older legislation. (However this would apply to virtually all member states of the Commonwealth.} The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The context in which it is used is that Spain asserts that the Gibraltarians are mere colonists from Britain who should either become Spanish citizens or leave. Its part of a dehumanising process.

Heres some background various positions taken at the UN C24 --Gibnews (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I take it that the attempt to improve elements of the article have been derailed yet again? Justin talk 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Unless someone actually objects to the change - and no-one has yet - then I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that silence implies consent. Obviously, any objection would need to give reasons - better reasons, one would hope, than the last time we tried this. Pfainuk talk 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean improve the language about the Minorcans, we seem to be in broad agreement. Otherwise it seems fine to me. --Gibnews (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Not sure what you mean by "block evasion", but that other editor had some good points, so stop blocking the the talk page just because you don't like his comments.

2. The article is full of bias and nationalism, that is why I accuse some editors of bias and nationalism. It is they/you who repeatedly obstruct good suggestions towards neutrality. Your attitude of obstruction, diversion, and blocking the talk page, is the proof of your bias. Your anti-Spanish statements (Gibnews) and your political declarations are the proof of your blatant impartiality. If you dare accuse me of "bias and nationalism" I would like to see on what grounds. I have always and only argued for neutrality.

3. Read carefully. I never said the article should include the word "colony". I am just defending myself from your accusations of "insulting Gibraltarians". I did not know that the term "colony" was derogatory in any way. In fact, allow me to doubt it. Many people in Britain still use the term. Archaic? Perhaps.

4. You say "the article is about Gibraltar, not the Spanish claims" and therefore you oppose my suggestion that the sentence includes a simple mention of the basis of those claims. Well, if the article is only about "that which is Gibraltar" why does it go out if its way to explain that "the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty" ? And then continues with "the British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes" ? Your reasoning betrays you. This is another example of the article's massive bias.

5. Proposed solution to point 4: either 1) mention the basis of Spain's claims, or 2) leave out the part of Britain's committment, and wishes of Gibraltarias. As you say, that should go in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar (which by the way is also incredibly biased). JCRB (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the term block evasion? It means he was evading a block. He was blocked. He was using his rotating IP to avoid the consequences of that block. Also, either be clearer with who you are talking to or don't use the second person narrative, eh? It gets confusing. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone now knows the word Colony is offensive. So lets not hear it again. --Gibnews (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Minorcan group in Gibraltar, I have to say that I find it a bit confusing (as some other issues in this article, but let's go bit by bit):

• Does it mean that some British persons (mainly soldiers, but also some public officials, some traders, ...) who lived in Menorca from 1708 to 1756 (48 years) or from 1763 to 1782 (19 years) or from 1798 to 1802 (4 years) now have descendants in Gibraltar? And that those descendants form a "demographic group" that is to be considered as "Minorcans" (part of which lives in Gibraltar), not "British"?
• How many years does one need to live in a place so that all of his/her descendants are to be considered a "demographic group" named after that place? --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the above. Its talking about the ethnic mix in Gibraltar. The Minorcans who left were Spanish who'd worked with the British and feared reprisals. Justin talk 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that the sources mention British people leaving the island, but didn't see any mention of Spanish Minorcans doing so. In which page, exactly, do the sources say that Spaniards left Menorca and went to Gibraltar because they were forced to do so or because they feared reprisals? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 11 of Sloss' book, I don't have the other to hand as I've returned both to the library. Justin talk 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I must be getting slow in my old age, I just twigged what your post this morning was about. Its the usual POV nonsense. Thats it, don't know why the fuck I ever bothered to speak with you again. Why don't you find something productive to do with your time eh? Trolling this article is just wasting peoples time. Justin talk 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I think it is not all right to delete the contribution of an editor in an article's talk page. It is also not all right to use the expressions that you use.

Talking about the article: You don't need to go to the library. Here you have Sloss' book in pdf [4]. Chapter XI is about the town of Amiens and the treaty. Chapter XXII talks about "His Majesty’s subjects" (meaning British citizens). Could you please tell me and other users where in that book it talks about Spanish Minorcans leaving the island for fear of reprisal and going to Gibraltar? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT This is the second time that Justin deletes comments from this page. I don't think this is all right, is it? (I mean, taking into account that I am only talking about sources and that this talk page does not belong to him, does it?) I hope nobody starts and edit war... in the talk page!!!!

Justin answered my question about sources in my talk page. See below:

"It was Chapter 10, I was relying on memory as I didn't have the book in front of me:

Fox ordered that Nicolas Orfila’s position as civil assessor be

renewed, with more pay, since he was “a gentleman of great merit and professional abilities” and had worked faithfully for the British administration since first appointed by Sir Charles Stuart. Orfila felt that his future on the island was doubtful. He wrote that he had tried to get justice done in the affairs of the church and its abuse of funds, but that the pr iests had ‘indisposed’ him to several powerful families of the island who wanted the abuses to continue. If, after the peace, the island were returned to Spain, they would use their influence at court in Madrid to lose him his job, and persecute and ruin his family. He asked Fox to intercede on his

behalf with the king of Spain.

In January 1802, Major General Clephane repeated the request to

London. “In the event of the cession of this island to the Spanish government, there are several individuals that, I am afraid, will suffer considerably for their attachment and good will towards the English. The civil assessor, Don Nicholas Orfila, appears to me in every respect a most upright judge, and a real patriot, studying only to administer public justice without being in the least influenced by any improper

motives. I wish I could say as much of the other judges.

Now stop wasting my time. I have already indicated I DO NOT wish to converse with you anymore. Justin talk 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)"

Focusing on content, it seems that a book says that one Minorcan was afraid that he would lose his job after the return of the island to Spain, and asked Fox to intercede on his behalf with the king of Spain. Clephane repeated the request to London.

It does not say anything that may support that a group of Minorcans were forced to leave the island and went to Gibraltar to form a "Demographic group". This is not enough to support the current statement in the article.

(BTW, I was coming to the article after my summer vacation, in order to keep talking about self-government, but first I saw this.) --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to converse with you. The purpose of that citation supports Minorcans feared reprisals. As you don't appreciate my attempt to eliminate text that you apparently found POV I'm reverting to the previous consensus. Well done, once again a Spanish POV pusher has frustrated attempts to make the article more neutral. Woo hoo, more contentious arguing crap on the talk page that doesn't advance. The conversation about "self-government" is over, the article as writtem conforms to wiki policies. We are not going to change it to favour a particular point of view or to deny VERIFIABLE facts. Justin talk 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And there are two sources supporting that sentence, you're quibbling about the details of one. That doesn't make it any less valid. So far on Wikipedia, you have not produced one productive edit, you've wasted a stack of people's time on the talk page. Your post this morning was trolling, it was trying to get a rise. Once again wasting people's time. Why don't you find something productive to do? Justin talk 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin in the sense that this source supports the fact that several individuals from Menorca may have feared reprisals because of their attachment to the English after the Treaty of Amiens. That is very interesting for the History section of the Menorca article. I do not see how this can fit in the Gibraltar article (unless someone provides a verifiable source saying that afterwards those Minorcans did in fact go to Gibraltar).

I have looked into the other article [5], but haven't been able to find any reference to Minorcans going to Gibraltar.

In fact, here you have an alternative and less complicated explanation for the existence of Minorcans in Gibraltar: [6]. That would mean that many Minorcans arrived before the Treaty of Amiens because of the intese relation between Gibraltar and British Menorca (ergo -at least- many Minorcans in Gibraltar did not come when they were forced to leave their island). It would simplify the current discussion.

Unless someone challenges my proposed source, I intend to leave the article to say that "Other groups include Minorcans, Sardinians, (...)" (which includes all Minorcans regardless of the cause of the arrival). Does that satisfy everybody? --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, removing something you don't like, what a surprise. I object, my edit was referenced, yours is not. Justin talk 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If Minorcans came to Gibraltar because they preferred to live in a British territory, which is what their descendants here say, and there are references to support that, then attempting to cover that up is not acceptable. --Gibnews (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems I wasn't able to explain myself: Edward G. Archer says in his book "Gibraltar: identity and empire" the following:

"The explanation for the arrival of Minorcans is not difficult to find. Minorca, like Gibraltar, was recognized as British under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and with it came the magnificent harbor of Mahon. The links between Gibraltar and Minorca were extensive, including the regular movement of troops between the two garrisons. Similarly, civilians could move from one to the other, avoiding a war or seeking new opportunities. It was probably the opportunity for work that first brought Minorcans to the Rock where they were employed as sailors, masons, carpenters, tailors, shoemakers and labourers. Minorcans would know of Gibraltar's needs when the town was re-built after the Grand Siege in 1783. Numbers again grew during the wars with Spain around the turn of the century, despite the terrible effects of epidemics."

Therefore, it seems that Minorcans moved to Gibraltar for a variety of reasons (even if some of them were forced to leave after 1802 -which we still haven't been able to verify- many others came for other reasons). Which probably can be summarised in what Gibnews says: They preferred to live in Gibraltar. I suppose that the same happened with Sardinians, Sicilians, ... Should we enumerate all of the reasons why each demographic group moved to Gibraltar? What is the main point of this section of the article: to talk about the ethnic mix of Gibraltar or about their reasons for their coming to Gibraltar?

If nobody challenges my source, I will have to leave Minorcans with the same detail as the rest of other demographic groups. --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Only because you want to push your POV - But if references support otherwise it stays because that is what wikipedia is about not promoting Spain or Spanish government. You really don't 'have' to do anything. The referenda clearly show what the population of Gibraltar think of Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Err no, ultimatums will get you precisely nowhere. Expunging material because you perceive it is critical is not acceptable. The material you've uncovered might be used to expand the Minorcan section, it doesn't justify reducing it. If you are stating its your way or the highway, then I will oppose that edit. Justin talk 08:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not giving any ultimatums. I am not trying to promote any Spanish government. I am just saying that it is verifiable (see Archer's quote) that Minorcans moved to Gibraltar for many reasons, many of them before the Treaty of Amiens. Therefore, we can not say that they came because they were forced out of their homes after the Treaty: even if it were veryfiable, it would only apply to a subgroup of Minorcans, not all of them.

It is more or less the same as Sardinians, Sicilians, French,... (they also came for a variety of reasons, some even may have come as political refugees...). It seems that the current criteria is not to give details on the reasons for the arrival of each one of those demographic groups. I agree with that criteria: it makes the point of demographic diversity, does not make the content of the article too complex WP:SIZE, and the reader will suppose that they moved to Gibraltar because they preferred to live there. I don't see any reason to apply a different criteria on Minorcans and say that "Minorcans moved to Gibraltar in order to work as sailors, carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, labourers,...".

I wouldn't like to keep wasting your time and my time discussing whether it is verifiable or not that some Minorcans were forced out of their homes (which Archer does not mention as an explanation for their arrival) when we can all agree that they came for a variety of reasons, more or less the same as other demographic groups, and just enumerate Minorcans in the same fashion that we do with Sardinians, French, etc. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh you'll happily waste everyone's time. It is verifiable, you'll notice I've softened that comment to read they left fearing reprisals, yet funnily enough you're still referring to the previous text. You'll also notice I also said that you could consider including BOTH, yet funnily enough you're still pushing to remove the current text. And you did issue an ultimatum and rather than simply come out and suggest an edit, you start by snidely implying that the people who left Minorca in 1802 were not really Minorcans. Its exactly the same tactic as before, starting by winding every one up with snide comments, then pretend to be offering something reasonable when your aim is to remove material you don't like. You don't fool anyone. Justin talk 09:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the same tactic is being used against the Minorcans as is asserted against the Gibraltarians themselves, that we are mere 'colonists' and not a people with rights. That may be the official Spanish Government line but its a rather nasty racist POV. --Gibnews (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I don't want to silence anything at all, I just want consistent criteria in the article. So do you (Justin, Gibnews, and other editors) propose that we detail the reasons for moving to Gibraltar of each demographic sub-group of Minorcans (the several individuals who -supposedly- moved to Gib because they were afraid, the ones who went to work before the Treaty, the sailors, the ones who went to reconstruct Gibraltar after the Great Siege, ...)?

• If you do, I will add the verifiable reasons for each sub-group of Minorcans, and will look for the reasons of other demographic groups. Also, I will accept the reference to Minorcans moving because they were afraid, as soon as someone proves that a source says that a significant group of Minorcans who were afraid after the Treaty of Amiens did indeed move to Gibraltar (not just that some Minorcans were afraid in Menorca -which I agree it is verifiable, but does not currently have any reference whatsoever to their moving to Gibraltar).
• If you don't, we should apply that criteria to all other groups (including Minorcans). Otherwise, the article would not use consistent criteria (it would look like you only want to tell that evil Spaniards kicked some Minorcan refugees out to Gibraltar and silence facts about other demo groups, which I am sure is not what you want to do, do you?).

What option do you and other editors interested in this article prefer? I am afraid that the first option will not be good for WP:SIZE, but I will be happy to flow with the consensus of the rest of editors (as long as they choose one of those two consistent alternatives). --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't wish to silence anything? Mmm, lets look at the evidence shall we. You're claiming something isn't referenced when it is. You've had the suggestion of including both reasons, you haven't responded. You're trying to diminish the size of a move from one place to another because you don't like the comment "fearing reprisals". Anything that you perceive as even remotely critical of Spain you seek to expunge; I note there is no disputing that the edit that the Spanish residents left Gibraltar fearing reprisals. And excuse me but who gave you the authority to dictate what goes into an article? You do not get to dictate the options available. Justin talk 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you are right, I will try to avoid dictating options and include all possible options. Which of these 3 options do you think is better for the article (I don't think that -according to logic- there are any other options than the following three, but I could be wrong, and then would thank you if you tell me):

• a) to include the reasons for all other demographic groups and sub-groups moving to Gibraltar (that could include, among others, both sub-groups of Minorcans -in case that you prove that afraid Minorcans did in fact go to Gibraltar after the Treaty-, and other demo groups with reliable sources)
• b) only the reasons for some'
• or c) none of them?

In case you choose to include only the reasons for some sub-groups, which ones would you choose? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again the option was there to represent BOTH of the reasons discussed so far. Any particular reason why you don't want to do that? Its already referenced, once again you deny that it is. Bit difficult to WP:AGF when you always, without exception, misrepresent the situation. Not exactly productive is it. Still ain't seen an edit proposal either. 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you choose to represent the reasons of BOTH groups of Minorcans (the ones who -according to you- came with fear and the other ones). Here you have an edit proposal: if everybody else agrees, I will get going with it. What about the other groups (other Spanish, English, Scottish, Maltese, Genoans, Ligurians, Indians, Jews, Moroccans, ...)? Would you agree that I include the reasons for their going to Gibraltar? I have references from the same book: Gibraltar, identity and empire By Edward G. Archer, pages 34 to 51 (this is another edit proposal, consistent with the previous one). --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose we leave it as it is and stop wasting time. --Gibnews (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Still haven't seen an edit proposal. And the edit says they feared reprisals, it does not comment on whether that was justified or not. Propose an edit, here, then we'll see. Justin talk 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it's here where I have to ask permission and then you will see. I haven't seen the same procedure for everyone (for example when Gibmetal77 introduced the self-governing expression in the lead last April), but I guess that my case is different. All right, then.

I have to say first -just for the record- that I think that the best option would be to have an enumeration of other demographic groups, and leave the detail for the Demographics of Gibraltar main article. Rationale: It is verifiable (see Archer's book) that Minorcans came for a variety of reasons, just like "Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British." This option would not increase the current size of the article, would apply a consistent criteria to all those groups, and keep the main point of the section (explaining the demographic diversity of Gibraltar). But I see that Gibnews and you think it is necessary to say why a portion of Minorcans went to Gibraltar.

I think that the next best option is to be consistent and add the origin of all other demographic groups and sub-groups (not just the Minorcans who -supposedly- came because of fear). The edit proposal for this option is as follows (I will try to be as simple and clear as possible):

"By 1753 Genoese (who came during the 1700s and 1800s, especially from the poorer parts of Liguria, some of them annually following fishing shoals, as repairmen for the British navy, or as successful traders and merchants[7]; many others came during the Napoleonic period to avoid obligatory conscription to the French Army[8]), Maltese (who were in the same imperial route to the east as Gibraltar, and came when jobs were scarce at home and others to escape the law in Malta), and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (whose migration to Gibraltar was initiated due to the common British rule since 1713, first looking for work in several trades, especially when Gibraltar needed to be rebuilt after the 1783 Grand Siege[9]; several individuals also moved when the island was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens, fearing reprisals from other Minorcan families)[60][61], Jews (mostly Sephardic Jews, who were able to re-establish their rites, forbidden in Catholic Spain, right after the British occupation in 1704, but also Jews from London especially since the Great Siege [10]), Indians (most of them from Hyderabad, some of whom came as merchants after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1870 and many others again after the closure of the frontier with Spain in 1969 to replace Spanish workers[11]), Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French (many of whom came after the French Revolution in 1789 setting up trade and commerce)[12], Germans, and the British. Immigration from Spain and intermarriage with Spaniards from the surrounding Spanish towns was a constant feature of Gibraltar's history until General Francisco Franco closed the border with Gibraltar, cutting off many Gibraltarians from their relatives on the Spanish side of the frontier.

As you will see, those are verifiable reasons for other demographic groups and sub-groups just like the Minorcans that -supposedly- came because of fear. This can be improved as we find reasons for Portuguese, British,... You will see that -as an act of good faith- I have temporarily suspended disbelief and kept your reference. I have only corrected a slight detail: according to your source, the only potential retaliation comes from other Minorcan families, not from the Spanish government, as you will see in "the priests had indisposed him to several powerful families of the island who wanted the abuses to continue. If, after the peace, the island were returned to Spain, they would use their influence at court in Madrid to lose him his job, and persecute and ruin his family" (the retaliator would be the families and the government of Spain -which the source does not mention to have any reason for retaliation- only the "weapon").

What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail for the main article. Maybe appropriate in a dedicated article. --Gibnews (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs some work, I would be more disposed toward considering your proposed edit had you not felt the need to add supposedly in your comments. Once again you make a comment that is more designed to derail a collaborative process than facilitate it. I would also suggest it needs to be slimmed down more to suit, I will make some suggestions presently. Justin talk 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gibnews. This is way too much information for the main article. It would be great to include this in the Demographics of Gibraltar and Gibraltarian people articles. I suggest we leave it as a referenced list of the different peoples for the purposes of the main article, and concentrate on working on the above to include it in the mentioned aforementioned articles. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gibnews and Gibmetal 77. I'll start working on that. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial shift towards Neutrality

It appears nobody has challenged my proposition above (point 5). Therefore I will go for option 1 (point 5) which is extending the sentece to include the basis for Spain's claim. This is only a start towards a more neutral article, so more changes will be required. Regarding the Minorcan issue, I think Imalbornoz has a point, and there's no reason why that shouldn't go on the Main Page. JCRB (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, people have ignored your proposition, we have been through this many times before. Your proposals aren't acceptable. There is no point rehashing old ground. Perhaps you could resurrect your sock puppet and agree with yourself again. Justin talk 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with JCRB in some of his arguments (I think that this article needs some additional POVs in order to gain neutrality) I am not sure that the lead needs to explain the basis for Spain's claims. I am quite happy with the NPOV of that paragraph, relative to the rest of the article. Right now, the lead does not explain the basis for anyone's claims; it concentrates on describing the position of each side. If we were to include Spain's arguments, then we would also have to include Gibraltar's and Britain's in order to have NPOV. The paragraph describes pretty well Spain's and Gibraltar's position, and part of Britain's (it does not say that Britain has proposed shared sovereignity, which is the reason why the paragraph says that Gibraltarians reject shared sovereignity). I propose that the basis for each one's claims is kept in the article below. (BTW, I am half done with the demographics: as Gibmetal and Gibnews proposed, I am adding detail to the Gibraltar Demographics article and just keeping a reference list of the peoples in the Gibraltar main article).--Imalbornoz (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, regarding demographics, are you sure that the male/female proportion in the 16-64 age group is 1.44[13]? Dividing 9,470 by 9,070 is 1.044 not 1.44. I don't know who put those numbers there, so I'm asking: do you mind if I make a correction? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have finished with the Demographics of Gibraltar article. Main changes:

• a) I have changed the title of the section from "Overview" to "Ethnic origin". Rationale: even before the expanded information, this section dealt with the origin of different ethnic groups in Gibraltar, it was not an overview of the Gib's demographics (which also include age groups, male/female proportions, education...) Now, even more so.
• b) I have included all the additional information, grouping it according to the different demographic origins (before, groups were a bit disperse -> e.g. Spaniards were in the beginning and in the end of the section). I have also ordered them according to the size of groups and given more detail to bigger groups (before, e.g., British had no detail at all).
• c) I have completed the reasons for original Spaniards leaving the Rock in 1704. Now the text says that "occupiers and inhabitants exchanged atrocities and retaliation until few villagers wanted or dared to remain". Rationale: the previous text only said that Spaniards killed Dutch and Englishmen then feared retaliation and then left; the source[14] says that Spaniards were afraid of "atrocities" (the word is used by the source) beforehand, then marines and crewmen acted so that "the inhabitants' worst fears were confirmed" (on temples-women-etc.), then Spaniards killed Englishmen and "By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain". With the current text, no side gets a bigger proportion of guilt (both exchanged atrocities and retaliation). It just didn't sound too believable that some villagers started to kill soldiers without any previous provocation (and the source confirms that).

If you have any comment, please tell me. All of the text is sourced and I have invested a significant amount of time writing it, so I would thank you if you propose any improvement to that section of the article in this talk page beforehand so that we can all agree on it (I know it's not necessary, but I think it's better for the article, as I may be able to explain doubts that you may have about the new text). Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, you would have been better served given your prior history proposing an edit in talk first before adding it to the article. I've made some changes. Justin talk 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we move to Talk:Demographics of Gibraltar to further discuss the addition of the ethnic origins section. --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am discussing Justin's changes in that page. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Detail of Capture

I feel the details of the capture belong in the history of Gibraltar rather than the main article. That the Spanish occupants of Gibraltar broke the truce and murdered British and Dutch sailors then managed to evade justice by running away is pretty immaterial. --Gibnews (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed in early September (around the 5th of September) to explain the reasons for the Spaniards leaving Gibraltar. During the last few weeks, that section has been improved by several editors. The current version only makes that explanation much more precise without significantly adding too many words (only 5 more words). --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like its trying to justify the defeated Spanish murdering people and it has nothing to do with Gibraltar today. --Gibnews (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not try to justify anything. It just states facts as they are explained in the sources: promises were made, rapes, desecrations and lootings were committed in spite of senior officers, the townspeople left and founded San Roque. Those are verifiable facts.

Things that happened during those days changed the history of Gibraltar: Gibraltar is today as we know it, in great part, due to the fact that almost all the previous inhabitants left the town. It is probably one of the three pivotal points -together with the invasion and the Treaty of Utrecht- between the "Spanish period" and the "British period". So it is relevant to the History of Gibraltar.

It should also be noticed that in those days it was not so unusual to be invaded by foreign troops. And villagers didn't usually attack invading troops out of the blue or left their hometown without a very important reason. So it is also relevant that -in spite of formal promises and the effort of senior officers- atrocities were committed on the village.

Those are verifiable and relevant facts. And they only take 5 more words than the previous version. We should not try to silence them. I hope that you guys (Gibnews and Justin) don't start an edit war on this. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You would appear to be the one edit warring. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the text as it is. You are welcome to convince people otherwise. Justin talk 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Justin, he isn't. Sources are pretty clear about rapes, looting and desecrations. Omitting them and just talking about murder of sailors, without explaining why is just biasing the section. Is there a reason to omit what the Anglo-Dutch sailors did (as for example what happened with Our Lady of Europe? Let's remember we're talking about history, not about politics. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC) PS: the funniest thing is that none of the sources attributes the exodus to any fear of reprisals (better to fear to looting as happened in Cadiz some years before), so please, regardless of the final redaction, don't introduce such an original investigation and look for proper secondary sources

Yes, he is. WP:BRD Bold, Revert, DISCUSS. As was discussed above, such detail is not merited in an overview article. We agreed that a summary would suffice and the detail would go into another article - which it has. Per WP:UNDUE if this section becomes simply a discussion about what a foul bunch of bastards the British were, as you and your friend seem into on doing, then the article is unbalanced. Yes, this is history not politics, so lets not make it a one sided diatribe shall we?

Furthermore, in the summary, it makes it plain that the actions of the Anglo-Dutch sailors was inappropriate. We don't need a list of foul deeds. Or perhaps we could enter into mutual recriminations and talk about murdering and dismembering sailors and flinging their mortal remains into cess pits. Does that improve the article? No it doesn't.

The comments are not original research, its an attempt to summarise the situation in a manner appropriate for an overview article. Your assertion that we have to have a source for the exact words is specious reasoning at its worst, wikipedia couldn't exist as it would be a copyright violation. Justin talk 09:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, the previous version just mentions the "behaviour" of the invaders... but does not say which behaviour. The current version does explain it: rapes, lootings and desecrations (not just any kind of behaviour). It is relevant to say that. It does so concisely and is still a summary (with just 5 more words in the paragraph). All of it is supported by sources. On the other hand, as Ecemaml says, no source supports that villagers left for fear of reprisal (as the previous version stated). Please do not revert that edit again and discuss about it here. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, its one sided. It lists "atrocities" by one side but not the other. But heh, seeing as you feel it is necessary, I've added the fact that the Spanish descrated the bodies of murdered sailors by throwing them into cess pits. Isn't the article so much better now?

And as I'm at 3 reverts, no I won't revert it today. But I do not feel that material is necessary. So I will remove it in future. You should have discussed it and achieved consensus before adding it but, no, as usual you edit war to get your own way, gaming the system. Justin talk 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also consider the edit summary to be misleading, it is not as per discussion. The discussion thus far is opposed to that edit. Justin talk 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, you say that the edit only explained atrocities by one side. You don't consider that murder is an atrocity? Myself, I consider it an atrocity much worse than rape, looting or desecration, but it's just my opinion. To have an external reference, most modern laws dictate much bigger punishments for murder than for rape, desecration or looting.

About desecrating bodies, one comment about style: I don't know, it's a bit too poetic and metaphorical for me. The desecration of churches has a very specific and objective meaning; desecrating bodies... do the sources really say that? (what about dismembering and so on?)

And one comment about the content: the previous version already said what was done by each side in an equivalent manner (desecrations, rapes, lootings and murders); it did not go into detail and explain how it was done (how women were raped, how churches were desecrated, how lootings were perpetrated or how murders were inflicted). If you want to argue about NPOV, I think the previous version was OK. Now you propose to explain how Englishmen's bodies were "desecrated" (or rather, were they just "hidden"?). Should someone propose to explain how churches were desecrated or women raped in order to stay even? (I won't, but it would be coherent with your edit). Please think about it. I have tried to make a NPOV edit, just describing facts (I hope you realise it).

About discussion: it was discussed in the Gibraltar Demographics article talk page. In fact, you edited the previous version in this article exactly the same as you did in that article (so I guess you thought that it was consistent in that case, but -somehow- not in this case).

I don't think that it improves the article, but -hey- I leave it to you and other editors to decide. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't improve the article and neither does the version you insist upon - thats the point. Your edit is not NEUTRAL - thats the point. And once again your comments about what the Spanish did belies your POV issues; you attempt to excuse what is inexcusable. Change murder to kill if you think it improves the article or if that is your only objection. What the article doesn't need is a tit for tat list of atrocities. THAT IS THE POINT. The previous version was not OK, your insistance on always having YOUR version of everything is not conducive toward a co-operative enterprise. Justin talk 11:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that "murder" describes what some villagers did on Englishmen. I do not intend to look for a milder term or try to look for excuses: it was an atrocity, it was relevant and it should stay in the article. (in fact, I don't think that what they did with the corpses in order to hide or to desecrate them is as relevant as the murderings: if someone wants to murder me, that's what I'll try to avoid; if that person unfortunately succeeds, they can do with my corpse whatever they want...)

I also think that "desecrations", "lootings" and "rapes" describes what was performed by the invaders. I will not try to look for a milder term or excuses, either. It is verifiable and relevant, and it should also stay in the article as such.

Finally, if your edit was trying to make a WP:POINT in spite of thinking that it does not improve the article, I think that it would be nice if you could undo it, if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it balanced for now and remove BOTH tomorrow. The list of atrocities that is, it doesn't improve the article. Justin talk 12:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I'm afraid that a "slow motion" edit war is still an edit war. It seems that we have reached a deadlock in the discussion: you don't want the text to say that Englishmen perpetrated rapes, lootings and desecrations because it does not improve the article and it's too many details (although you want the text to say that townspeople murdered Anglo-Dutch soldiers); I think that the article has to include them because they are relevant (those events led to the situation that made villagers leave Gibraltar in exile, and THAT changed the history of Gibraltar), especially if it makes the article only 5 words longer. You have said that you are ready to revert whenever you can (in order to avoid the 3RR).

Don't you think it would be better to ask for a third opinion or mediation? I am ready to ask for it if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, the only reason there is an impasse is entirely due to your unwillingness to compromise or accept anything other than YOUR EDIT. As usual you misrepresent my position. I have accepted those details where appropriate. I've even accepted the current text being modified to accommodate your sensibilities. I've told you why I don't think your edit is appropriate and illustrated why. You nontheless insist on YOUR version. There is a deadlock because you insist on having your way and are not prepared to compromise, whereas I have. I will revert, because your edits do not improve the article. I've left the article balanced, it will still be balanced when I'm finished.

I'm disinclined to think mediation will go anywhere, you seem to be offering mediation as a means to preserve text I consider unacceptable while it goes forward. You're not prepared to work toward consensus, you simply insist on your own way. Mediation or third opinion will go nowhere whilst you're not prepared to listen; evidenced by your constant habit of edit warring to keep your edit. Revert to an earlier version and we'll see. Justin talk 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have accepted many suggestions from you in the Demographics article, which led to the current paragraph. Now, what do we do if I take your position and say:

"I've told you why I don't think your" reversion "is appropriate and illustrated why. You nontheless insist on YOUR version. (...) I will revert" your reversions "because your edits do not improve the article. I've left the article balanced (...) You are not prepared to work toward consensus, you simply insist on your own way..."

Would you think it is constructive? Come on, let's see if someone from outside can help us. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't take my suggestions. Every time I edited, you edited what I'd written. Its always your version. You're not constructive, right from the start you've taken a combative approach. Everything is a battle with you, you constantly misrepresent what people have said. I can't see an outside opinion helping, truthfully I can't. Justin talk 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did take some of your suggestions (I proposed several versions[15][16][17][18] following your suggestions..., until some consensus was reached). Should we try mediation and see what happens? In the worst case, we will only have lost a couple of hours and will be in the same situation that we are now. Of course, we should have consensus on how we explain the case to a neutral mediator (for example: 80 words for you and 80 for me?). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense, even when your edit was grammatically incorrect you edit warred to keep it. Again I don't see the point in mediation when you refuse to accept anything but your version. Justin talk 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi both, I support the request for mediation. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi both, I don't. The last one was about as useful as a chocolate teacup. RedCoat10 • talk 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz doesn't want mediation, he seems to think mediation is about making judgements, usually in his favour. He isn't listening, I make it 4 people disagree and he still reverted again (and noticeably to HIS version, the one sided one that only lists atrocities by one side). There you go. Justin talk 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, your statement ("Imalbornoz doesn't want mediation") seems sort of telepathy. The number of people doesn't make necessary or not a mediation. There are two obvious positions and it seems as if only one of the sides giving up is acceptable for the other. I support again the mediation request. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just going on past history. Have a look at the case he filed, he asks for mediation to make a judgement. And as I said on the talk page, I'm tired of his rather too obvious tactic of creating conflict, then turning round and pretending to be reasonable. And no having him "give up" is not the only acceptable position for me, I've already suggested a compromise. Where has he ever compromised? That is the issue and that is why mediation is not going anywhere. Justin talk 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]The detail of the capture belongs in the article on the History of Gibraltar. All that is appropriate to note in the main article that the Spanish garrison of Gibraltar was defeated. In 1704 there was no Geneva convention on the conduct of war. When the Spanish occupied Gibraltar they simply killed all the inhabitants, again in keeping with behaviour of that day. The bottom line is that in 1704 they left, and all the whinging and whining about it is immaterial. Its simply and expression of the Spanish POV that 'we was robbed' rather than accepting a military defeat and the status quo which has prevailed thereafter despite the best efforts of attacking Gibraltar after signing several peace treaties promising not to do so.

However, IF its considered necessary, lets have all the rape and murder in the history article and keep the main Gibraltar article fresh and concise. --Gibnews (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that five more words does not make an article more verbose or rotten. BTW, I've removed a sentence that seems original research, as it's not supported by the source. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the message on your talk page, I've restored the sentence. The sources already in the article support it. Strange that there is so much focus on adding alleged atrocities committed by the British forces and at the same time we're removing the fact that the Spanish also committed atrocities. The case could be made that someone is attempting to skew the POV in the article to favour one side. Pls don't edit war over this. Justin talk 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And with respect the issue is not whether there is 5 words more or less, the issue is that the edit seeks to only list the bad behaviour of one side and expunge the references to the Spanish atrocities. Lets deal with the actual issue rather than attempting to spin it. Justin talk 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I've restored the previous text because it is unacceptable per WP:NPOV to add an edit that is focused on solely one side, whilst at the same time expunging the misconduct of the other. Pls do not edit war to skew the article to a biased state. Justin talk 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I think this is your 3rd reversion today. I think you should step back and think about the need for a mediator in order to not enter into an edit war. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Then don't edit war, notice how every time I come to the talk page to discuss it. You just revert, insisting it has to be your biased version. 23:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So, do you insist you don't want mediation? I honestly think it would be good (for both of us and the article) to have an external opinion. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, don't edit war, then reverts in the next stage of an edit war. Fine, the Spanish atrocities and desecration of bodies goes back in then. Isn't this so good for improving the article? No I don't refuse mediation, I don't see the point of it. You want the external opinion to give a judgement, which you think will be in your favour. I also don't see the point, when you are always so confrontational about everything. Even when other voices such as Gibmetal77 have give you an external opinion, you ignored it (apparently because he is from Gibraltar and therefore must be biased). You ignored it because you didn't like it. And when you don't get what you want, what is it, forum shopping again? Justin talk 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your comment and your edit. I don't agree with it, but will let it be. Please, will you agree that we go to mediation. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You really want mediation? Mediation is not about an external opinion saying who is right and who is wrong. You want the mediator to say you're right, they won't do that. Thats why I think its pointless.

I've already stated that I don't want a war of "atrocities" but if you insist on making the article biased in one direction by insisting on those details, then NPOV demands that details of the other side are also included.

If you really want mediation, then I would ask that the article is taken to a neutral version, that is a request not a demand. Justin talk 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left your edit mentioning "desecration of bodies". I thought you said it made the article NPOV: your only objection after your edit was that it was unnecessary, not that it was biased any more -in fact you said it was "balanced"-[19][20] (as I said, I don't agree with its verifiability and relevance, but will let it be for the sake of the consensus process).

Now I hope that, according to your own standards, your "request" for NPOV is fulfilled. Of course, we still disagree about content and verifiability. In fact, that's what mediation is for: to help reach an agreement where there is disagreement. Would you go for mediation now? --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, that you've now exceeded 3RR but I don't notice anyone rushing to report it. Also I don't accept your edit, so please do not mischaracterise that I even partially accept it. Just an observation but describing your edit as a "better version" is a classic symptom of a POV edit.

Further, I don't accept that the article is improved by insisting that we document a list of atrocities. Thats the fundamental problem here, this is a summary article. It needs a summary overview, not a list of details. Once again I find myself explaining things again and again because you mischaracterise the issue.

List a mediation case if you like, I have a pretty good idea how it will go. Justin talk 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unindent

I have not exceeded 3RR. I have edited different alternative texts trying to follow your suggestions (please check the diffs).

About the "better version" comment: if you look at the diff, it changes "several Englishmen were murdered" by "Many Englishmen were murdered by". I thought it was better for your POV, Justin, not mine (trying to make you happier with the text before going into mediation).

About lists: I don't think the article needs a list of atrocities either (and, accordingly, my version does not have one -I think). On the other hand, your version just mentions "the behaviour of British sailors" (without any further explanation) and "the murder of English and Dutch sailors". Like Ecemaml said (and saving the differences), it's like saying that NATO bombed Serbia due to "the behaviour of Serbs", without mentioning ethnic cleansing. The interpretation of the facts is not the same depending on the type of "behaviour". It should be explained (just a little bit, like 5 words or so). I don't understand why you have such strong feelings about the fact that some out of control English and Dutchmen committed those rapes-lootings-desecrations.

About Spanish atrocities: Spaniards murdered Englishmen and hid the bodies in wells and cesspits (or desecrated them, according to you), and the version I propose does not hide it. Probably, had the Spaniards had the upper hand, they would have committed more atrocities and hung all of the rapers and maybe even more unjustified acts of revenge. But... they only could (and did) stab people in the back and hide the corpses (or desecrate them, according to you).

I will list a mediation case, in the understanding that you accept mediation (that's what you meant in your post, wasn't it?) --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your changes are nothing but adding a list of atrocities. Its a lot more than "just 5 words" when you also included the Spanish atrocities that your version suppressed. "I don't understand why you have such strong feelings about the fact that some out of control English and Dutchmen committed those rapes-lootings-desecrations." I have at one point whatsoever said that should not be mentioned in an appropriate article. I have clearly and repeatedly explained my objections and it has fuck all to do with "strong feelings". What chance does mediation have when you repeatedly mischaracterise the issue. Thats why I have said I think mediation is pointless, its because you never listen. Justin talk 13:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you are in breach of 3RR, you made two reverts last night and two today. That makes 4, which is the magic number. When you reverted Gibnews you breached 3RR. And if you want to work to a consensus that is usually achieved by collaborating on the talk page. You seem to think its editing to a stalemate on 3RR. Justin talk 13:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you missed what I was doing in my last edit. I did not revert Gibnews. I wrote a new edit trying to satisfy your "request."

It would be easier if you said once and for all whether you will go for mediation or not (I wouldn't like to work preparing the case and then have you saying that you will not accept mediation for this or that reason). You just keep giving opinions about mediation ("List a mediation case if you like (...)", "I think mediation is pointless (...)") but not whether you will accept it or not. Please, I humbly beg that you say "yes" or "no" to the question "Will you accept mediation?"

Have a try, and then you'll be able to say, "Wonderful, it worked" or "See how you are unable to collaborate? You weren't able to listen even with a mediator involved! I was right and you were wrong.". ;) . --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You won't get a yes/no answer, best you'll get is a maybe. If you misrepresent the issue again I'll simply walk away from it. I suggest you look at the edit history again, count the reverts, it was 4 within the 24 hrs. You are in material breach of 3RR. I'm not going to report a breach but if someone does you could well be blocked.

And you have a fundamental problem with understanding how wikipedia works. Its about collaborating to get a mutually acceptable happy medium. Its not about who is right or who is wrong. I'm not interested in being judged as being right but it seems that is your objective. Justin talk 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just listed a case in the Mediation Cabal here. I thought it would be good if you and Gibnews could take a look at it (and edited it in case you don't agree with its content). Basically, I think a mediator could help us structure our discussion and reach consensus on what type of facts are relevant enough to be in this article and which ones should go to the History of Gibraltar main article (but take a look yourself).

I have seen that you reverted my edit. I will not include the content that I think should be included for now (in order to help the mediation process). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I anticipated you've asked the cabal to make a judgement, so I've struck out those comments. I've summarised our position better, you did not cover the issues. I've also suggested that the mediator clarify the use of the talk page and the need to establish a consensus before adding disputed material to an article. You never seem to listen when I've tried to explain how it works, so maybe you will to someone independent. Justin talk 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I understand that you have already edited the text in the MedCab case and agree with the current version. Therefore, I will delete the part where it says "(pending to be edited/approved by Justin and/or Gibnews)". Is that OK? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Gibnews, you will have to speak to him yourself. But I have no issues. Justin talk 09:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My position is clear, TAKE OUT all the detail about 'outrages' by the British sailors and the 'murders' by the defeated Spaniards as its irrelevant to the capture. Its only been included to make the British look bad (Spanish POV) and the Spanish dishonourable in defeat (British POV) None of this is mentioned in the Spanish Wikipedia article at present, although no doubt having said that it someone will now insist it is. Who did what after the surrender is immaterial to the fact that Gibraltar ceased to be Spanish in 1704. --Gibnews (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Mediation

Okay, now that I've recovered from swine flu, I think we can begin mediating. Are all editors on this article willing to participate? Irbisgreif (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I think my position is clear enough, and continually arguing with tendentious Spanish editors who wish to impose a foreign POV detracts from creating real content. --Gibnews (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My position on mediation hasn't changed. Justin talk 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) PS: just a kind request. Is that possible that the parties in this discussion avoid disqualifications of the rest of participants? Thank you.

Regarding your "kind request", that would indeed be lovely - provided you practise what you preach. I guess we can look forward to an absence of allegations of pro-British bias and focus on content. Sourced edits will be respected and we won't see claims that because the source is not quoted verbatim it is "not sourced". Regards, Justin talk 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, here we're just accepting a mediation. For me, it's simply a new beginning. That's the reason I accepted an impartial mediation and thus I didn't mentioned previous discussions, since I wish to have a fresh discussion. However, one of the parties seems to accept the mediation, only to immediately violate civility guidelines (sorry to complain about being referred to a "tendentious editor", curious way of accepting a mediation). If that's the way you wish to follow the process, it's up to you. I won't fall down in provocations. If you wish to discuss about "sourced" editions, here you have my question:

Please, can you underline which part of the following paragraph:

"Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Habsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. [..] 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 [..] ; and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many bloody 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

supports your personal investigation in your edition (the sentence in bold):

In the chaos after the surrender, the behaviour of British sailors (despite the effors of their commanders to maintain order) and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain.

I know my English is poor, but I cannot read anything in Jackson's text similar to what you introduce (not to mention that any primary or secondary source says anything about that). It's pretty easy. Just underline the text. --Ecemaml (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was too much to hope for. It has been explained before, its on your talk page and I really, really cannot be bothered explaining it again. Because it is just bad faith to repeat the same question after you've already had an answer. You won't get a different answer by repeating the same question again and again. And btw that is tendentious, so the comment happens to be accurate. Tendentious arguments won't get you anywhere in mediation either. Justin talk 22:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, a couple of comments:

1) "Leaving for fear of reprisals": Justin, you are right, you have repeatedly answered that question saying that it can be inferred from the text in general. We're repeating the question because we want some more evidence than "just the text in general". I am sure that if what you say can be directly inferred from the text, you will be able to find a couple of hints... Right now, I look at the text that you quote in your edit and only see one mention of the term "reprisals"... but it is Spaniards reprising on invaders, not Spaniards afraid of reprisals... Please could you give us a detailed explanation of how you infer that edit from the text? (I am eager to read your explanation respectfully and carefully).

2) "Rapes, lootings, desecrations and murders": I understand that you accept that those are historical and sourced facts, and that your only worry is about there being too much detail. You say that "the behaviour of British sailors" is enough detail, and it's not necessary to say that they behaved raping, looting and desecrating.

Given that "too much detail" can be a subjective measure, should we agree on a standard for detail? For example, you can tell me whether you think the following texts in the current article have more or less detail than the edit you have repeatedly deleted?:

• The few Spaniards who remained in Gibraltar in August 1704 were augmented by others who arrived in the fleet with Prince George of Hesse, possibly some two hundred in all, mostly Catalans
• Other groups include Minorcans (who left Minorca fearing reprisals from the Spanish Government when the island was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens)
• In May 1937, HMS Arethusa had to tow HMS Hunter into port after Hunter hit a mine off Almeria that killed and wounded several British sailors.
• In June 1937, the German pocket battleship Deutschland arrived in Gibraltar with dead and wounded after Republican planes bombed it in Ibiza in retaliation for the Condor Legion's bombing of Guernica.
• In August 1938, the Republican destroyer Jose Luis Diez took refuge in Gibraltar after taking casualties from the guns of the National cruiser Canarias.
• General Władysław Sikorski, who led Poland’s government in exile during World War II, died on 4 July 1943, when the British bomber he was in crashed into the sea after taking off from Gibraltar.
• The naval Battle of Gibraltar took place on 25 April 1607 during the Eighty Years' War when a Dutch fleet surprised and engaged a Spanish fleet anchored at the Bay of Gibraltar. During the four-hour action, the entire Spanish fleet was destroyed.

(My question: Are these milestones in Gibraltar History? Are they more or less important than the facts that led to the Spanish population leaving en masse in 1704?)

Justin, thank you very much for your attention and sorry if I have bored you. And thank you very much for answering my questions.--Imalbornoz (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Which again has already been answered. Due and proportional coverage is required for an overview article. How many times do you need questions answered? Justin talk 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Justin, but it is my humble opinion that the following questions have not been answered (at least not in the course of the current mediation process):

1) Ecemaml has kindly asked you to point where in the text that -according to you- supports that Spaniards left "for fear of reprisals" does it actually say so. He has even brought the text to the discussion page for your convenience.

2) I have asked you to explain why you think that the text supports your hypothesis (more than just "it supports it, in general").

3) I have asked you to compare the importance for the History of Gibraltar and the level of detail of several parts of the current article versus the proposed edit that includes rapings-lootings-desecrations.

If these questions have already been answered, please go an extra mile and answer them again -if only for the sake of the mediator's convenience. Thank you very much in anticipation. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Answered on the talk page, his talk page and the mediation page.

2. Answered on the talk page, his talk page and the mediation page.

3. Answered here, directly preceding you asking the question again.

Ask again, the answer won't change and I won't be surprised.

As regards (3.), there is a bad faith implicit assumption in your question is there not? The premise of the question is false, the detail in each statement is immaterial. They are appropriate for the section of the article in which they appear. You have taken statements out of context in an attempt to prove a false assumption that I am attempting to suppress information. The reasons for rejecting your edit have been made clear to you, you have the choice of accepting them as genuine or continuing to insinuate on the basis of your false assumptions. The former can lead to a resolution, the latter nowhere. Your choice. Justin talk 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its very simple, the items you list refer to the history of Gibraltar. The stuff I want removed refers to the detail of the Spaniards in Gibraltar after 1704 Gibraltar was British and they have no importance. However as you have asked for a mediator at least hear him out going on and on about it here is tedious. --Gibnews (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A summary of where we are starting from

First off, thank you for all accepting mediation, I hope that I will be able to help.

Before we discuss where we are going, let's discuss where we are.

The portion that is in dispute is: “The majority of the Spanish population, with few exceptions, left Gibraltar. In the chaos after the surrender, the behaviour of British sailors (despite the effors of their commanders to maintain order) and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain. By the time order was restored and despite the assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, most chose to leave.”

This is what the article, at present, says. As I understand it, (correct me if I am wrong) this is the version supported by one of the “sides” here. The other “side” wants something like this: “The majority of the Spanish population, with few exceptions, left Gibraltar. In the chaos after the surrender, few inhabitants dared to remain. By the time order was restored, most chose not to return.”

So then, to get an idea of where everyone stands, add yourself to one of the following lists without comment. This is only to get an idea of who stands where, not to create consensus or to select a position. So please do not argue any more at this point. We need to go to the root of the conflict and see what it is before we can resolve the situation. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope that isn't the case, the other side wishes to list atrocities allegedly committed by the Anglo-Dutch side and at the same time remove reference to the fact that there were atrocities committed by the Spanish side. Also remove the point at which the Spanish left that order had been restored. Justin talk 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand the situation. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually,the alternative version is:

"The majority of the Spanish population, with few exceptions, left Gibraltar. In spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, and despite the efforts of British and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, lootings, desecrations and rapes were perpetrated by the ships' crew and marines. The townspeople took reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen. When discipline was restored, most villagers decided to go in exile and, after some time, founded the nearby city of San Roque."

This one would be the longer version (it's 5 words longer). --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which funnily enough is achieved by removing the fact that they received assurances they way of life would be protected. Strange how that is expunged. But then we're accused of bias and removing detail, yet our summaries manage to mention all of the salient facts. I thought you were committed to mediation, yet again apparently pushing the version you favour, ignoring the mediator. Mmmm. Justin talk 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. This makes it easier to see where everyone stands, so thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors in favour of the longer version.

Imalbornoz (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors in favour of a shorter version.

--Gibnews (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter Version

During the War of the Spanish Succession, British and Dutch troops, allies of Archduke Charles, the Austrian pretender to the Spanish Crown, formed a joint fleet and attacked various towns on the southern coast of Spain. On 4 August 1704, after six hours of bombardment starting at 5:00 am, the fleet, under the command of Admiral Sir George Rooke, assisted by Field Marshal Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt, comprising some 1800 Dutch and British marines, captured the town of Gibraltar and claimed it in the name of the Archduke Charles. After the surrender the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar.

And thats enough. --Gibnews (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Gibnews and Imalbornoz the only two editors involved in this dispute?

If so, might I recommend a visit to WP:3O as well? That could help with the disagreements. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No - if you read through the talk page you can see what is going on, its part of a sustained attempt by Spanish editors to insert a particular POV in the article about Gibraltar. This is opposed by a number of other editors, some of which are Gibraltarian and some not. I really don't see why this nonsense should be in the article as 305 years on. The important thing is that Gibraltar changed hands in 1704 not that Tommy went looking for women and loot and Pedro stabbed him in the back. --Gibnews (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, this repeated “they are trying to POV-push” is not constructive to mediation. Not everyone views things the way you do. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute derives from a Spanish POV that the 'real' inhabitants of Gibraltar were the ones who left in 1704 and only their descendants have rights over the territory. This remains the basis of the Spanish argument at the UN in 2009 to deny our rights. --Gibnews (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml was also involved. I have checked his user page, and he posted on the 23rd saying he would be out for a week.

Justin A Kuntz was involved as well (but I don't know why he has not responded).

Anyway I am ready to go to WP:3O as well if you think it might be useful, what do you think? Thank you! --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, if multiple editors are involved, WP:3O is not an appropriate place to seek outside assistance. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if No has the same meaning in English and Spanish. Please read my comment above. The paragraph I have proposed eliminates any dispute over POV lets adopt it and move on. --Gibnews (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

No, there isn't just too editors involved here. I was awaiting a correction from the mediator, I pointed out that you'd failed to grasp the nexus of the dispute here. I did respond, I pointed out that the mediator had picked up on the wrong text for a start. Justin talk 09:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New Governor

The new governor has arrived and has been installed, there may be some tidying up on wikipedia for him, I created a short article but found someone had beaten me to it. However, have added a nice pic of him with the keys symbolising his office. --Gibnews (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Mediation - NPOVN

I have asked WP:NPOVN to comment on the different possible article forms. Please do not comment there yourself, this is to try and get outside opinions. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, forum shopping again? Had you asked we've already been round no less than 4 separate forums already. Last time the result was that the article was fine as it is. 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One good thing to do is to locate specific issues and take them to noticeboards. NPOVN can settle this issue quite easily by creating a consensus on what form is neutral without any of the arguing that has gone on here.

Also, please remember that mediation can only succeed if everyone co-operates. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 09:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But when it becomes forum shopping its disruptive. Just for information I am considering asking for a new mediator. You have failed to grasp the nexus of the dispute and I'm not convinced the direction you're taking is useful or indeed helpful. We've already seen issues being taken to no less than 4 forums already. How many times are we going to do that? Justin talk 10:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should let Irbisgreif try this. I don't know what harm it can do.

I only have two more points to add:

• There is no discussion about the first part of the paragraph, just the part about the Spaniards leaving Gibraltar. The first part of Gibnews' proposed text is common to all of us (none of us has proposed different texts in that part). Therefore, Gibnews' differencial edit is: "After the surrender the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar" and nothing more (in other case, we should include all the first part of the paragraph as well in the other alternatives). Irbisgreif, could you correct that in the NPOVN, please?
• Gibnews has edited the article introducing his own text (you can see what I mean in the previous point looking at the diff). Also, I thought we had agreed that we would not edit during mediation. It would be nice if someone could restore the article, and nobody started an edit war. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, you can only have an edit war if you choose to have one. I said I wouldn't edit and I won't but I'm not sure that Gibnews agreed to any restrictions. I'm losing confidence in a mediator who can't take the time to understand the dispute he is supposedly mediating. We've already been round the buoy at the NPOVN, what good will covering the same ground again do. I also fail to see how an opinion by people who don't know history of Gibraltar can help. Justin talk 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ending Mediation

Unfortunately one editor has decided to unilaterally end mediation, and another is now stating he no longer has confidence in the process. Therefore, I have no choice but to end medcab mediation. I hope all those editing this page can resolve this dispute. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No that is not the case, I expressed a lack of confidence in your ability to mediate, seeing as you utterly failed to grasp the dispute. I said I was thinking of asking for an alternate mediator. Perhaps you should rethink whether you have the skills to undertake mediation. Justin talk 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[21] Request to re-open the case. Justin talk 09:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understood the issue quite well, thank you. Regardless of your opinions, Gibnews is no longer interested in mediation. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you singularly failed to grasp the issues. And if you cannot accept constructive criticism, then really you're not cut out to be a mediator. Justin talk 10:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing has been an enormous waste of time and energy, the article is now historically correct and NPOV and I suggest we all find something more useful to do than argue about it endlessly. --Gibnews (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as this is not "Gibnewspedia" it is not only your opinion that counts. I don't agree that the article is OK now (and when Ecemaml returns from his absence he probably won't, either). So we have a problem to solve. I should add that I don't think it is OK to edit an article when other editors have agreed to stop editing and accept mediation. You have significantly disturbed the mediation process. I will not restore the article myself, for the sake of the mediation process, but I wanted you to know my opinion. (BTW, has this aborted mediation really consumed an "enormous" waste of time and energy? Come on...)

Justin, thanks for requesting a new mediator. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All, repeat after me, focus on content, not the editor. Justin talk 13:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have been because our mediator has never done this before, but the process failed to get anywhere or achieve anything, and after referring it to NPOVN there was only one comment which supported the version which is now in place.

In the time wasted here arguing about this, we could have all added to the knowledge base in Wikipedia. The section is now accurate and NPOV. The important thing for a general article about Gibraltar is that it ceased to be occupied by Spain in 1704.

If you really want to go into details, visit the archive in San Roque and write an new article about what is there. But it would be about the history of Spain not Gibraltar. There are many more interesting topics about Gibraltar to create articles describing things which have nothing to do with Spain. I hope to concentrate on that. --Gibnews (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz seems to have a knack at piquing fellow editors and leaving them no other option but to take a break from Wikipedia. The mediator is his latest victim. [22] RedCoat10 • talk 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Being fair I got the blame for that for suggesting that he wasn't experienced enough. Justin talk 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All he did was refer it to WP:NPOVN who supported the concise version which is now in place. I'd support another mediator if its considered worth the effort AND the mediator actually took some responsibility and understood the issues. But the starting point is clearer now. --Gibnews (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I see that the request for mediation has been relisted after the previous attempt at informal mediation has failed. I wanted to see if there is still interest in continuing the mediation with a different mediator. If anyone has interest or questions, ask them here or at my talk page. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems from me, welcome aboard. Justin talk 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still interested in mediation. Thanks for your interest. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My position is as stated above. --Gibnews (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can promise to do my best to get to the heart of the issue, that's all I can do. The last mediation I assisted with lasted for a long time and was fairly productive until one of the two participants was indefinitely blocked. It was a very tricky discussion on a controversial subject so I have some experience with delicate topics. Gibnews, if you and Ecemaml are amenable I'll try to sum up in my words what I feel the issues are that need discussion, and then ask for comment. Just to state, up-front, I don't plan on becoming a direct participant in the article's content. I'm not here to offer another opinion, but to help clarify everyone else's opinions and help find compromises. Though I will make suggestions now and then if necessary. Thank you. -- Atama頭 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual dispute here is not actually that large, although what is behind it is something which neither you nor wikipedia will resolve. The question here is how much detail of the capture is appropriate in the main article about Gibraltar. Some Spanish people wish to believe that Spain never surrendered Gibraltar at all, either in 1704 or 1713, and whatever is in the Gibraltar article will be picked up and repeated in other places. So it needs to be factually correct, NPOV, and concise. --Gibnews (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gibnews that the article needs to be factually correct, NPOV, and concise. I should add that it needs to cover all noteworthy facts with some level of consistency.

I see that the article covers with great detail issues such as the relocation of Jews between Cordoba and Gibraltar and some battle between the Dutch and the Spanish navy that just happened to take place ***in front of Gibraltar*** (in fact those two are the only facts covered in the "Spanish period").

The article also covers with great detail events such as some Polish general disappearing in an aviation accident in WWII ***after taking off from Gibraltar*** (that's the only relation with Gibraltar) or that one boat + another boat + another boat (separate accounts for each one) came to be repaired to Gibraltar in the Spanish Civil War or that an important marina and hotel are being developed in the Eastside...

The fact that almost all Spanish Gibraltarians left in 1704 and gave way to a British period is a pivotal event in Gibraltar's history; as important -at least- as any of those events above. Most published works about Gibraltar dedicate an important amount of pages to the specific events happening during those days (not surprisingly).

I believe that suppressing those events and admitting other less important ones is an inconsistency that results in non-NPOV. Some editors want to suppress the details of the exodus of previous Gibraltarians and are not worried about MANY other details along the article. Two editors (Ecemaml and myself) believe that this should be corrected. That is my view of this dispute.

For Atama's info: Justin seemed to be happy with a previous edit, myself (and I think Ecemaml) was happy with this one (only 5 words longer than Justin's, although -according to him, as he thinks it does not cover with same detail Spanish atrocities as Anglo-Dutch ones- non-NPOV) and Gibnews is obviously happy with the current version (which he edited just before the end of the previous mediation).

I think that an external view of the issues under discussion can be very interesting. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation will go nowhere if you persist in repeating the same false assertion, your version is "only" 5 words longer when you strip out certain facts your POV find embarassing. Nor will it go anywhere whilst you persist in personal attacks that anyone not accepting your suggestions is "suppressing" the truth. Justin talk 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, what part of "I'm not here to offer another opinion" don't you understand? You will not get "an external view of the issues". The mediator's job is to help you, Gibnews, Justin et al. work together and ultimately reach a consensus, not offer another view or arbitrate. RedCoat10 • talk 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets get one thing clear - the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar were NOT Gibraltarians, the term was coined later and Gibraltarians are by definition British.

There could be many reasons why they moved to San Roque, but that Spaniards move around in Spain is not a topic pertinent to an article on Gibraltar;

However, Gibraltar was a very unpopular place to be and many of its Spanish inhabitants were here against their will and needed no excuse to leave. San Roque was a more healthy place to be - indeed in the past the population of Gibraltar moved there to avoid diseases endemic in Gibraltar. Until such time as the water supply was improved, Gibraltar was a most unhealthy place to live, on one occasion 2/3 of the population died from disease. In their attempt to retake Gibraltar, the Spanish levelled most of the town with cannon fire and such an attack and the seiges could be anticipated and frankly doing a runner to cosy San Roque with clean water and agricultural land and no cannon fire was a very smart move.

But really none of that is appropriate to detail in an article about Gibraltar. I note in another wikipedia, they have a rule which says that Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to articles, may result in blocking of the account. This discussion is a good example of the benefits of that view. --Gibnews (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Ecemaml agreed to the mediation so what I will do next is to review the dispute as best as I can, and then try to dissect and summarize it so that we can discuss "the heart of the matter" as was said before. I expect to have something for Monday. Thank you. -- Atama頭 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps do me a favour and explain the purpose of the talk page and the need to establish consensus before trying to add a disputed edit to an article. Thanks. Justin talk 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RedCoat, with "an external view of the issues under discussion can be very interesting" I was agreeing with Atama's proposal in "I'll try to sum up in my words what I feel the issues are that need discussion"; I think I could understand Atama's comment "I'm not hear to offer another opinion." Thank you, anyway, for your interest. Justin and Gibnews, I will wait for Atama's summary and then I will focus my comments on the content of the article. Discussing the issues at hand is hard enough; I don't think we should also discuss on who has the right to be called Gibraltarian, how lucky previous Gibraltarians -or whatever they were called before their exodus- were when the British invasion gave them the idea to get to San Roque, the purpose of the talk page, or the convenience of blocking certain users. If we keep introducing those issues in the discussion, it's going to be really hard to get somewhere. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it was you that brought up 'Spanish Gibraltarians' which is an oxymoron, and you who said there was no explanation of why the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar chose to leave. As you seem to be unaware of the history I've explained the background of WHY the Spanish left.

The main article does not mention the former Moorish inhabitants who were all killed by the Spanish invaders. The discussion here is simply on whether we go into the detail of misbehaviour by Sailors and murders by Spaniards in breach of the surrender or we leave it as it is. Sadly I fear you want to argue about more at great length. Those things that are in the article are there because they inform people about Gibraltar and answer questions people have about the place.

There are two lines about Władysław Sikorski whose death had an impact on postwar Europe and there is a large memorial in Gibraltar erected to him. There is no memorial to de Salinas. The Eastside development represents a major expansion of the territory - one which Spain whines on about in the EU. These are more noteworthy matters than 18th century asylum seekers.

PS: There are now some 20,000 words on this page about this, and more scattered around various parts of wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I've hesitated a bit before responding, but in the end I thought that things should be put straight:

• Just for the record, I have not seen ONE source supporting your original explanation of WHY Spaniards left Gibraltar (the first time I thought it was a joke, really, but now I see that you insist...) I don't know why you talk about this.
• Also, I don't know why you talk about Moorish inhabitants being killed by Spanish invaders or where you may have got that peculiar assertion from (I don't want to believe that you just made it up).
• It is also very peculiar to think that an anecdotal aviation accident of one WWII Polish exile leader (which is not even mentioned in the main article about Poland) is more important than the destiny of almost all the inhabitants of Gibraltar at a given time (several thousand people) which completely changed the history of your hometown, or to suggest that memorials in present day Gibraltar should be the standard to evaluate the importance of historical events (Wikipedia should not be a tourist guide, I believe).

I am afraid all of this does not add much much value to the discussion. Please, let's be serious. Let's make an effort to talk about verifiable facts and try to use some consistent criteria to evaluate the noteworthiness of topics covered in the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Look will you just stop being utterly ridiculous. The 2, YES 2, LINES, dedicated to the leader of Poland in exile, is NOT saying it is more important. Its DUE COVERAGE of the incident, just as the PARAGRAPH dedicated to 1704 is DUE COVERAGE in what is an OVERVIEW article. The more ridiculous hyperbole you employ, all the more rodiculous your arguments become. There comes a point where good faith is simply exhausted. You take about "let's be serious" but your arguments aren't. Justin talk 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I understand what you say that Sikorski has DUE COVERAGE. In fact, I don't complain about that coverage. I agree with you that Sikorski just has 1 and a 1/2 lines (34 words), not a lot.

What I complain about is that, on the other hand, the destiny of the thousands of previous Gibraltarians (which changed the history of Gibraltar) has only got 1/2 a line (11 words). Therefore, Sikorski (a Polish leader in exile) has three times the coverage of the exodus of almost all previous Spanish Gibraltarians (several thousands).

By comparing them, I am trying to find some common criteria so that we can agree what is due coverage. Would you agree that events with more impact in the history of Gibraltar deserve more coverage and less relevant events deserve less coverage? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it has an entire Paragraph dedicated to it. You take one sentence out of it to draw a ridiculous comparison. To be correct, one sentence out of a Paragraph has 11 words, the Paragraph itself has 100. Justin talk 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph has nearly 100 words about the military capture of Gibraltar. I am talking about what happened to the previous Gibraltarians. Does it deserve only 11 words? It is -on a different scale- like giving 90% coverage to the military conquest by Romans of Judea, not saying anything about the destruction of the Temple, the abuses on the population and the subsequent Jewish diaspora and just say instead "After the surrender the majority of the Jewish population left Judea." Would it be justified to demand more coverage to whatever happened to the inhabitants previous to the departure and where did they go? Or would it not be relevant enough? What do historians usually do? What does Wikipedia do in the case of Judea? --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The word Gibraltarian has a defined legal meaning and no people called that existed in 1704. The Spaniards living in Gibraltar moved to San Roque and Los Barrios to escape future sieges. It was a very smart move. What Spaniards do in Spain is the history of Spain. Gibraltar is not Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The fact that someone has not seen anything about the history of Gibraltar does not come as a surprise, and indeed much of what is circulated in Spain about Gibraltar is mere propaganda with no factual basis. However as I live in Gibraltar and take an interest in such things, buy books and read. Indeed I recently bought Fernando Castiella's tome.

2. Gibraltar has been subject to successive invasions, starting with the Neandathals. You may not be aware of the history of Spain, but when Gibraltar was captured from the muslims, they were all killed. That was the way things were done at the time.

3. Władysław Sikorski - an an anecdotal aviation accident of one WWII Polish exile leader Heavens - why not click on the link and read the Wikipedia article, you would learn why you are so wrong, and interesting facts like his plane crashed 16 seconds after takeoff, ie in Gibraltar waters. The controversy over his death involved his body recently being exhumed. apart from having his own page, his picture is shown on History of Poland (1939–1945)

But this is a talk page about the article on Gibraltar, not a forum and apart from item 3 which merits two lines, the other items are not significant enough for inclusion - that does not mean they are untrue, or that there are not references available to justify them. I'm not inclined to respond further as I begin to think this is a wind up. --Gibnews (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute (mediation)

I'd like to start out with a quick reminder of the purpose of mediation. Mediation is meant to help editors reach a consensus during a content dispute. Any claims of bias, misconduct, personal attacks, etc. aren't relevant to the discussion. I'm not an administrator and I can't perform any blocks, topic bans, or sanctions.

Specifically, I'd like to help settle the dispute regarding the small section of the article titled "The British period", and the departure of the Spanish inhabitants of the region following the events of August 4, 1704. I've read over the information written on this talk page and at the mediation request, and I believe I see three different proposals for the section.

• One proposal, seen here would detail the actions of the British and Dutch sailors against the inhabitants of Gibraltar, leading to reprisals and the eventual departure of the Spanish. Imalbornoz and Ecemaml favor this version.
• Another proposal, seen here gives less detail, but essentially says the same thing as the previous proposal; the only major difference is that the specific actions of the sailors aren't listed. This is the version favored by Justin.
• A final proposal, seen in the current version of the article, is to only mention the departure of the Spanish in passing, and leave the details to the History of Gibraltar article. This is the version favored by Gibnews.

Aside from accusations of bias and misconduct (including nationalist advocacy), and further reasons for including one particular version over another, is there any more to this particular dispute that I have missed? Please let me know, thank you. -- Atama頭 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a pretty good summary. I have an objection, however to Justin's version, as I've explained previously. Even if the version I advocate for is eventually dismissed, Justin's version includes personal investigation (the sentence "... and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors...") not supported by any secondary source that in any way must be removed. Best regards and thank you for your time and effort, Atama --Ecemaml (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've been out for more than a week. I felt the situation was becoming quite stressful for me. Sorry for the delay. Atama, don't hesitate to warn me if I use ad hominem argumentation... it's not always easy to take part in these hot discussions.

No that is not the case, its a summary from several sources. We do not have to repeat the exact words verbatim as the source. Your argument is specious. The proposal received support from numerous editors when I suggested it; all agreed it reflected the sources. This has been discussed time and time again, the same argument is repeated in response ad nauseum. Things will go nowhere if the same specious argument continues to be repeated. Returning to re-iterate the same tired worn argument, long after it has been rebutted is not only tedious but it is also disruptive.

You have also missed one of my objections to the first edit, in that in shoe horning a list of atrocities into the article is achieved by neglecting other details. Specifically strangely enough the reassurances that the way of life of the Spanish would be respected and at the point the Spanish left order had been restored. Justin talk 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An additional point I'd like to highlight is the one related to secondary sources (quoted here).

The first issue I'd like to discuss is that an a priori dismissal of sources because of the nationality of the author is definitely wrong. Dismissing Spanish literature on the issue just because it's Spanish is as valid as dismissing British sources. At the end of the day possibly both suffer from a conflict of interests (and, from a wikipedist point of view, the Spanish point of view is as valid as any other one, provided that it is clearly identified and is given proper height). Each source must be analyzed according to its merits. The only remaining issue I'd like to discuss is that related to the British sources (those authored by British nationals). There are two classic sources, The Rock of Contention, by George Hills, and the Rock of Gibraltarians, by William Jackson. The first one has been dismissed over the course of the discussion on the grounds of him having written a biography of the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco. However, such fact is only significant if a proper secondary source establishes that Hill's work on Gibraltar is biased in any way. It does not mean that Hills' work must be taken as a Bible. Only that it has to be given proper credit. With regard to the episode we're discussing on, Hills takes two primary sources: Ayala's book (which, as I've previously described, is the only source that quotes verbatim the work of Figueroa, the Catholic priest that was an eye witness of the takeover; such work disappeared during the Peninsular Wars) and Rev. Pocock account of the takeover (Pocock was the Protestant chaplain of Byng).

The interesting point here is that Jackson's description of the episode takes as source not only Ayala's, but also Hills work! So, if the former gobernor of Gibraltar takes Hills work (at least in this episode) as a valid source, why should we dismiss it? My 0.02€ Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I object most strongly to the bad faith accusation here. Where have I ever dismissed a source because it was Spanish? This is absolutely bloody outrageous, bringing this totally out of left field. How the hell do you expect a mediator to go forward if you're going to bandy about the most outrageous and utterly unfounded accusations. Justin talk 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, glad to listen to your statement. I just read a paragraph above saying "much of what is circulated in Spain about Gibraltar is mere propaganda with no factual basis". --Ecemaml (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of what is circulated in Spain about Gibraltar is indeed mere propaganda - but that's someone's personal observation, not a dismissal of a source because it was Spanish. It's the dismissal of a source because its propaganda. In the future, please refrain from making such bad faith accusations and/or twisting people's words. RedCoat10 • talk 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not twisting anyone's words. I've just seen a generic statement about "mcuh of what is circulated in Spain about Gibraltar". Possibly avoiding such "good faith" statements would be good for all of us. Moreover, to dismiss anything as "propaganda", solid sources stating that (not your or my opinion, or dubious comparisons as that of Speer) are needed. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please consider revising your remarks about editors wanting to suppress sources on the basis of nationality. I also don't understand your last sentence. Are you asking for a source to prove that another source is propaganda? Because if you are, it's not necessary (and plain silly): citations are only needed to cite material in Wikipedia articles, not other sources. By analogy, it would be like describing Jews as evil and using Mein Kampf as a reference, then asking for another reference to prove that the source is not propaganda. That's not how WP:RS works. For a source to be reliable, it must be "credible" and its author must generally be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". RedCoat10 • talk 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jackson, 'The Rock of the Gibraltarians' P101 says Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain primary source given as Ayala p143-148. Note the word dared.

Hills is a secondary source. To suggest that simply because he was Spanish and a close friend of Franco he was biased is of course arguable. I'm currently reading a book by Albert Speer who says Hitler was a wonderful man. But I am not dismissing Hills, however he cannot be described as a British source.

However, the point of the argument here is NOT whether to include these details but simply whether its appropriate to include them in the main article on Gibraltar. By all means lets have more detail in the history of Gibraltar article, but the important thing is simply that the Spanish lost and left.

Finally, given the severe shortage of water in Gibraltar, a problem not solved until the installation of desalination plant in the 1980's that the Spanish threw bodies down their wells rather indicates they had made up their minds to leave. --Gibnews (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, you appropriately quote the sentence "Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain" and next you highligh the word "dared". However, you miss the previous sentence: "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." Again, where does Jackson says that Gibraltarians left the city because of the fear of reprisals (possibly my English is quite worse than yours but I cannot read Justin's deduction anywhere). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Before this gets ugly, can we just agree on all sides that no sources are going to be dismissed simply because they are Spanish, British, or from some other nation/state/language? Let's not accuse anyone of taking that stance from this point on.

Maybe the first thing that should be determined before getting into details of the text would be Gibnews's proposal. It is radically different from the others, and if agreed upon would make other arguments moot because there would be no details to debate. WP:SS covers summary styles which says that sections that would be too long in an article should be split into their own article, which has already been done. The section would then be a summary of the full article, which has also been done. Details that aren't critical to the Gibraltar article itself certainly can be left out if the other article covers that information. Whether or not they should is of course up to the discretion of editors (which is why we're here).

Does anyone feel that the History of Gibraltar article doesn't adequately cover this information, or isn't accurate? I hate to bring this up as it is almost off-topic from this discussion, but if there is a dispute already about that article, it should be resolved before attempting to modify the section in this article because this article should only summarize what is in the "history" article. -- Atama頭 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For information I don't object to Gibnews' version, I prefer it in fact, my prose was an attempt to accommodate certain sensibilities whilst being fair and neutral to both sides. It was an attempt to summarise succinctly a number of points. I actually agree that the History of Gibraltar is the place for such detailed information.

And to reiterate again no one has said sources should be dismissed on the basis of nationality. Its a baseless accusation. Justin talk 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I am not dismissing Hills, but simply pointing he was not really a 'British source'. His tendentious book was published in 1974.

As regards The History of Gibraltar there are 250 or so words specifically about the departure of the Spanish which I think is adequate. Its also described in more detail in San Roque, Cádiz with quotes from Jackson's book. --Gibnews (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hills was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (not a Franco minister as you suggests). Should we get rid of a work of a professional British historian just because a wikipedian does not like him? Therefore, which sources you take to determine he is not British or wrote a tendentious book. Is Jackson British? How could he take a tendentious work as source? Is the result tendentious? --Ecemaml (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that, however he was half Spanish and sympathetic to Franco - I wonder if his book about that sells well in Spain and is respected as an accurate account? However this is a red herring to distract from the argument about whether to include minor details about the events prior to the Spaniards running away from a future conflict. --Gibnews (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that no sources should be dismissed because of their nationality.

Regarding Gibnews' proposal, I have to say that it leaves out some facts that are much more relevant to the History of Gibraltar than many others which have been included (and are not under discussion). I think that, if the article is to be consistent, those facts should not be left out. Otherwise, that inconsistency might result in a biased article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What specifically is being left out? Are you referring to the reasons for the departure of the Spanish, or some other details? -- Atama頭 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am referring:

1) to the events that happened between the surrender of the town and the exodus of the inhabitants of Gibraltar: According to the sources, all churches except one were desecrated and looted, the whole town was sacked, some women were raped and some Spaniards murdered some Dutchmen and Englishmen in retaliation. All that turmoil is considered by some (if not all) sources as the reason for the Spanish to leave.

and 2) to the fact that almost all the Gibraltarians of that time did not simply vanish in the air: according to all the sources, almost all of them left in exile and founded a town nearby called San Roque shortly afterwards. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Which if you insist on including tips the balance of POV in the article. It omits the fact that the British and Dutch gave assurances that their way of life of the inhabitants would be respected, that they would enjoy freedom religion, that at the time the Spanish left order had been restored and that the perpetrators of those crimes had been punished. Also as Gibnews has pointed out elsewhere it was a pretty miserable place to live. It presents a one sided view as to why they left. That is why I object to it. If we include all of those details the article becomes unbalanced, whereby an article that is already acknowledged as too big according to guidelines has an overly detailed section of a small (but admittedly important) section of history. Justin talk 11:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I find repeated references to the Spanish inhabitants as 'Gibraltarians' when it has been explained why they were not to be very offensive. and the 'whole town' was not sacked, a few sailors got drunk and went on the rampage on the first day and then were brought under control. --Gibnews (talk)

Gibnews, I am sorry that applying the term "Gibraltarians" to the inhabitants of Gibraltar during the Spanish period may offend you. But it is an accurate term. They were native or inhabitants -many of them for generations- of Gibraltar -which already existed as an administrative entity called "Gibraltar" since centuries before the capture- so I guess we can call them Gibraltarians, according to the dictionary. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the accounts refer to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar as anything other than that. Your use of the term is simply to assert that a lost tribe of Gibraltarians was forced out to live in the hills. It part of the rubbish that Spain dredges up to deny Gibraltarians the right to OUR land and shows you have a lack good faith. --Gibnews (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The whole town was not sacked, that's right. Just all the churches and religious buildings. It was against the wishes and orders of the officials, but it happens. Therefore I can't see any reason to omit both fact. What's wrong with it? I must say that POV is not balance when there is no balance in the facts. Should I ask for the removal of the mentions to the block of Gibraltar by the Spanish dictator in the 20th century just because there is no balance in the description of the history of Gibraltar? --Ecemaml (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PD: on the other hand, it's not Gibnews the one who has to argument that Gibraltar was a pretty miserable place to live (it's again his personal investigation). Are there secondary sources stating it was a more miserable place to live than, for instance, Algeciras or San Roque? Why didn't Gibraltar inhabitants left before? It seems as if the English troops made them a favour ;-) PD2: finally, Justin has stated that "If we include all of those details the article becomes unbalanced, whereby an article that is already acknowledged as too big according to guidelines has an overly detailed section of a small (but admittedly important) section of history." If I propose a short version convering all the significant facts, would he accept it? Wouldn't be a more acceptable option even if slightly unbalanced (with regard to length) than omitting key points (not to mention current personal investigation not supported by secondary sources)?

Finally, with regard to Gibnews proposal, I strongly object. Removing such points on the grounds of length results in a POV version (the current one I must say). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PD: I'm adding a {{disputed}} template to the section since, as I've explained several times, it includes a sentence that is not supported by any secondary source.

Suggest you read the books more - not all the religious buildings were trashed. The town was not 'sacked' you are playing it up - Nor does it have any particular significance or importance in relation to the Spaniards leaving.

Yes, there are sources saying Gibraltar was a miserable place to be in, and that Spain had to force people to reside here, by for instance, absolving them of crimes elsewhere. You need to read more and rant less. --Gibnews (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gibnews for your advice. However, I prefer reading by myself instead of trusting other people interpretation. As you know, all the religious buildings but one were desecrated and sacked. On the other hand you have said "Nor does it have any particular significance or importance in relation to the Spaniards leaving" . However, Jackson states: "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 bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain". A solid source not yet dismissed (I could talk about his pro-British bias but that's other issue) states that such facts had strong importance in relation to the Spaniards leaving, but we should prefer, instead of following the wikipedia principles, the opinion of a wikipedian.... Well, in such conditions is difficult to come to a conclusion. On the other hand, please, provide a source stating that Gibraltar was a miserable place to live... in 1704. You know, Australia required convicts to be populated, but in my last visits to the island-continent I seriously considered to apply for living in there... Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking over churches for storage is quite a different thing to sacking them, and just how many churches apart from the cathedral would there have been for 4000 inhabitants. With a population of 28,000 today there are seven including the shrine.

As i have said previously Gibraltar was a miserable and unhealthy place to live in until the water supply was sorted out

The Yellow Fever scourge

In 1805 tragedy in the form of a yellow fever epidemic struck Gibraltar killing over one third of the civilian population. A second epidemic struck ten years later. Doubt has been cast on whether it really was Yellow fever which is transmitted by a fly, or a water borne infection. As the main water supply at the time drained through the graveyard at red sands, it was a recipe for trouble. Was San Roque any better? Most certainly. But the arrival of clean drinking water is a whole story by itself. Interestingly enough smallpox was first identified from someone who died from it in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't derail this discussion with complaints about nationalism. For the sake of this discussion, let's just call the inhabitants of Gibraltar prior to the British takeover "Spanish", since nobody disputes that fact, whether or not calling them "Gibraltarians" is accurate. And let's not talk about Spanish "rubbish" or other motives that editors might have, let's focus on the content, please?

Now I'm curious about Ecemaml's concern about POV. It is possible for NPOV to be breached through omission. Simply saying that Mahatma Ghandi was a troublemaker who caused numerous problems for the British is accurate, but by avoiding details of what he did and why gives a negative POV. So if this article is doing something similar, I can understand this complaint. I just don't really see what that POV is in this case, maybe Ecemaml can explain.

Also, I would like to know what Justin and Gibnews think about the possibility of expanding the information in the article a bit more, showing the "misbehaviour" of both sides which made Gibraltar a less-attractive place to live. If there's at least a potential for that being acceptable, then I'm sure that the specific text of that expansion can be worked out through compromise. -- Atama頭 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I too don't believe that omitting the details results in a POV version, as Ecemaml asserted. I'm starting to believe that the acronym 'POV' is being bandied about by certain users as a substitute for anything that presents the British in a favourable light or the Spanish in an unfavourable light. A POV (point-of-view) refers to the perspective from which something is written. For the record, I don't support the possibility of expanding the information, per Justin and Gibnews. RedCoat10 • talk 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'm starting to believe that the acronym 'POV' is being bandied about by certain users as a substitute for anything that presents the British in a favourable light or the Spanish in an unfavourable light." Making such a declaration, especially prior to Ecemaml's explanation for the claim of a POV omission, isn't going to be productive here. -- Atama頭 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily agree. While it is not an opinion I hold at the moment (or would like to believe were true), I think it may well prompt a reply that clarifies his/her rationale and debunk what is, IMHO, very much the elephant in the room. RedCoat10 • talk 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not encourage that elephant by feeding it any peanuts. It might get excited and start smashing up the place. Let it sit there for now. :) -- Atama頭 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. RedCoat10 • talk 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

First, to support Ecemaml's point about the content of the article: The town was sacked (maybe not each and every home, but a portion of them significant enough to be mentioned by several sources) as well as all the churches but one (and that one was not sacked because it was defended by its curate, not because the invaders did not try to loot it). Also, many (Spanish and English) sources consider the atrocities noteworthy enough to mention them. Just a few examples:

"Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed. There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance'. In consequence, 'the vanquished deprived many of life and threw the corpses in wells and cesspools. (...) Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, 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." George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4

"Después del fuego devastador, asaltada al fin la ciudad, sin la mayor parte de sus defensas y con soldados ingleses en sus calles, la confusión se adueñó de la población y se hizo presente la sed de botín y venganza de los soldados. El hecho más grave (un "desafortunado incidente" para la historiografía inglesa) fue el ataque a la población refugiada en la ermita de la Virgen de Europa, donde habían encontrado cobijo mujeres y niños, portando las pertenencias más valiosas de sus hogares; al igual que sucedió en los pueblos aledaños a Cádiz dos años antes, la soldadesca se entregó a la profanación y saqueo del templo, al robo de todos los objetos de valor de los refugiados y, lo más grave, a la vejación y violación de algunas mujeres."

"After the devastating fire, the town was finally assaulted, lacking a great portion of its defenses and with English soldiers in its streets, confusion took hold of the population and the soldiers' thirst for booty and revenge became evident. The most serious incident (a "misfortuned incident" according to English historiography) was the attack on the population taking refuge in the chapel of the Virgin of Europe, where women and children had taken cover, carrying their homes' most valuable belongings; just like what happened in the villages near Cadiz two years before, the military gave themselves to profanation and sacking of the temple, the looting of all the valuable objects of the refugees, and, worst of all, the vexation and raping of some women." Sepúlveda, Isidro (2004). Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza (Gibraltar. The reason and the force). in Spanish. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. pp. 89-91. ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar) (quickly translated by myself).

"The conquerors were out of control. (…)Into the raw hands of fighting seamen (…) alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately. (…)The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders against the servants, houses and ornaments of the Catholic religion. (…) Every church in the city was desecrated save one." Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar

"(...) 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 bloody 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, 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 ("outraged" is an euphemism for "raped", as I have proved elsewhere[23][24][25]; "bloody reprisals" is also an euphemism for "murders in retaliation")

Second, I insist that we should compare the noteworthiness of these events vis a vis other events mentioned in the History section and in the rest of the article. If we find many examples of events with less impact on Gibraltar's history, it would only be consistent and fair to include the aforementioned events in the main article. Otherwise, it could be suspected that the article is favouring the mention of certain events versus other ones for reasons other than their noteworthiness (don't worry, I don't think we should discuss those motives or reasons, just the consistency of the article). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think insisting is a really bad idea. The main article on Gibraltar is getting to be quite comprehensive and balanced 'as is'. Adding contentious technicolor material from secondary sources will not improve it. Certainly not for the main article. --Gibnews (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree with expanding the article as Ecemaml suggested, provided that it is still kept short and balanced and if the text is discussed prior to it being added? I would expect that it could be confined to a single sentence. -- Atama頭 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing such a sentence. Given the present rate of progress, we could run to another 20,000 words disagreeing it. It sounds like its just the thin edge of a wedge seeking to dictate what is in main article. --Gibnews (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Atama actually hits the nail on the head and asks a relevant question, one I have asked previously without receiving a response. What exactly is POV about the current version? I note the response is simply to list a bunch of quotes that are portraying the British as a foul bunch of bastards. Noticeably the points I raised earlier are ignored. Yet also there isn't actually an answer to the question.

In answer to Atama's question directed toward Gibnews and myself, I would be willing to consider adding some more details, providing it was balanced and short. My issue with Ecemaml and Imalbornoz's preferred prose is that it is highly one sided. My prose was an attempt to accommodate what they requested yet remain balanced toward both sides. As I've demonstrated, to be balanced certain key information is required, something that they are not keen to respect and I note that Ecemaml has chosen to continue with a specious criticism based on the absurd notion that we have to use exactly the same words as the source. Imalbornoz repeatedly claims there is only 5 words difference but that is only achieved by removing key information.

I also notice I'm one of the few calling for a focus on content and not editors. And to be honest Redcoat10's remarks about the elephant in the room chime with my own suspicions. Lets hope I'm wrong. Justin talk 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we get into what Gibnews calls the "20,000 words disagreeing" about a potential expansion of the article, I'd like to break in with a reminder of what's at stake here. This isn't a discussion of what is and isn't included in Wikipedia. Everything that everyone has asked for, and more, is (or should be) represented quite well at History of Gibraltar. What we are trying to resolve is whether or not the current treatment of the summary of Gibraltar's history under the "British period" is unduly POV in this particular article. What is and isn't excluded isn't going to affect how Wikipedia presents this material to the world, because it's all available at the other article already. So just keep that in mind if you can.

I think everyone involved has acknowledged that the British and Dutch did bad things to the Spanish, and the Spanish did bad things in response. If we do find it necessary to mention such bad things, giving equal mention to all sides in the history will help ensure that NPOV is being honored. I hope that nobody objects to that idea, and that with that very simple ideal in mind a compromise should be easy (maybe 10,000 words instead of 20,000). -- Atama頭 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, I've already said pretty much the same thinbg already. Justin talk 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree too; indeed that is what I've been saying for some time. That people did bad things is no surprise, wars involve that sort of thing and the rules of war have evolved a lot since 1704. At that time some things were normal behaviour and as the account notes, any bad behaviour by sailors, who still get drunk and brawl in Gibraltar to this day, was unofficial and quickly controlled. We do not include details of how the Spanish treated to Moorish population of Gibraltar when they in their turn seized the territory, and its notable that in the Treaty of Utrecht, Jews and Moors were specifically excluded from residing in Gibraltar. Their treatment in Spain was also something very different to the concept of human rights today and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. The important things about the capture is that the Spanish lost and left. That remains something the current generation seem reluctant to accept and generates endless cries of 'we was robbed' yes gentlemen your ancestors were, it happens, after 305 years its time to accept reality and stop complaining. --Gibnews (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Ecemaml volunteered to come up with something, we might wait for that proposal. Or someone else can propose a change, or I can if you want, as I said it shouldn't be terribly difficult to come up with something short. -- Atama頭 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having seen Ecemaml's preferred prose, I think I'd prefer you to have a go. I've already indicated the facts I consider relevant that should be included. Justin talk 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion, and I am very much open to criticism, it's just an attempt to find a balance between the different versions attempted before.

Violence between foreign sailors and the Spanish populace continued even after the surrender, and once order was restored the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar.

I noticed that in previous versions the assurances from British and Dutch officers were "spun" at the detriment of one side or the other; either to say that the sailors were violent despite assurances, or that the people left despite assurances. I decided that for the sake of brevity and neutrality to just leave that out completely, and instead of a new sentence I only added to the existing one. Please let me know what you think and what should change. -- Atama頭 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sentence is a good start. I think it goes in the good direction, although maybe the desire to keep it short has resulted in a text that can give a misguided idea of what the sources say. I think we have enough room to include some more words in order give a more accurate view: For example, in the Spanish period section, Sefardi Jews that came from Cordoba and stayed for only three years have 88 words explaining the reasons for their coming and their leaving Gibraltar; I am sure we can allot a bit more length to the Spanish population who stayed there for generations and had a much more relevant role in the history of the town. My suggestions:

• "Violence between foreign sailors and the Spanish populace continued": It clearly gives the idea that 1) there was violence already happening in both directions before the surrender (which is not the case at all) and 2) that this violence was equivalent in both sides (which is something that -at least- can be polemical: I think it's better to be more factual and let each reader have his/her own interpretation of whether it was equivalent or not). Most -if not all- sources say that after the surrender "the whole town" suffered atrocities at the hands of invaders (rapes of some women, lootings in almost all homes, profanations in many churches and desecrations of all churches but one; although if someone thinks that it is too long, maybe it is not necessary to have a complete list all these atrocities) and then some murders were committed "in reprisal" and bodies thrown down cesspits (maybe Justin, Ecemaml or Gibnews can add some other relevant violent fact). I suggest that we stick more to what the sources say.
• "the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar": Most -if not all- sources say that the Spanish felt they were at risk (I think this is important, as it gives a sourced and commonly accepted explanation of why they left -as it does in the case of the Jews who stayed for 3 years). Also, most sources mention the fact that they left in exile and most of them founded nearby San Roque (if the destination of these villagers is known, it is relevant enough to have it in the article, as in the case of those Sefardite Jews staying for 3 years and then returning to Cordoba). IMHO, the previous facts have to be in the article in order for it to be complete and consistent. Also, it would be nice to say that San Roque kept the shield of arms of Gibraltar, was named by the king as "Gibraltar in exile", etc.; but I am ready to accept that these details go in the History article if there is consensus to keep them there.

I think that these issues can be dealt with in not too many words (not even twice as much as those Cordoban Sefardites). --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed text, reminding all of the editors that this period of history already has 100 words dedicated to it. Imalbornoz seems to wish to turn this overview article into a polemic about a single period. If we add what he wants, strangely enough we'll end up with his list of atrocities, which then requires other facts to be introduced in balance. This is an overview article not a detailed piece on the history of Gibraltar. The other facts he wants to introduce are relevant to San Roque but utterly irrelevant to Gibraltar. Can we stick to the issue at hand please. Justin talk 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Justin, for praising my prose above. It's the nicest comment we've exchanged in this mediation :-). However, I support Imalbornoz comments. Violence description should be, though summarized, factual (a remark is that Philip V dubbed San Roque as "My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo"). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've read carefully Jackson's book. Unfortunatelly, it does not tell anywhere that the Muslim inhabitants of Gibraltar were murdered or abused in any of the two Christian takeovers. Moreover, when talking about how bad were Gibraltar conditions to live, it was in the 14th century, something irrelevant for the present discussion.

But you don't actually want to describe what happened accurately, you want to list a series of atrocities that show the British as a foul bunch of bastards, yet reject anything that doesn't. The text I produced as a compromise you've rejected for contrived reasons. Imalbornoz trawled his previous attempts to introduce POV text round 4 different forums who all rejected it. Funnily enough on the NPOV noticeboard the sole comment supported Gibnews' text. Notice the pattern emerging here, you only push to include alleged crimes committed by the British but you don't to include the fact that the perpetrators were later punished, or that the Spanish received promises of religious freedom or that when they finally left order had in fact been restored. All of which are required to provide a NPOV if we are to introduce the text you both demand. And then we have what is an overview article, already too long, with a section on a piece of history totally out of proportion.

Now we have the case where someone totally independent of the discussion produce prose that is appropriate for this article and you reject it for not having enough details of what foul bastards you want everyone to know what the British are. Justin talk 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that I don't wish to turn this overview article into a polemic about a single period ;-).

I only want the article to summarise in one paragraph some very relevant events that all sources mention but some editors, strangely enough, want to silence. Let me clarify what NPOV means in WP (I am sorry if this sounds pretentious, but at this point I think we should be reminded of this principle): "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." As you see, it does not mean that British and Spanish bad things should be balanced. As you can check, most, if not all, British and all Spanish sources mention these events. I guess that -somewhere- there must be some minority sources that silence them.

One more thing about NPOV: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case of a content fork."

Finally, as I said, I don't want the section to be all about these events in complete detail (of course). One paragraph with a fair summary would be OK.--Imalbornoz (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Look to be brutally frank I am sick of the sound of Imalbornoz accusing myself and Gibnews of looking to silence anything. We have never tried to silence or suppress anything. We have carefully and patiently explained our concerns. Yet again and again we have the same accusations flung in our faces.

I have had enough, it either stops now, Imalbornoz aplogies for the utter lack of good faith that he has shown or I quit mediation and request that the mediator refers this to arbcom. I really have had a belly full of this crap.

The elephant in the room is that two editors are pushing edits for POV reasons that wish to remove anything that shows the British in a positive light, or anything that shows the Spanish in a bad light. Justin talk 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Justin, I don't really understand. You accuse me of "pushing edits for POV reasons" while at the same time complains about being accused of the same thing. I don't think we're going anywhere. On the other hand, I don't understand this edition. We've been asked to include additional information in the article history of Gibraltar and not here. But when I go to there to add information (that Hills, Jackson, Gold, Sepúlveda...) include in their books about Gibraltar, you remove it. For me it's difficult to understand, especially when I read that you complain about being accused of silencing facts. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Really. I reverted one fact, with an explanation that I didn't think it was relevant to the article and didn't touch a single one of your other edits. Per BRD did you take it to talk, did you heck. Immediate revert followed by snide remarks here on the talk page and in the edit summary. It never crossed your mind for one second that I might have a valid objection to your edit. The presumption is one of bad faith a none too subtle spin to take a cheap shot.

Anyway I've self-reverted, if you really intend it to be an improvement to the article, you leave it in. Ask yourself if its really relevant? Justin talk 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I went through different versions of the text before proposing something. My initial idea was much closer to what Imalbornoz suggested (with a more specific mention of who did what to whom, and a stronger implication of why the Spanish left). I didn't expect my suggestion to be accepted wholesale, so please don't criticize anyone who isn't 100% happy with it. The reason why I wasn't specific about what was done was simply to make the sentence shorter, and I didn't say that the Spanish left because of the problems following surrender because I felt that it should be implied. Much like if someone said, "My boss yelled at me for reason yesterday, I quit my job right after." It doesn't say they quit because of that, but you can assume so. Because that info is in the history article I thought it could be excluded here, but if anyone feels that the information isn't properly being summarized then it should be lengthened.

Again, I'd rather that we not accuse each others' motives, because I've seen what happens in those situations if it gets to arbitration. It rarely leaves everyone feeling happy, and often they'll topic ban people from both sides of the debate. Justin, I don't think that Imalbornoz meant that you're trying to silence the criticism, but just to say that the overwhelming number of sources mention the specific atrocities committed, and that it would be difficult to find sources that don't. That's the impression I got at any rate. -- Atama頭 23:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The goal of that sentence ("strangely enough, want to silence") was not to accuse anyone of anything. It was just a response to Justin's "If we add what he wants, strangely enough we'll end up with his list of atrocities." Just tried to mirror one of his sentences so that he realises what they look from his side :-). The words "to silence" were used with the meaning "to not include in the article." The content of that sentence was not intended to be offensive. I haven't liked many of his comments either, but I have tried to not be offended, and I suggest him to do the same (it isn't worth it, life is so much better if you don't get angry in internet): discussion should be something you enjoy (I really do, although once in a while I get a bit frustrated). --Imalbornoz (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, after all, it seems there is something more about the events after the capture that Justin doesn't quite like, not only the level of detail for a "summary article": I wrote about those sourced facts in the History article[26] and commented about them in that article's talk page[27]. Justin seemed to not like the text, but -instead of being bold and editing it and adding whatever sourced facts he thinks are left out- he just eliminated all reference to those events[28] and -I don't know why- asked to "pls take it to talk per BRD" (which I had already done, it just seems he didn't even bother to look in the talk page). Justin agreed that detail of those facts belongs in the History article. He has not even denied the truth of these events. Well, what is it about the text that makes it so unworthy even of being copyedited? Or is it something about the events? I think we should go on with mediation here about how to make a good summary. Theoretically, this discussion here is about how to summarise some events that have been accepted as true and verified by all sides.

I don't believe you are trying to silence facts on purpose, but eliminating any reference even in the History article might make it more difficult to believe to third parties. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, look at my edit summary. I suggest taking it to talk to achieve a consensus on the text to be added. At the start of mediation we also agreed not to introduce contentious edits until it was finished. You've broken that promise, you've done so as Ecemaml did so yesterday. Lets have a look at what has happened in the last 24 hrs, both of you have chosen to introduce text you knew would be contentious, both of you have been reverted, with edit summaries explaining why and both of you have come here spinning it to claim that details have been suppressed. I also note text on Imalbornoz's talk page that indicates your both have communicated off-wiki by email. On the surface there appears to be a prima facie case that you're both acting as meat puppets, co-ordinating off-wiki to raise tension to push for the POV edits you desire.

Just because a comment is sourced does not necessarily mean it conforms to NPOV, one can carefully select sources to preferentially treat a particular point of view. That you repeatedly come here twisting reverts and objections to your edits into somehow perverting the truth and silencing unpalatable facts merely demonstrates your presumption is one of bad faith.

The purpose of the talk page is to agree contentious edits in advance before they're added to the article. Something I've tried to explain patiently from day one. Right from the start you've assumed bad faith, you've edit warred to keep contentious material. Your talk page accusations only elevate tension, then you make a comment pretending to be reasonable. We see the same cycle again and again, contentious edits, then a call to be reasonable. Its a none too subtle tactic plain for anyone to see.

Funnily enough when you've asked for third party opinion previously, they haven't supported your position. You shopped around 4 different forums the last time, none came out in support - and on the NPOV forum that included two separate threads you created. Lets also not forget that off-wiki you have been noticed expressing opinions that reflect the extreme Spanish position. Not to mention you obsessively reverting any change I made to your edits, even to the point of reverting my corrections to grammar, spelling and English usage. I could have copy edited but on past experience you would only have reverted.

So if you want, ask a third party for a second opinion, in fact I positively encourage you to do so. But somehow I can confidently and smugly predict you won't get an answer you'll like.

If you want to add sourced facts as I've already indicated I'm content for them to go into the article I suggested. But I do request that you discuss the proposed text on the talk page first to establish a consensus text. The ball is now in your court, if your motives are to improve wikipedia, then you can take that route. If your motive is to push a POV, you can continue as before. Your choice, I can guess which path you'll take, how about disappointing me for a change? Justin talk 11:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

I suggest this text for the History of Gibraltar. Once agreed, I suggest getting a summary containing all significant details even if the text is a little bit long:

---

• 1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of British and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, the civil population was abused by the troops. All the Roman Catholic churches but one (the Parish Church of St. Mayr the Crowned) were desecrated and used as stores. Mockery of religious objects was especially shocking. The Chapel of Our Lady of Europe and the women and children who had taken refuge in it with their homes' most valuable goods were looted. The statue of the Holy Virgin was profanated: the head of the statue and the child Jesus were broken off and thrown among the stones.; there were cases of raped village women. The townspeople took some bloody reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen and throwing their corpses to wells and cesspits. The historian and former governor of Gibraltar William Jackson links the behaviour of the troops and the news of the atrocities of English troops two years before in Cádiz stating that:

“ Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Habsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. [..] 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. [..] Many bloody reprisals were taken by the 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. ”

Opinions? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've included it in the aforementioned article (see here)

It sounds biased and highly anti-British - for example the only reference to anyone being killed was the Spanish murdering the invaders after the surrender. But as this is presumably for the page on the history of Gibraltar article, I suggest further discussion should be there.

It would be ridiculous to have this detail on the main Gibraltar article. --Gibnews (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml did say this text was for the history article. -- Atama頭 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be POV and it is biased against the British. The text is using emotional language and peacock words. "desecrated","shocking", "abused" are not words that belong in an encyclopedic article. Whats also telling is that the words "many bloody reprisals" has morphed into "some reprisals". Missing from the text is that order was restored at the point that the Spanish left. I would suggest removing the emotional language and ensuring that the text reflects the sources.

I'm also somewhat shocked to see that prior to agreement of the text it was inserted into the article verbatim and edit warring to keep it there. I will remined everyone that there was an undertaking not to introduce contentious material into the article during mediation.

As I've already indicated above, the text is a start but needs some work and as Gibnews suggest this isn't the place to be discussing a proposal on another article. Justin talk 10:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A little recap on sources

There has been some argument with regard to the quality of the sources that are being used. Next, I'd like to share with you a small excerpt of preface of The Rock of the Gibraltarians, by Sir William G. F. Jackson, that I think will throw some light about the issue:

...I found that there were many books about the Rock, but few were comprehensive histories. At one end of the spectrum there was Doctor George Hills's well-researched, but perhaps overdetailed , 'Rock of Contention' [..] I hope I have not been too pro-British or too anti-Spanish, just pro-Gibraltarian...

As it can be easily understood, we can come out with two conclusions: Jackson does not see Hills work as biased or unreliable (so I hope any attempt to discredit this source comes to an end now); and Jackson is openly biased, so its work should be handled with care. As far as I'm concerned, any discussion on the reliability of Hills work is over since it fulfils all the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hope it's clearer now. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not commented on how Hills biography on his personal friend Franco is perceived in Spain.

Jackson in your quote simply says Hills book was well researched, no doubt it is, but Hills being Spanish and a close friend of the fascist leader of Spain is a recipe for an anti-Gibraltarian view. --Gibnews (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Gibnews, but I won't comment in your usual inventions ("Hills being Spanish and a close friend of the fascist leader of Spain"). Atama, I know it's difficult to assess opinions and sources, but just inventing things ("Gibraltar was a hard place to live", "the Spanish killed all the Moor population", "Hills is a close friend of Franco") is a waste of time. I'll simply won't go on with this nonsense. Gibnews, please, source your ridiculous statements. Otherwise, shut up. We're not here to refute whatever thing you invent. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't assume editors "invent things". If Gibnews raises what seems like a legitimate concern we should investigate it rather than dismiss it outright. Moreover, please remain civil and read WP:EQ. Telling other users to "shut up" if they don't fulfil your ultimata is hardly constructive. RedCoat10 • talk 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RedCoat10, I wish you could mention WP:EQ to other editors. Do you suggest that Ecemaml should have used the expression "I really have had a belly full of this crap" instead of "shut up"? (I didn't see you say anything when Justin used it, so I guess you think it is all right to do it ;-)). Ecemaml was telling Gibnews to either source statements or shut up. I see that you focus on his language instead of the content: "to source statements". I don't know if that is very constructive. (Myself, I have received many offensive comments but I haven't responded to the vast majority of them for the sake of consensus). Please let's all just calm down, and focus on content. I think Atama can help us doing that if we give him/her a chance. --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And you yourself have made many snide remarks, one of which was the one I responded to. I hope you don't live in a glass house. Justin talk 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, then. Let's forget about the personal offenses we've received and focus on the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough I made exactly the same suggestion yesterday only to have it flung back in my face. Justin talk 08:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atrocities ?

I think we are getting a bit carried away verbally over what happened in 1704. Is the word atrocity appropriate ? How many Spaniards were actually killed AFTER the surrender? So some sailors got drunk and went in search of women, plunder. At the time Catholic churches were not respected by protestants and visa versa. There is no suggestion that this was an OFFICIAL action and it was quickly brought under control. On the other hand British and Dutch servicemen were murdered.

One further point, once the Spanish marched out, they form no part of the history of Gibraltar and what happens in Spain stays in Spain. Gibraltar is not Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is respectable, but only as your POV. Once the Spanish Gibraltarians marched out, they went on being part of the history of Gibraltar, as far as all the historians of Gibraltar talk about them. That is, until Gibraltar legally became not-Spanish (1714). So, for me (and for wikipedia, I should say), it's more important what the sources say than what you think. Almost all the Gibraltarians left the city of Gibraltar in 1704 and settled down in other part of the municipal term of Gibraltar. Their king praised them and granted a motto mentioning his home town. Gibraltar was Spanish until the Treaty of Utrecht was signed. Moreover, what I've just described is described in any history or synthesis of the history of Gibraltar, so it's fully relevant for the history of Gibraltar (regardless of what you think or not). Other issue would be talking about San Roque in, let's say, 1900, in the article on the history of Gibraltar. Full stop. Further forum-like discussion could be good for your forum, but not for wikipedia, where we trust in sources not in amateur opinions. This is wikipedia, not Gibnewspedia. As with the rest of your made up statements, for me the discussion is over. Best regard --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is over? Ah right, consensus means nothing to you clearly. Justin talk 14:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians ?? there is no suggestion this term was used at the time. The word Gibraltarian was never applied to residents of Gibraltar and its use here is fraudulent.

Further it does not matter what the status of Gibraltar was, the article here is about the history of Gibraltar not what happened in Spain, because Spain is not Gibraltar.

This page is for discussing what goes in the article, not delusions and not for personal attacks like ranting about 'Gibnewspedia' --Gibnews (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Transport

The article still states that Gibraltar airport's expected completion date is 2009. On my most recent visit last month this clearly won't be the case. Is there any update on new completion times? If not, could something be drafted in to make it clear that this deadline won't be reached, as by saying "planned with a completion date of 2009" makes the article appear out of date now it's almost 2010... Willdow (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that? Change it to completion in 2010. Be bold. --Gibnews (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a mental block today! The new road around the runway is supposed to be built in conjunction with the new airport. Details of this are on the Gibraltar Airport page, although only the new road (not the airport) is mentioned on here. When my brain works I'll add the new airport into the transport section alongside the new road. The completion dates are out-of-date though, and also on the cited pages (reference 7, 8, and 9 on the Gibraltar Airport page).

As I said, I'll try and go through this tomorrow and sort. Willdow (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't really need to discuss that sort of change, best thing is to do it and if its factual nobody will complain. I was on the runway today and the terminal seems to be coming on, but has a long way to go before its operational. --Gibnews (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide emissions

Is seems as if Gibnews does not wish the wikipedia readers to know the figures of the Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Gibraltar, as studied by the US Energy Information Administration (see removals here and here). On the other hand, we have, in the second paragraph of the article! some data by an unknown Jane's Group. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is censoring, always you proceed with the bad faith assumption. Nothing whatsoever to do with you edit warring to keep material that others disagree with and elevating tensions again. Only yesterday I was asking you to use the talk page to establish an edit before adding it to the article. Now if your motives were to improve the article, that is precisely what you'd do, on the other hand if your motives are to escalate tensions then you'd be doing precisely what your doing.

Or it could just be you've selectively seized on some text to show Gibraltar in a bad light. The noticeable feature of your edits is that all are designed to show the British or population of Gibraltar in a bad light, the Spanish in a positive one and clearly NPOV means nothing to you. Further the promise we made at the start of mediation was not to introduce contentious material without discussing it first on the talk page. This is the second time in as many days that you've broken that promise. Whatever happened to giving mediation a chance?

Now I was reluctant to commit to mediation as it seems to me doomed, because you were pushing a POV. My experience of POV warriors is that they always scream about censorship or suppressing facts that must be told. And they edit war. Its also clear to me that there are meat puppets at work here. Justin talk 10:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is it's you which think that such a figure shows Gibraltar in a bad light. I could remove the figures of the GPB or the Jane Group on the grounds that it shows Gibraltar in a good light. This would be as absurd. And as far as I understand, we were talking about the capture of Gibraltar and not about any other issue, so I don't think I have broken any promise. Finally, your observation about my motives or as meat puppets is insulting and I, by second time in two days, ask you to stop your verbal abuse. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No the promise for mediation was not to add any contentious material while it went on. Clearly this is the second time in as many days that you've broken that promise. If you find it insulting, I feel there is more than enough evidence of a collusion here. It seems more than co-incidence that there was an outbreak of making contentious edits by both of you at the same time. Again I call for consensus to be established first and again the preference is to edit war. Justin talk 14:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The source was a good one (and Gibnews' reason for its removal was absurd), but I don't think it belongs in this article; it would be better off somewhere like Environmental issues in Gibraltar or some similar article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in fact was also in Economy of Gibraltar and was equally removed on absurd grounds. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest in that case that you create the environmental issues article I suggested and add it there, making sure to note the dissenting view cited by RedCoat10 below. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, but lets make it Environmental issues in the Bay of Gibraltar area there is a lot of material available, Like this And unlike the CO2 nonsense you can see it and its measured by Governemnt and the Bucket Brigade. --Gibnews (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. To say, without qualification, that Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Gibraltar are the highest in the world is entirely misleading. I suggest you read the comments in the Garrdian article which note that: per capita emissions info doesn't help to give a really clear picture. Small countries like these or Netherlands or Bahrain have very high per capita ratings partly because they have few people (comparatively) and extensive infrastructure. So overall infrastructural emissions (industrial, corporate, tourist, public service) will be chalked up to few people. The study was heavily criticised as unreliable by the Environment Safety Group in Gibraltar: see http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/europe/misleading-to-say-gibraltar-is-a-world-leader-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-5227.htm . So if you really think it's necessary including this misleading claim, we must also mention why some people think it's a load of tosh. RedCoat10 • talk 12:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. That's exactly what WP:NPOV requires - presenting all significant points of view, not simply deleting them because of editors' personal disagreements with what they say. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To say that "Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Gibraltar are the highest in the world" is not a claim. It's a fact. The sentence (however its poor English) attributes it to the small population of Gibraltar. The comment by the Environment Safety Group in Gibraltar is also proper and should be added. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a fact its an outright lie. Nor is it a matter of a point of view except in interpreting flawed statistics. --Gibnews (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to add that yet? Answer it has not been achieved yet. Propose a text. Get agreement. Add to the article. Why is that so hard for you to do? Always it has to be a confrontation, with edit warring to get what you want. I label you a POV warrior because that is how you behave. I'll treat you differently when you stop behaving in a way that is deliberately obstructive. As Redcoat10 notes it has been dismissed by another reliable source as unreliable and to seize on one source that is showing information in a misleading manner is not presenting to the reader an accurate position. NPOV requires presentation of information according to how it is presented in the literature. We are not required to present ALL views but views according to their representation in the mainstream media. To suggest Gibraltar is a major source of CO2 emissions is simply ridiculous.

And it is POV to deliberately choose sources to only present Gibraltar from a negative perspective. Does anyome else label Gibraltar as a major source of CO2 emissions. No it doesn't but that is the source you choose to select. Justin talk 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Dismissed"? "Reliable source"? You're kidding, aren't you? Moreover, you're constantly lying when you claim that may edition tries "to suggest Gibraltar is a major source of CO2 emissions is simply ridiculous" or a a "major source of CO2 emissions". There are two possibilities: that your prejudices prevent you from understanding the text or, worse, that you're deliberately lying.

The raw data says only what it says: that Gibraltar has the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions. Full stop. The "reliable" source of the Gibraltar Environmental Group does not dismiss anything (I guess you haven't even read it) because it simply can't. It's as you "dismiss" how the GDP is calculated. It appropriately says that it is "misleading to say Gibraltar is a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" (right), that "the explanation is likely to be linked with the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars and of course, our bunkering service for international shipping" and nothing more, since it cannot deny facts. That is, the study is not considered unreliable (it cannot be so), but simply explained, and warned about simplification (that is not in my edition) about Gibraltar being the largest source of CO2 emissions in the world.

If you feel that such raw data (just figures, without any misleading simplification) is "bad for Gibraltar" it's really a pity, since this is an encyclopaedia, not the public relationships department of the Gibraltar Government.

Finally, can you explain why you've removed appropriate and soundly sourced information about the per capita emissions of dioxide carbon of Gibraltar and the explanations to it by the Environment Safety Group (if you find any link to them in scholar.google or in the JCI, maybe we could accept it as a "reliable source", but I accept it as a way to keep NPOV)? As you can, of course, I'll restore it, since it's absolutely NPOV. The text, by the way, was that:

“ As a result of his economic activity and the small population, Gibraltar had in 2007 the higher per capita carbon emission in the world: 159,1 tonnes. The Environment Safety Group heavily criticised the report as it suggested Gibraltar being "a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" and attributed the figures to the small population of the territory and linked it to the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars and to the bunkering service for international shipping. ”

As a personal comment, that you accuse me of being a POV warrior seems really a joke. But it seems that joking is a constant activity in Gibraltar issues. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the offer I made on your talk page, just forget it. I can think of a more appropriate place to shove an olive branch. Justin talk 16:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the irony in making derisively sarcastic comments about Justin, then ending posts with "Best regards"? I object to your proposed text on two grounds. Fistly, the syntax and grammar is such that it is still misleading. In the first sentence, the second clause doesn't follow from the first. Quite how "economic activity" and a "small population" has led to X, isn't clear. Secondly, the study is outdated and not an oft-cited one. Four years may not sound like much, but as you can see from the table, these statistics are volatile and change on a yearly basis. RedCoat10 • talk 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your smart comment in irony. What seems really ironic is that your using the excuse of out-of-dateness with regard to CO2 emissions while not suggesting the same with GDP. Ironic, isn't it? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? When have I said the study is not outdated in respect of GDP? I haven't. Please don't make such assumptions. I clearly said that the whole study is outdated, so it shouldn't be used. RedCoat10 • talk 22:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml claims that Gibraltar has large CO2 emissions this is not a fact, its an outright lie based on a flawed study which only measured input of fuel into the territory and ignored exports. As Gibraltar is a very active bunkering port this skews the statistics. I tried to explain this on the Spanish wikipedia but despite some editors understanding the point Ecemaml ruthlessly reverted it to the original nonsense. Sadly this sot of inaccurate rubbish is picked up as an excuse to claim Gibraltar causes massive pollution, which is ridiculous compared to the massive real pollution from the petrochemical plant in Campamento. Of course Algeciras does the same amount of bunkering as Gibraltar but is part of a country with a large population. Anyway the claim of CO2 pollution has been discredited and should not be included here as its nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ecemaml does not claim anything. Just provides a source that states that the emissions per capita of carbon dioxide are the higher in the world. Nothing more and nothing less. You can go on with your paranoia ("Sadly this sot of inaccurate rubbish is picked up as an excuse to claim Gibraltar causes massive pollution, which is ridiculous compared to the massive real pollution from the petrochemical plant in Campamento.") but please, don't put words in my mouth. And by the way, even the Environmental Group accepts the figures, just denies it means being the largest emissor of CO2 (something that my edition clearly explains). --Ecemaml (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[29] from the same source that Ecemaml quotes as a reliable source. More recent data ranks Gibraltar 128th in the world not the worst offender. It is the very same organisation, so one wonders why an outdated and flawed study was chosen as the basis of an edit, when it is contradicted by later studies from the very same organisation. Can we expect to see the Spanish wikipedia corrected? Justin talk 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Justin? You're providing information about the absolute values and saying that it contradicts per capita values? And they're even from the same year (2007)!!!! Please, stop throwing more squid ink, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am serious, funny which data you choose to use. I suggest you read Darrel Huff's book on statistics. Justin talk 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Better, read all the statistics and not a set (and follow Huff's book and don't compare pearls with apples).

Anyway, I've updated the sources, improved the way it's phrased (possibly not enough) and leave something such as this:

“ Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Gibraltar were 4.551 million metric tons in 2007. Due to its relatively small population, Gibraltar had in 2007 the higher per capita carbon emission in the world: 159.063 metric tons. However, upon the publication of the statistics in March 2009, the Gibratar-based Environment Safety Group heavily criticised the report as it could suggest Gibraltar is "a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" and linked the figures to both the small population and the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars (fuel is less expensive than in Spain) and to the bunkering service for international shipping. Therefore, they explain that Gibraltar does not emit such high carbon dioxide levels locally. ”

Could you please recap your objections so that I can refute them in order? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I please recap my objections so that you can refute them? Do you think this is a competition, or a battle of wills? This afternoon I made you an offer to draw a line under past dealings and to try and work together in future. You flung it back in my face. Your postings here instead are just intended to inflame objections, you don't want to work co-operatively.

My genuine objections are that you've chosen a flawed statistic to attempt to portray Gibraltar in a negative light. So much so that something that could be dealt with in a single sentence now demands a paragraph to make it neutral.

My proposal.

Gibraltar ranks 128th in the world in terms of CO2 emissions[30], although the the Gibratar-based Environment Safety Group criticised the report pointing out that the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars skews the figures.[31]

We could cut it down further by simply looking for statistics that accurately reflect Gib's CO2 emissions. Justin talk 22:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your paragraph seems OK. However, a) it misses the exact figures (add them, please); b) it misses emissions per capita (add them, please); c) it misleads as you miss (on purpose, I assume) to reflect that bunkering is only mentioned (any reason to this)? Therefore, I'll keep my proposal and look for a formal request for comments as you keep on preventing readers for knowing the real data. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC) PS: in spite of the long discussion, it's worthing the time. It's so illustrative of the way Gibraltar-related articles are handled...

A) There are no figures b) emissions per capita are misleading so I will not add them c) it does not mislead. d) go for it, I'd love to see an RFC. It'll reflect really well that an admin on the Spanish wikipedia is pushing to include figures they know to be misleading and is being deliberately provocative, doesn't work well with others and proceeds on the basis of a presumption of bad faith that people are censoring. It will be so illustrative of the way people use wikipedia to advance an agenda. Somehow I doubt you'll come out of it with any credit and I would just love to see it. Please, please, please do an RFC, I really would love you to do an RFC. 11:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets say it again, there are NO FIGURES for CO2 emissions for Gibraltar, only extrapolations based on imports, and given the significant levels of bunkering in relation to the energy consumption of Gibraltar that is not a sensible basis to make claims of that nature. The ESG do not accept the claims or figures.

Perhaps ecemam1 could explain why he censored the explanation in the Spanish wikipedia.

However the claim of 'pollution' is absolute nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"there are NO FIGURES for CO2 emissions for Gibraltar" :-DDDDDD

"only extrapolations" Yes, as with the GDP. However, we include them.

"The ESG do not accept the claims or figures". Rhetoric question. Can you please quote the sentences where the ESG does not "accept" the figures? (No, you can't,). --Ecemaml (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Gibnews, could you please stop lying (as usual)? The Spanish Wikipedia includes statistics and the ESG claims. About four out of five statements by you are simply plain lies (I'm still waiting for your sources on the killing of the Moors by the Spanish conquerors or how bad for living was Gibraltar in 1704... it seems strange that 4,000 needed an army of brave English soldiers to realize that living in San Roque was much healthier... still waiting...). It makes me laugh your statement on lots of propaganda in Spain. You don't have anything to envy. PS2: interesting reading for you: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" PS3: use Ctrl-F in your browser and look for "pollution". Do you need to tell you who's the only person that has talked about pollution here? (it was another rhetoric question)

You still have not explained why its so important to you to include this blatent nonsense and why YOU removed my attempt at an explanation of the statistics in the Spanish wikipedia. Its easier to discuss that here as when its inconvenient elsewhere you simply say my Spanish is incoherent or lock the article using your admin privilege.

Common sense says that Gibraltar does NOT emit large amounts of CO2, there are no chemical plants or industries that generate it.

As regards the ESG, I know a lot more about them than you as I go to their meetings and get all their mailings.

I think you need to look at things in a cooler and calmer way if you want to write encyclopaedic articles. The Gibraltar pages should describe Gibraltar and not be filled with nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"You still have not explained why its so important to you to include this blatent nonsense". I'll duly explain: it comes from a respected source. Therefore it's relevant and there is no reason to hide it and thus tamper wikipedia principles. It's been "critizised" and that information is also provided to keep the NPOV. The task of wikipedia is provide neutral relevant information about any topic, not only that you like or not.

"why YOU removed my attempt at an explanation of the statistics in the Spanish wikipedia". I removed your "explaination" simply because your oppinions and statements, as mine, are irrelevant. You didn't provided any source, but carried a mere unsourced removal, so therefore your edition was plain vandalism. Once Redcoat has provided a source, I haven't had any objection to its inclusion (and therefore I've done it)

"lock the article using your admin privilege" Gibnews, you're as usual lying. The Gibraltar article was protected several years ago because of your friend Gibraltarian. If you're implying that I have blocked the article with regard to this issue, as said, you're simply lying. With regard to this article, I'm still waiting for your sources on Gibraltar being a bad place to live, for instance.

"Common sense says that Gibraltar does NOT emit large amounts of CO2". To avoid to discuss about what you think is common sense (you're not the one who defines common sense) it why we use sources. If the sources say that Gibraltar emits X tonnes of CO2, we should include that information, since those're the statistics that are currently handled in the world. If they are critizised, explained or "dismissed", we add such information.

"I think you need to look at things in a cooler and calmer way if you want to write encyclopaedic articles". Thank you for your pratronizing advice. You should apply it to yourself. I've been writing encyclopaedic articles for longer than you, and with no further problem but with Gibraltar-related articles. You can come out with your conclusions, while I'll come out with mine. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your repeated accusations of lieing

offensive. Here is where you protected a page to enforce your incorrect POV

I do not have a handy list of your mistakes, like the one you compiled about my edits on your user page which led to you being banned here.

The sources and data are demonstrably flawed, and the only reason for inclusion is to promote an argument -or- to denigrate Gibraltar. Sadly Gibraltar bashing seems to be a popular sport and needs to stop.

If you only have problems with Gibraltar articles, it may be because you are influenced by the lies promulgated in the Spanish media, or that your personal POV is showing - as it did when you insisted that the territory of the airport was not an integral part of Gibraltar controlled by the GoG. For as long as you want to recycle Spanish propaganda and lies about Gibraltar, you are going to find yourself in dispute with other editors, yes you got rid of user:gibraltarian but for every one that goes, better editors will emerge to make these pages factual and informative. If you only have trouble with Gibraltar do something else where your efforts are appreciated. --Gibnews (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"the territory of the airport was not an integral part of Gibraltar controlled by the GoG". The second part of the statement is true (the territory of the airport is obviously controlled by the GoG). The first one is false, as there is Spanish claim over such a territory. If you read this link (you know it, right?), you can read the following paragraph:

“ The present arrangements (..) are understood to be without prejudice to the respective legal positions of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated. ”

The text is signed by the government of Spain and United Kingdom. The fact that you don't like the Spanish claim is sensible, but your insistence in hiding it is simply POV editing.

With regard to lies, possibly you could comment how World carbon emissions, by country is a lie promulgated in the Spanish media. Finally, with regard to your lies (and naive POV editions, I must admit), here you have some: this or this. Another one is that of me being banned for compiling "mistakes" about you. My only bannings have been the result of 3RR violations. I don't need further lists, since only looking at your editions in this talk pages is clearly illustrative. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...why is this info important? We are not a random fact book. I'm sure Gibraltar ranks somewhere on the 'Number of Penguins in a Dress Being Buggered by Ferrets on a Sunday' rankings, but I am not sure that is overly important either. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is ferret related penguin sodomy in Gibraltar? Wikipedia must expose this now, we must end this censorship and suppression of information. Seriously, nice to see you around bud, hows it going? Justin talk 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of unnatural acts with penguins, its as well that Wikipedia does not have pictures --Gibnews (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The title of that article makes me wonder if the french wiki will have an article that starts 'New France, or as the English call it Canada...', but amusing observations about other wikis aside, probably not the thing to bring here Gibnews. My point was that I'm sure to someone and somewhere such things are interesting, but we cannot list every random fact and I'd even question the random Jane's Country Risk reference being in the lede. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Narson, you asked "why is this info important?" I could argument (talking about climate change, Kiotto Treaty and so on), but I won't. I'll just point out that this wikipedia has a list (two in fact) providing information about carbon dioxide emissions by country and territory (however no articles on penguins dancing sardana). So, it seems that at least some fellow editors have considered that such information is important (and nobody has suggested that such articles must be deleted). However, it seems that such information cannot be included in this article using each time an odder argument. First because it could throw a "bad light" on Gibraltar, then claiming that the "complain" by an environmental group "dismissed" the US statistics (in fact, it simply didn't like the statistics methodology, since it chooses to attribute to a territory all the emissions its economy is responsible for... something that is clearly included in the text I've provided) and finally, claiming that such information is unimportant (however being available in Wikipedia). None of such arguments has anything to do with any wikipedia principle and that's why is so surprising. It seems as if an article on Interesting facts about Gibraltar that you won't read in Wikipedia would be needed. Anyway, I accept that it's Economy of Gibraltar (since it's not only an environmental, but mainly an economic issue) where the development of this issue should be accomplished, leaving here only a summary. I'll transfer the discussion to there and possibly ask for a Request for Comments from uninvolved people. I'm working on the text. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on goats. This does not mean that goats are important to Gibraltar, even if that article should list a species of goat present in Gibraltar. In general, I would not consider various rankings in umpteen billion statistical charts to be of note in an article generally covering the are. I have not said it shouldn't be in wikipedia at all or anything of the sort, so really I do not understand the tone you appear to have decided to take. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has an article on goats". Right, but no articles on number of goats per country. As long as Gibraltar does not has agriculture or livestock it would be irrelevant for Gibraltar. However, the economy of Gibraltar relies on unsustainable activities related to carbon dioxide emissions which should be replaced by cleaner ones (it's not me the one who states that, but the ESG, a confident and reliable source: "While Gibraltar may not be emitting such high carbon dioxide levels locally, it carries a responsibility for the impact this will have elsewhere and on climate change. We must also realise that fuel economy is finite with cheap oil in the decline making this an unsustainable industry. The ESG believes Gibraltar should be developing alternative and sustainable economies"). And last but not least, here you have some news about countries aiming at reducing the number of goats in their country: here, for instance (sorry, I meant "carbon dioxide emissions"). On the other hand, Narson, can you elaborate a little bit more on my "tone"? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Capture of Gibraltar - Recap

I think we are losing some focus on the capture of Gibraltar discussion. Right now we have three discussions in this talk page: one about the summary of the events after the capture of Gibraltar (which should go in the Gibraltar main article), another about the details of the events after the capture of Gibraltar (which IMHO should go in the History Gibraltar main article) and a third one about CO2 emmissions. I propose that we take the second discussion to the History of Gibraltar main talk page. I think we almost had an agreement on that text, so it shouldn't be difficult to reach a deal there. Also, I humbly propose that Atama (if he is still willing to mediate) puts us in order and recaps the first discussion and then we try to reach an agreement regarding his last proposal (to find a new consensus text for this article). --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your proposal on the appropriate talk page. I don't have a problem with Atama's text and I haven't seen a sustainable argument against it. Justin talk 09:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Justin, I have answered you there. I hope we can reach an agreement.

Regarding Atama's proposed text, I had objections, which Atama found perfectly reasonable. The main arguments to his sentence ("Violence between foreign sailors and the Spanish populace continued even after the surrender, and once order was restored the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar") were:

• There was no violence going from the townsfolk to the invaders previous to the surrender, so it is impossible for it to have "continued."
• It gives the idea that violence was equivalent in both directions, which -INMHO- is not at all what the sources say. Maybe other editors think it was equivalent. In any case, I propose making a small summary of what each side did and let each reader judge by him/herself. It need not be long, the facts are clear: one side looted most homes, desecrated all churches except one and raped some women. The other side murdered many invaders in reprisal and threw bodies down cesspits.
• It doesn't include one thing that all sources mention: Spaniards felt at risk. That's the fact that a vast majority of sources link with the Spaniards' decision to leave in exile.
• It does not include the fact that most of the Spanish population did indeed found a town in the municipality of Gibraltar: San Roque. The vast majority of reputed books about the History of Gibraltar mention this fact.

Those are my objections. I think we still need Atama's help in order to come up with a new text. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is simply arguing semantics. The sentence can be restructed, its length is about right.

Its simply not possible to produce a list without it becoming overly long. The detail is in the other article.

It doesn't need to include all facts such as the Spaniards felt at risk. This is an overview about Gibraltar, by definition some facts will be lost in a summary.

The founding of San Roque is one of those facts that are not really relevant and could be dropped for the sake of brevity. You're talking about text books on the history of Gibraltar, whilst this is an overview. Brevity is important and extraneous facts can drop off. Justin talk 13:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn't need to include all facts such as the Spaniards felt at risk". Why? It's the first point that pro-Gibraltarian author Jackson clearly states: "Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Habsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town" --Ecemaml (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There were a number of risks, the largest being further military action when Spain attempted to retake Gibraltar. The smart move was to get away to somewhere safer, which they did. However at the point the Spaniards freely chose to leave Gibraltar they cease to have any importance in its history. --Gibnews (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I make another suggested bit of text, to address Imalbornoz's concerns? I don't expect Gibnews and Justin to embrace it but I'm interested in what portions of the text are particularly objectionable, and maybe we can trim those parts. Here goes:

After the surrender, foreign sailors raped and pillaged the town and desecrated churches, and the Spanish populace responded by murdering sailors. Once order was restored the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too risky and left. Some who left founded the town of San Roque.

That is much longer than my previous suggestion, but I can't figure out how to get all that information in there while keeping it short. I didn't mention throwing bodies into cesspools or the sailors sparing a single church because that seems to be getting a bit too specific. So critique away, I know that it isn't perfect. -- Atama頭 19:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this for the main article -or- the history of Gibraltar one? I still maintain there is no need for anything in the main article as its trivia.

Lets not call the servicemen foreign they were English and Dutch, and their bad behaviour was only on the first day and unofficial.

We don't need to mention San Roque as it was founded much later in 1706, indeed most of the Spanish moved to Los Barrios, its just a convenient fiction about San Roque being the home of the alleged rightful inhabitants of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The British and Dutch were not foreign to Gibraltar? Am I misreading things, I thought that they had invaded the area, they weren't residents of Gibraltar before the battle. By the way, this text is supposed to be for the main article, that's what we're discussing here.

I'm worried that we're reaching an impasse. One side is suggesting that certain information must be in the main articles, others insist that the information must not be. If nobody can budge I don't know what can be done here. Somebody has to compromise, perhaps what we can do is mention the specific actions each side took (rape and pillage vs. murder), but leave out San Roque. -- Atama頭 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK to avoid an impasse, how about:

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was quickly restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-masse for nearby areas of Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to say that your suggestion meets everything that Imalbornoz requested, except the San Roque info. Does everyone else find this a reasonable compromise? -- Atama頭 23:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're almost there. I have a couple of questions about minor issues. And then we have the San Roque issue (that's a more complicated one...)

Minor issues:

• I don't think they were all sailors. I saw some sources mention "marines and sailors" and -at least- another one talk about "some officers". Maybe it's better just to talk about "troops". Justin is more of a military expert than myself (I think): do you think that would be correct?
• I am not sure all of them were drunk. What do sources say about that?
• I am not sure that the pillage lasted only for one day or that order was quickly restored. What do sources say about that?

About San Roque: we can talk about it later, if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The disorder was short lived and attributed to drink. I believe the reports refer to sailors, who to this day get drunk and misbehave ashore. However we can let Justin chose the term. The town of San Roque was founded in 1706 and was not the only place involved, but its immaterial to the article as its Spain and not Gibraltar history and if you are not prepared to make a compromise and omit the reference to it we could argue on for ever. --Gibnews (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have sources actually saying that the sailors/marines/whomever were drunk? It's reasonable to assume that a number of them would have been, considering the time period and the events occurring at the time but even so it would be original research to make that assumption in the text without sources. Do we have a source saying the disorder was only a day or another short time period? That would be my only concern, is the sources. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jackson basically describes it as fuelled by drink and also the rapid restoration of discipline. Marines and sailors is the term to use, troops tends to refer to the army although is sometimes mistakenly applied to Marines. I don't see the need to mention San Roque in this overview article. It is mentioned on the history of Gibraltar. I also think we can drop ", and desecrated churches" given the near agreement on what is going into the history article. Just to draw attention to one compromise I see Gibnews has dropped murder as I have from the history article. Justin talk 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have carefully looked at the excerpts from Jackson's book that have been mentioned in this discussion, but haven't been able the reference to drink as the key driver for misdemeanor that Justin talks about.

I haven't found anywhere in Jackson's text any mention to a "rapid restoration of discipline". If Justin has done so, I suggest that he shows it to us.

Censoring words: Let's clarify one thing: NOBODY have ever asked for the removal of the word "murder" regarding to what the Spanish did (so I don't see any compromise there). My position is that murders are murders, desecrations are desecrations, etc. - I have only accepted to remove all references to "atrocities", "desecrations" and "profanations" in the History article (despite that all sources and many WP articles use them) because Justin asked for it and I was afraid he would veto the text altogether if we didn't remove them. But I would rather have them in the text (I understand those words have a very specific meaning; e.g.: see desecration in WP describing exactly what happened to those churches). You can put the word murder if you want, of course. It would be nice if nobody vetoed any words that are used by all Spanish and British sources to describe what happened; see WP:NOTCENSORED. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the accusation of censorship, it is getting really irritating. Justin talk 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't understand why would someone not accept certain words but accept their meaning. E.g.: "Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character—or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual." I don't understand why someone would accept that churches and religious symbols received exactly that treatment but not accept that it be called "desecration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalbornoz (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it is POV and it isn't neutral language, which is why for example we use killed instead of murdered. But then I've explained it till I'm blue in the face and your first reaction is always to scream CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP. It is getting irritating, we think we're getting somewhere close to an agreement and its move the goalposts again. And so round and round we go in ever decreasing circles. Speaking of vetoing, who was it proposed text that removed anything negative about the Spanish and anything positive about the British. Your constant accusations are really pissing me off, which is when I get stubborn. Justin talk 11:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want anybody to remove anything negative about Spaniards or about anybody else. I said you can mention the term "murder" (I've never said anything else) because that's what it was: Spaniards "murdered" some Englishmen and Dutchmen. Don't get pissed off, we are just discussing which text would best reflect what sources say. You have your opinion and I have mine, and then there's the sources. We don't need to get angry, just explain our opinions and try to prove them with what the sources say... and in the end reach an agreement that is OK with WP's policies and guidelines. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it would never have been there except MEGV and his sock puppet stymied previous attempts to improve the text. And to remind you, your text never mentioned the "murders" or the fact that order had been restored when the Spanish chose to leave. Just to highlight why I made the comment above. Personally I'd go with Gibnews' suggestion, just out of curiousity do you have a copy of Jackson? It seems you're basing you criticism of the proposal based solely on limited excerpts. Justin talk 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't my text mention the "murders" or the restoration of order before the choice to leave? Let me see... I have 9 entries regarding this issue. All 9 of them mention the murders (in some case with the expression "stabbed in the back") and the restoration of order pre- to the exodus. You can chek it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Why did you say I didn't include that term? I am not surprised that you were of the opinion that I was POV editing, if you thought that I always had silenced those terms or issues. I hope you see me in a better light now. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The only person who has suggested omitting the word "murder" was me, and that was only for brevity, not an objection to the term. There are a number of points of contention, dwelling on one that everyone already seems to accept isn't going to get us anywhere. -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite this goes back about 18 months the last time we tried to improve the article in line with NPOV and the editor MEGV stymied all attempts to improve the text. No one was happy with the text, certain words were proposed to be removed, murder being one of them. I merely pointed out that for a long period that editors have tried to improve the article only to be stymied by a succession of editors with POV motivation. I never said you personally had a problem there but your edits do omit some inconvenient facts. I note you didn't answer my question, instead you went off on a tangent on something I never accused you of. Now can we accept Gibnews' proposal or are we going to allow this to fester for ever? Justin talk 00:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, just re-read my earlier comments and I didn't express it well and they could easily be miscontrued. Struck through part of my previous comment. Again do you have a copy of Jackson's book? Justin talk 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK so does everyone agree my compromise version, which is consistent with and can be referenced to Jackson's book describes things well enough or are we to nit pick for another 305 years? --Gibnews (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained some reasonable objections: I'm not sure that almost all invaders were drunk or that discipline was quickly restored. Also, as Justin said, it would be more accurate to talk about marines and sailors, or invaders in general, not only sailors. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I most certainly do have Jacksons book and refer to that rather than any selective quotes here. --Gibnews (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, only the excerpts and the version in googlebooks. I have not found any ocurrence of the word "drunk" or "drink" in the pages around the capture of Gibraltar. If Gibnews has the book and is able to find a reference mentioning that most rapers, looters and desecrators were drunk, then he can quote it here. The same about the rapid restoration of discipline. It's pretty easy, reasonable and according with WP's policies and guidelines. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In which case having compromised and compromised and compromised, then I say we just leave the article as it is then. Seeing as the NPOVN indicated the current version was the most neutral. Seeing as there is just criticism by speculation, apparently every sailor has to have been drunk to commit a misdemeanor before the current proposal will. Its just fannying around for no reason and I'm fed up with it. Justin talk 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. As far as I can see, the only thing Imalbornoz is asking for is a reference. A specific reference, not the generic mention of a book but the page numbers and editorial, so it can be checked out. A request that I second, I'm afraid. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly have the book on my bookshelf, which is presently not at hand but will be next week. However, its does not take much imagination knowing the ways of sailors. Blood alcohol data was not published. --Gibnews (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, Gibnews. But sources are a must, I'm afraid. See you.Cremallera (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources are a must? In which lets just stick with what we have then, its sourced. Thank you and good night. Justin talk 16:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been supplied already see below, especially No. 6, but apparently it seems that isn't good enough. We have criticism by speculation of a source the editor doesn't even posess. Justin talk 16:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) I suggest we hold off on the discussion about whether or not the soldiers were drunk until Gibnews can provide a quote. The burden of proof generally resides with the person wanting to add the information, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that, but there's little point in discussing the "drunkenness" point until we have that. I believe Gibnews also said that the source should show that the post-surrender unrest was ended quickly, so hopefully we might settle that point as well. -- Atama頭 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, your exact words were "Jackson basically describes it as fuelled by drink and also the rapid restoration of discipline". We have yet to read something about the restoration of discipline being particularly quick, and in my defense I should say that source nº6 is not from Jackson's book. In fact, the text you are pointing me to has not a causality discourse, but a descriptive one (unlike Gibnews' proposal you were quibbling on). And speaks more about the "peculiar fury of the invaders" in the sacking than about alcohol abuse, to tell the truth.

Anyway, would you mind to indicate me the page numbers of Jackson's book refered to the drunken invaders and the rapid restoration of discipline, please? Thank you and good night to you as well, Justin.Cremallera (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I might need my distance glasses as the book is in Gibraltar and I am not so you will have to wait for next week. The main thing to know is the Spanish lost, left and are never coming back. --Gibnews (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No source No.6 isn't Jackson but it was the source I had in mind, an error on my part. It supports the edit but if you intend to disregard it for some reason, then we're back to square one. More criticism by speculation and original research. Quelle surprise. Justin talk 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. Of course. Now, could we please have a reference on the restoration of discipline? Which is in Jackson's book, may I assume? We'll discuss the diference between "causal discourse" and "descriptive discourse" later. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Yeah. Right. Of course." Thank you so much for the presumption of bad faith, why am I not surprised. So bad faith, blacken the motives of other editors, speculation by criticism of a book you don't even have and OR to eliminate sources. No wonder this goes nowhere. Justin talk 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, focus on content. Thanks.Cremallera (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Please, focus on content", you're having a laugh aren't you. "Yeah. Right. Of course." was focused on content and you had no intention to be a wind up merchant. Come back when you're serious. I've got better things to do. Justin talk 18:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Like providing a source for your assert on the restoration of discipline. And please, stop pretending you've not raised the tension here with statements on the like of "Sources are a must? In which lets just stick with what we have then, its sourced. Thank you and good night", "It supports the edit but if you intend to disregard it for some reason, then we're back to square one", "More criticism by speculation and original research. Quelle surprise". So, you can dish it out but you can't take it? As I said, let's focus on content. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cremallera, my apologies. Anyone interested is more than welcome to contribute to this mediation (and of course the discussion page for the article is open to everyone). We have four editors heavily involved in a controversial discussion and for the most part it has been constructive, but if you are only here to cast doubt regarding the motives of a couple of the editors it might be best for you to not participate. If you do wish to participate, please don't try to inflame things beyond where they already are. I think we're very close to reaching a compromise here and it would be a shame for that to be disrupted. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a CheckUser might be in order. It's too much of a coincidence that Cremallera (talk · contribs) turns up to defend Imalbornoz (talk · contribs) after an absence of several months. Both accounts are also SPAs. RedCoat10 • talk 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a CU would be accepted, there's not much behavioral evidence to support one, and I don't see why Imalbornoz would want to disrupt this mediation with sockpuppetry anyway. -- Atama頭 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, from past experience Cremallera is a wind up merchant. But then there has been a sucession of Spanish editors who disrupt the talk page just as consensus is near. Co-incidence, quite likely. Justin talk 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding content: I don't think that whether the invaders were drunk before they raped-desecrated-plundered (or only got in that state in the middle of the ball) is not very relevant. I also think that "quickly" is quite subjective (just one whole day of rapings-desecrations-plundering can be too long or too short depending on which side of the action you're in). I thought we were trying to be concise and to not qualify facts. Therefore, I don't think it necessary to include those terms unless all sources give them a lot of relevance. Anyway, if some editor finds it absolutely necessary to discuss the inclusion of those terms, I can wait until next week for Gibnews to bring his quotes from Jackson.

As a side comment: RedCoat was not in the discussion either, but once in a while he comes by with useful comments such as "Imalbornoz seems to have a knack at piquing fellow editors and leaving them no other option but to take a break from Wikipedia. The mediator is his latest victim." Or this thing about the CheckUser (anyone can take a look at my talk page for a sample of things other users have told me). Well, I don't care, he can participate all that he wants. I'm not criticizing, I just wanted to show some examples of things that have not disturbed other editors in other instances, so that we all try and make an effort to follow suit in the cases when it's our turn not to overreact.

What is a wind up merchant?--Imalbornoz (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think a "wind up merchant" is a person trying to get people "wound up", in other words, to make people more emotional. I'd rather people not label each other in that way. RedCoat10 has made what may not be entirely helpful comments but those contributions are few and haven't derailed the discussion nearly as much so I didn't feel the need to comment. But the same request I made to Cremallera would apply. -- Atama頭 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, guys. I am in no need of such displays of love. May I defend myself against the charges of being a "wind up merchant" by pointing out that I've not made a single ad hominem argument yet. I can't say the same about Justin or even RedCoat, who has accused me and Imalbornoz of sockpuppetry, as if we could not share common views on a given issue, just like you do, as a matter of fact. Which for sure is in compliance of the "assume good faith" Wikipedia directive I've been reminded lately, I guess.

As for the error of citing Jackson instead of Andrews, what can I say? Whatever, Justin, but please notice that the reference was here quite before your mistake so, please, at least understand that appearances can be somewhat deceptive.

With that said, I'd like to ask if the British and Dutch invaders were singularly drunken compared to the sacking of other cities on that time, and if the restoration of law and order was especially quick. Because if it wasn't the case, adding those valorative terms could seem taking a position on the unfortunate event we are writing about (God forbid). Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No ad hominem arguments yet, "Yeah right", "I can't say the same about Justin". What can I say? Justin talk 12:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, *content*. Thanks.Cremallera (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you re-read my comments you will note that I haven't accused you of anything. I made an observation which I thought may warrant further investigation. But judging by the replies, it obviously doesn't. BTW, I have a copy of Jackson's "The Rock of the Gibraltarians" at hand. I will be away as of Monday, though. RedCoat10 • talk 12:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, RedCoat. 'Till Monday then. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As of Monday. As in, I'm off on Monday :). If there are any specific citations needed, please let me know (either today or tomorrow). I can't exactly trawl through the whole book looking for the word 'drunk', but if you have the page number... RedCoat10 • talk 12:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we are to include that the pillagers were drunk (as an important fact) and that order was quickly restored, we should provide a suitable citation. I myself don't think that the speed on restoring order nor the more than possible alcohol abuse during the sacking deserve even a mention, unless both circumstances were unusual or singular in some relevant sense, that is. Thanks for your time, though. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Redcoat, if you could look at pages 100-101 and quote explicit references to the invaders being drunk before they started to loot, rape, etc., it would be nice. Also, in page 101 (or around) you could look for and quote explicit references to order being quickly restored. Thank you very much. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find any references to drunken sailors in pp. 99-101. And the only reference I can find regarding the restoration of discipline is the one quoted in No. 2; namely, "By the time discipline was restored few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain." - the inhabitants left on the 7th August, so it wasn't like the "sacking" was spread out over several weeks and was very much an ephemeral incident. RedCoat10 • talk 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But Andrews [6] below does. Justin talk 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have tried to write a version with facts mentioned by -at least- a majority of sources that deal with the History of Gibraltar:

After the surrender, sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town and desecrated its churches. The inhabitants carried out reprisal murders. When order was restored, on 7 August 1704, almost all villagers felt that staying in Gibraltar would be too dangerous and left the town. Most of them took refuge around the hill of San Roque, inside the municipality of Gibraltar, and created a settlement which would later become the town of San Roque and be granted the arms and constitution of the Spanish City of Gibraltar in Exile.

As I said, my procedure for coming up with this text has been that each of the facts should be mentioned by a majority of the sources dealing with the History of Gibraltar. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No its not acceptable, half of it is about San Roque. Whats wrong with the Gibnews' version, you were prepared to accept it a few days ago. Justin talk 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only said that we can talk about San Roque later (see my comment on 17 August). If you want, we can focus on what we agree. Is it alright to include the first three sentences? --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we have had people scurrying around to satisfy your demands on the previous text which you said you'd agree to. Now all of a sudden you want to introduce new text out of the blue. You have not had the courtesy to explain why. Justin talk 09:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to compromise and use more neutral language which you ignore. Its also a red line that whatever happened after the Spaniards in Spain after they left is nothing to do with Gibraltar, which is the article topic. I feel we are getting nowhere on this as whatever compromises and references are produced some editors want to argue. You seem to want to talk up what a few sailors did, however it was of little consequence. --Gibnews (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Imalbornoz edition is fine (I remember that Gibraltar was de iure Spanish until 1713 and therefore, the mention to Gibraltarians before such a date is perfectly fine). Only some minor details:

After the surrender, sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town and desecrated most of its churches. The inhabitants carried out reprisal murders. When order was restored, on 7 August 1704, almost all villagers felt that staying in Gibraltar would be too dangerous and left the town. Most of them took refuge around the chapel of San Roque, inside the municipality of Gibraltar, and created a settlement where the Gibraltar town hall was reestablished and which would later become the town of San Roque and be granted the arms and constitution of Gibraltar.

Of course that the correspondent section in History of Gibraltar should be updated. I did my proposal here. On the other hand, Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar didn't vanished into the dust, but some of them took part in the first sieges of Gibraltar and that information should be included. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well a compromise wording was already agreed on History of Gibraltar, I have no idea why Imalbornoz has not put it into the article. And repeating the same text, with exactly the same problems, completely ignoring the reasonable objections of others is not helpful. Either there is a reasonable objection to the compromise text offered by Gibnews or it is going in the article as previously agreed to. Enough of this fannying around, why is the previous discussion being ignored? Justin talk 12:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The text in the "history of gibraltar" article is far from being exhaustive, especially since it lack mentions to the desecration of the Shrine of Our Lady of Europe, for instance. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The text is informative, written in neutral manner and provides links to sources. Funnily enough we were at agreement, now apparently the goalposts are moved once again.

I do think that reporting the fate of the -back then- inhabitants of Gibraltar is crucial to provide the reader with a full understanding both of the historic relation between Gibraltar and Spain (which is also history of Gibraltar), and the events that took place in the following years to the capture; although I do not find necessary the inclusion of San Roque's title being "City of Gibraltar in Exile" (as suggested by Imalbornoz) for that matter.

With regard to the rest of the text, I think that is quite similar to Gibnews' proposal, except the mention to alcohol and the use of adjectives regarding the restoration of order, in concordance with almost every available source, if not all. So, in short, I'm OK with Ecemaml's version. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not, why when we had an agreement is it suddenly being changed? No one has answered that simple question. Justin talk 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion on the inclusion of San Roque as City of Gibraltar in Exile, especially since it's dubious. If proper, the right denomination, as granted by Philip V should be used instead ("My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo"). --Ecemaml (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that people might read these delusions and think that Spain had some claim over Gibraltar. You seem to want to gloss over the important event of 1704, which can be summarised as Spain lost, and the Spanish left. --Gibnews (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No San Roque is not relevant, this is an article about Gibraltar, the people played no further part in the history of Gibraltar when they walked away. Justin talk 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The British period, again

I wanted to try to see where we stand now, and start a new section since the last one is looking pretty long. It looks like the biggest point of dispute now is San Roque, whether or not it merits mention in this article (which again, is trying to summarize what is already at History of Gibraltar). Other points of dispute currently are whether or not the sailors were drunk and whether or not the post-surrender turmoil was ended quickly. It seems to me that other points have been settled, more-or-less.

The other problem is that the section of the history article covering this section is in dispute, and that will of course affect this article because as I said before, the information in this article should simply be a summary.

I'd like to remind everyone that we're just putting together an encyclopedia article here. I know that nationalism causes emotions to boil but what is and isn't in this article isn't going to settle any historical disputes outside of the encyclopedia. Mentioning that San Roque was settled by former inhabitants of Gibraltar isn't going to legitimize any Spanish claims, so while we do want to make every effort to make this article neutral, there's no gain in questioning or attacking the motives of editors. -- Atama頭 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a few points where we have already reached agreement. Should we include them in the article? So far, the article only says: "After the surrender the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar." If everybody agrees that all readers should be informed about certain events, we can publish them and meanwhile keep the discussion around the issues. So far, the common ground is:

“ After the surrender, sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town and desecrated most of its churches. The inhabitants carried out reprisal murders. When order was restored, on 7 August 1704, almost all villagers felt that staying in Gibraltar would be too dangerous and left the town. ”

We still need to reach consensus on the San Roque issue (but that shouldn't deprive readers from being able to have knowledge of the points we all agree on). Everybody should bear in mind that this would not be the final text, as we still need to agree on a final one, but it is better than nothing (which, at the present stage, is what the article has got). What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As we now have excessive detail about alleged rape and pillage AND San Roque in the History of Gibraltar, I suggest we leave the main article as is and move on. --Gibnews (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I prefer Gibnews' version, something that was previously agreed to. To be blunt the use of English in the above is contrived and awful. I still have not seen a valid reason for suddenly changing horses and introducing another text and continuing to push it when it has already been indicated is unacceptable. This is derailing the whole consensus approach, you're not listening. Justin talk 09:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with: I have to say that Gibnews' version was not agreed to by Cremallera, Ecemaml and myself. If you look at my comments, what I said was that I was not sure about 1) drinking as a key issue in the atrocities and 2) a "quick restoration of order" as something objective and supported by sources. Also I said that San Roque should be left for further discussion. I am sorry if somehow anybody has thought that I had another opinion (although I don't see how that might be so, if you go over my comments you'll see I was pretty straightforward).

Regarding my proposed text with "contrived and awful language." I just tried to include all the points that we agree upon. I am sorry if I have failed (which is obvious, judging by your reaction). Which parts of my proposed text would you say are unacceptable? --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (Please notice that I am not accusing you of pushing anything, or criticizing Gibnews' version for its "awful and contrived language")

I think it would be better if I explained the criteria for the new text (which, as you imply was carefully thought out, but not with a tricky goal in mind):

• Take out "drunken" so that we can discuss about it later (same as San Roque).
• Specify "most of its churches" as this is relevant enough to be specified by all sources (it was not just "a couple of churches": all sources say "all except one").
• Use "murders" instead of "killings" (it's more specific and all sources use that term).
• Specify the date when order was restored instead of qualifying whether it was too long or too quick.
• Specify that almost all villagers (all of the several thousand townspeople except 70 say all sources) left the town.
• Take out the reference about San Roque so that we can discuss it later.

I hope this eliminates any suspicion of negative "contrivedness". --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

You said "I think we're almost there. I have a couple of questions about minor issues.", so we run around trying to address those minor issues, we do so, and then you introduce new text again. And with the new text we push it just a little bit further. Then "we're almost there. I have a couple of questions about minor issues"....Its a cyclic push, push, push. I see this as nothing more than a tactic to wear people down.

So no to all of the above, I have had enough, my patience is exhausted.

DRINKING Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33: "The conquerors were out of control. (…)Into the raw hands of fighting seamen (…) alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately" Restoration of Order All sources note order had been restored BEFORE the Spanish left. They left on August 7, surrender was August 4.

Your minor issues have been addressed. Now can we stop vacilating about trivia. Justin talk 14:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, we should move on. We have reached an agreement on certain issues and not yet in other ones. Let's include the issues where agreement has been reached and keep discussing about the other ones.

Issues where agreement has been reached: order being restored before the Spanish left, murders of English and Dutch, plunder, desecrations, rapings.

Issues where we disagree: San Roque, drunkedness, "quick" restoration of order (I don't include the reasons for disagreeing on these issues, as it would start the discussion all over again, just trust me that we all have good faith reasons to disagree here -most of them have been explained earlier, and we can talk about them later).

Do you have in mind other issues where agreement has been reached? Or issues where consensus has not yet been built? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NO - I was willing to compromise by including some minor details in the main article to settle this discussion, but it seems other editors - real or imaginary - want to continually shift the goalposts. There is no need to repeat any of it in the main article. The present NPOV text describes the important things that happened. The rest is available in the history article. --Gibnews (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had reached some partial agreement. I was sure that everybody agreed that the following issues were sufficiently supported by all sources: order being restored before the Spanish left, murders of English and Dutch, plunder, desecrations, rapings (we have all agreed that they existed and that the sources give them enough relevance so that they should be mentioned). In fact, I have seen comments by each and one of the editors in the discussion proposing or supporting texts that included all of these issues.

On the other hand, I was pretty sure that some editor or other did not agree that the following issues had merit to be included: exile around San Roque, drunkenness of troops, "quick" restoration of order.

Have I been following a totally different discussion? --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. As far as I understand, Justin agrees with Gibnews' proposal, which is:

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was quickly restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-masse for nearby areas of Spain.

However, no sources (to my knowledge) describe the sacking as singularly ephemeral or short-lived in comparison to other sackings (on the contrary, Andrews states that it "was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders"), while just one (Andrews, again) notices that the invaders were drunk while pillaging. Which, at least from Jackson's and Hills' points of view, is not relevant enough to be included in several hundred pages, let alone a 50 words description.

Provided that Imalbornoz's version english was "awful" to certain editors, we can build consensus around the text they've agreed to previously:

After the surrender, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most of its churches. The Spanish inhabitants/villagers carried out reprisal killings/murders. Although order was quickly restored After order was restored, the majority of the Spanish almost all the population still felt that living staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left (...) we can discuss San Roque's relevance after this is settled.

Let's proceed word by word. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to correct one small typo in the sentence (from "it's" to "its"). I guess the character just slipped in there. Well, that word is alright now, 49 more to go! ;·) --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all incidental rubbish which does not deserve to be in the main article. However

• None of the sources use the word Rape
• Under the terms of surrender some property was forfeited
• The 'disorder' was quickly controlled
• Using a church as a store in time of conflict is hardly 'desecration'
• Jackson suggests that the Spanish were more concerned about military action in the future than the events of the conquest.

--Gibnews (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Using a church as a store in time of conflict is hardly 'desecration'". Well, what happened in the shrine or Our Lady of Europe is a desecration? Just to know it.

"Jackson suggests that the Spanish were more concerned about military action in the future than the events of the conquest". No, that's not right. I quote again:

“ 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. ”

Please, underline the sentences that support your thesis. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you are now rejecting your own proposal?Cremallera (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Which part of no don't you understand? You wanted mediation, you got it, we had an agreement, you've reneged on it. Your proposed text is not acceptable. Justin talk 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in the end, mediation is only valid if you can impose your version. Interesting. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right so when a Spaniard rejects text we find acceptable, no comment is made. We suggest a text you find acceptable, just needs a little clarification, clarification is provided and then all of sudden new text is introduced. So when we say hold on a minute we had an agreement, you comes along to make a smart aleck remark screaming bad faith. You make lots of facetious remarks purely and simply to create conflict.

Not to mention an editor we haven't seen in months suddenly turns up stoking tension.

All of sudden, three Spanish editors are all ganging up together, rather like they're co-ordinating off-wiki.

This screams meat puppet to me. Justin talk 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, that's the umpteenth time I've had to ask you, please, focus on the *content* of the discussion and refrain from accusing those who just happen to disagree with your positions of being meat puppets, making facetious remarks, stoking tension or similar statements which are utterly useless to this debate. As you can obviously see, we have not an agreement yet, but it would be helpful if you'd comment on the proposed editions instead of the editors.Cremallera (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What we have is 2 groups of people, each group made of people with similar points of view. There is a line where collaboration approaches meatpuppetry, WP:GANG covers this issue well. I don't see this happening here, what I see are opinions falling along nationalist lines. Which is common and pretty much unavoidable on Wikipedia, and not a problem if people can work together in spite of this difference in opinion. There are other articles where such disputes end in deadlocks more often that not, Israel vs Palestine disputes are notorious for this. If I felt that these groups of editors were at that point, I wouldn't even bother to try mediating here. But I see reasonable people who disagree, and that's why I'm still here.

As to the mediation being "valid", mediation is completely voluntary and unenforceable. It's only valid when everyone feels satisfied with the compromise presented and chooses to work within that compromise. It's an attempt to reach consensus.

Without trying to single anyone out, I do feel like we've lost some ground here. I don't see that Gibnews has previously objected to the accusations of rape and desecration of churches. Anyone is allowed to change their minds (sometimes that can be a big help in settling a dispute!) so please don't take this as a criticism or as a reason to attack Gibnews. But that does mean that we should explore those matters. Personally, I understand the objection to rape allegations because the support for this is an interpretation of what can be considered a euphemism, the "insulted and outraged" part of the quote given by Ecemaml. Also, the source does not specifically say that the churches were desecrated. Without a more specific source, it might require a longer explanation to accurately describe what the British sailors had done without the text being misleading and/or containing original research. This will of course work against the wish to keep the information in the article brief, as we're only attempting to accurately summarize information in this section rather than fully describe it. -- Atama頭 01:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

OK, let's take a look at all the available sources regarding the rapes during the capture of Gibraltar. Maybe some other editors can help with aditional sources:

"There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance'." George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4

"(...) al igual que sucedió en los pueblos aledaños a Cádiz dos años antes, la soldadesca se entregó a la profanación y saqueo del templo, al robo de todos los objetos de valor de los refugiados y, lo más grave, a la vejación y violación de algunas mujeres."

"(...) just like what happened in the villages near Cadiz two years before, the military gave themselves to profanation and sacking of the temple, the looting of all the valuable objects of the refugees, and, worst of all, the vexation and raping of some women." Sepúlveda, Isidro (2004). Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza (Gibraltar. The reason and the force). in Spanish. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. pp. 89-91. ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar) (quickly translated by myself).

"(…) Into the raw hands of fighting seamen (…) women passed wildly and indiscriminately." Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar

"(...) women were insulted and outraged." 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

We see: "disorders involving persons of the weaker sex", "raping of some women", "women passed wildly and indiscriminately", "women insulted and outraged". I think that all of this can be summarised in modern common English as "rape" (WP does not need to use an euphemism as some of these sources did). Of course someone can disagree and propose that we keep talking about "disorders involving persons of the weaker sex"

One other English Historian explained in 1939 how these acts have been very often silenced in English Historiography, so they have not been very easy to find in books:

"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 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." (Gibraltar and the Mediterranean by G. T. Garratt, p 41)

"Ayala's description of the sacking of Gibraltar is borne out by the chaplain's diary: the destruction of churches and ill-treatment of the civil population closely resembling the orgy which followed the capture of Puerto de Santa Maria. There is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy: '(...)They profaned all the churches except the principal one (...) Many females experienced insults and outrages, whence arose numerous sanguinary acts of vengeance on the part of the inhabitants (...)'" ((Gibraltar and the Mediterranean by G. T. Garratt, pp 42-43)

I think that everybody, as wikipedians, will agree that we don't want these facts to be suppressed here in WP. I am completely sure, let there be no doubt about it. I just wanted to put in perspective what has happened in other instances. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we should defuss the debate a little, by approaching the previous steps all editors made in a civil manner. Of course, everybody is free to change his mind but, unless explicitly acknowledged, we ought not to presuppose it. So long, both Gibnews and Justin were OK with this wording:

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was quickly restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left.

Either Imalbornoz, Ecemaml nor myself agreed wholly to it but, at least in my opinion, it's a step forward, so I've pointed out some issues I was not comfortable with and Gibnews answered:

• None of the sources use the word "Rape". Well, yes. Euphemisms are used instead. You have not objected to the term in your proposition before.
• Under the terms of surrender some property was forfeited. But the terms of surrender had to be enforced through the plundering soldiery, as every available source states.
• The 'disorder' was quickly controlled. According to whose opinion?
• Using a church as a store in time of conflict is hardly "desecration". Again, you did seem to be conform with the word, but a description should suffice.
• Jackson suggests that the Spanish were more concerned about military action in the future than the events of the conquest. That's simply incorrect, as you can realize by reading the excerpt Ecemaml's transcribed yesterday.

Any thoughts? Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Edit conflict. Sorry about the lack of continuity. My text may seem a non sequitur. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a remark. The telling of what happened immediately after the surrender of the town is Ayala's Historia de Gibraltar (see please page 289 here). He talks about disorders involving persons of the weak sex and was explicit about the desecration of all the churches but one, with the episode of the Shrine of Our Lady of Europe being clearly highlighted. Anyway, what about this:

After the surrender, drunken sailors committed violent acts against women, pillaged houses, and desecrated all churches but one. The Spanish carried out some reprisal killings. Although order was quickly restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left

I however go on being uncomfortable about the lack of mention to the precedents of the "English fury" in Cádiz two years before. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I grow increasingly uncomfortable about the lack balance by having no mention of the Spanish desecrating the mosque and killing the Moorish inhabitants when they invaded Gibraltar, and their anti-Semitism. --Gibnews (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of that sentence. But I don't think that "drunken" and "quickly" should be there, as I think they are not supported by sources. Also, I think that sources mention marines besides "sailors". Finally, "murders" and "rapes" are more accurate terms than "killings" and "violent acts against women".

About "drunken": If we are going to use Ayala as a source, what does he say about drunken? Does any other source besides Allen mention "alcohol"?

About "quickly": No source mentions anything like that. I think that it is more objective to say "After 'x' days ..." and let readers decide whether 'x' days means something quick or slow (remember we are talking about rapes, sackings, desecrations...: only 24 hours can be too long).

Anyhow, I am ready to accept this sentence in the article as a temporary measure, except for the word "quickly" unless the use of this word is supported by sources. The rest is temporarily OK even if I don't agree. But I think that happily including it without strong evidence would be a lack of respect towards the women that were "quickly" raped, the homeowners who saw their belongings "quickly" looted and the faithful who saw their churches "quickly" desecrated.--Imalbornoz (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The version by Ecemaml looks remarkably similar to the one I proposed as a compromise which you were uncomfortable with:

• After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was quickly restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-masse for nearby areas of Spain.

I don't think we need a list of their names. --Gibnews (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, although I think that it is a beginning, I do not agree with stating that the soldiery was drunk. I consider it irrelevant and intended to diminish responsibility on them (as if text in wikipedia could do that). Likewise, I believe that we should call a spade a spade, so it is pointless to use euphemisms. Also, I think it is preferable to describe the villagers as "villagers" or "population" instead of "the Spanish". On the one hand, because not all of them were Spanish (there were at least spaniards, portuguese, some genovese who decided to stay in the city after the siege, and french soldiers to whom the terms of surrender did not apply). And on the other, because that's what they were: the inhabitants of Gibraltar back then.

Also, I share Imalbornoz's opinion on describing the sacking as "quick" as well. Especially without substantiating, as there's not a single reference to support such statement. Therefore it is the opinion of some editor and, from my perspective, the ultimate disrespect to the victims of rape, murder and other despicable agressions. It's like saying "it was not that bad". Sorry, but no.

In relation to the mention to the earlier sacking of Cádiz, I sincerely think that it does not belong here. Moreover when considering that we intend to write a short summary. That's what History of Gibraltar's article is for, at the most.

About Gibnews' proposal: mention of the Spanish desecrating the mosque and killing the Moorish inhabitants when they invaded Gibraltar. I'd say, be my guest! But we are not discussing that siege. That mention belongs to another section of the article, although I do not oppose to it. If you provide suitable references regarding the massacre and everything else, that is. By the way, please notice that Gibraltar was conquered by the Kingdom of Castile, not "the Spanish".

Finally, I do wholeheartedly think that we have to settle the first sentences before engaging on another long discussion concerning the whereabouts of the exiled population.

That's all, for now. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we are close to achieving a compromise, regrettably the vexatious attitude of some editors, who just want a dispute rather than to settle things does not help. I have re-read Jackson and he relies on reports by Ayala and second hand from Hills. I've contacted a historian to get some better references, as my understanding was that the disorder was quickly controlled and that drink was a factor - along with a desire for plunder, women and to trash catholic churches - although Jackson simply says they were used as stores. The history of the shrine at Europa records that the statue there was chucked onto the rocks, presumably because it was seen as not worth stealing. Although that might be appropriate in a history of the shrine, its not significant enough for the main article which needs to be concise. I agree with you about calling the inhabitants just that and omitting Spanish. --Gibnews (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gibnews, alcohol has been present in sieges, sackings and all military incidents, for that matter, since we discovered the product of fermenting grape juice, wheat, barley or rice. The reference to drink is just supported by one source (which does not mean that it is false, but irrelevant) although I might consider including it. But I am hesitant to do so, as I've yet to read something along those lines in any sacking-related article here on Wikipedia. Thus I am not really sure that creating this precedent speaks precisely to the benefit of the desirable asepsy we should keep in such delicate matters.

As for being close to achieving consensus, I'm glad. We should wait for Justin, in my opinion, as he has been a major contributor to this debate until he decided to take a break. He'll be here today or tomorrow probably if I am not mistaken.

It'll quite likely help not to attribute a "vexatious attitude" to any editor as well. See you soon.Cremallera (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The benefit of living in a town frequented by the British Navy is that one understands their behaviour ashore. see Drunken Sailor. The Americans can be worse as their warships are dry, so a small minority tend to over indulge on shore. --Gibnews (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A source supporting that "order was quickly restored" was requested 12 days ago, which is a more than reasonable lapse of time. Such demand has been reiterated 19 times at least. Do we have something already? Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to find anything reliable regarding what happened in those three days 305 years ago, and as mention I've been away from Gibraltar over most of the period you have been asking. Plus a lot of time has been wasted in nonsenses. But its clear that when you get an answer it will have taken longer than it took Rooke to make the sailors to behave. --Gibnews (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry did I miss something. Surrender 4th Augsust, departure 7th August, Jackson notes order was restored before they left. I have pointed this out before but the sources do support the edit proposed. So yes you had something already. Unless we plan on having a semantic argument about what is quick. Justin talk 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

About to go out and just lost an edit to a computer crash.

I don't see the issue with mentioning drink, its not as if drunkenness is any mitigation or defence for what happened. Why do people assume that it is?

Other than that no objection from me.

What I do find frustrating is that having been near agreement, why yet another text appeared which appears to go back to where we started from. I also find it frustrating that one issue which had been discussed, an explanation offered, it was not disputed and then its raised again like it was never answered. Justin talk 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be room to compromise. I propose that we include the information about the sailors being drunk (which we have a source for), and also mention how many days it was before order was restored (rather than saying "quickly" which is subjective; 3 days of chaos might feel like an eternity to some). This should be a small concession for both sides here. This would only be a small modification to the proposal that Gibnews has suggested above (which I will mention is a big change from his original request to keep everything very short, and I think shows a willingness to embrace others' ideas). -- Atama頭 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK in principle, lets see the proposed text. Justin talk 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a reasonable approach in my opinion. It was proposed by Imalbornoz several days ago. As previously stated, sources attest that the sacking lasted for 1-3 days. Whether the restoration of order was quick or not considering the size of the village, quantity of soldiers and villagers, and/or a comparative analysis of other sackings hasn't been published yet, to my knowledge. Thus, the inclusion of such valorative terms -which can be correct or not- would constitute original research. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking, this is the text that Gibnews suggested, just with a change as to how quickly order was restored.

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Order was restored after three days, but the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en masse for nearby areas of Spain.

A note that "en masse" seems to not require a hyphen, per every dictionary I checked. (I admit it looks like it should have one, but apparently it shouldn't.) -- Atama頭 20:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with a note that the Cremallera's comment that this compromise was proposed by Imalbornoz is a) incorrect and b) unhelpful. Justin talk 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understood Cremarella to say that specifically proposing an actual count of days rather than saying that order was "quickly restored" was proposed by Imalbornoz. Not that it matters, this compromise is born of everyone's input, not the actions of any single editor. And I would say that supporting a compromise is anything but unhelpful. -- Atama頭 21:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

this compromise is born of everyone's input, indeed, to claim credit for one "side" is what I perceive as unhelpful. Justin talk 21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin: except the first word, I can't see how your above comment is helpful at all, but mine was directed to assert that one of the reasons for my resistance to the inclusion of the term "quickly" or other similarly valorative wordings is the strict compliance with wikipedia policies. It's not the first time I have pointed it out here in this very discussion.

As for similar proposals made earlier by Imalbornoz and rejected also in this debate, you may check these quotations, for instance: 1, 2, or 3

Concerning Gibnews' proposal, I'd change it this way: "After the surrender, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most of its churches. The villagers carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, on 7 August 1704, almost all the population still felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left (...)".Cremallera (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do object to the text. As I've explained previously I don't see any reason not to include a mention to where the refugees settled down. I'll explain why. As I've explained in the section devoted to notable Gibraltar-born individuals, we have a single article devoted to Gibraltar, that covers its whole history. Gibraltar, which was founded during the Moor period, was, during the Spanish period, not only a town but a municipality that comprised what nowadays are the municipal terms of Algeciras, San Roque, Los Barrios and La Línea (that is, the so-called Campo Llano de Gibraltar, which was the name given to the Gibraltar municipal term). BTW, that information is missing in the article. Gibraltar was a town and municipality until 1706, when the king Philip V allowed the reestablishment of the Gibraltar council in San Roque (no need to add this info to this article, but its mention in History of Gibraltar is proper) and a Spanish town until 1713 (at least de iure... I say that just to claim that "Spain is not Gibraltar" is only true since 1713), when it was formally transferred to Great Britain. In 1704, the inhabitants of the town left it but, without going much further, remained in Gibraltar's municipal term. Therefore I suggest the following text (in bold text my addenda):

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Order was restored after three days, but the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en masse for the Campo de Gibraltar, where they founded a town nearby called San Roque shortly afterwards

Of course that I have no problem in accepting Atama's version on the grounds that we go on discussing on how to include the information about the inhabitants of Gibraltar that left the town (mind also that the phrase "nearby areas of Spain" is factually fluffy, since the nearby area has a precise name and happens to be the municipal term of the town (it's not a generic surrounding area). Other settlements were founded, such as Algeciras or Los Barrios, but were not given the status of town until the 19th century. San Roque remained as the head of the whole Campo de Gibraltar until then (but that's obviously, another story). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What about just mentioning Campo de Gibraltar? When Gibnews said "nearby areas of Spain", I think that's essentially what he meant. Wikilinking that would indirectly lead to San Roque. -- Atama頭 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to mention San Roque at all, it is irrelevant to Gibraltar; the subject of this article. Always we have to push that little bit further. Justin talk 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Using Atama's wording as a starting point I'd change:

1- After the surrender, the drunken soldiery raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most of its churches. 1 out of 3 catholic churches was spared.

2- The villagers carried out reprisal killings. I think it is preferable to describe the villagers as "villagers" or "population" instead of "the Spanish". On the one hand, because not all of them were Spanish (there were at least spaniards, portuguese, some genovese who decided to stay in the city after the siege, and french soldiers to whom the terms of surrender did not apply). And on the other, because that's what they were: the inhabitants of Gibraltar back then. This was explained here and it's been accepted up to now at least by Gibnews.

3- After order was restored, on 7 August 1704, it's been stated by Justin that the population left after order was restored. I think it is an important point. The inclusion of the date has been already discussed at lenght.

4- almost all the population. While the text currently states that "the majority of the population" left, I'd like to point out that only 60 people of a total of 4000 stood. Figures could be used instead of the terms "almost all", if that's troublesome.

5- still felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. I'd use the term "staying" rather than "living", because there's not really a way to be sure if Gibraltar's population was already aware that they were leaving Gibraltar to never again return. The following sieges and the fact that they settled in the township (mostly in San Roque) suggests otherwise, but that's my own opinion, and thus, original research. So, to sum up, I'll favour the use of the word "Staying" rather than "Living" as it describes an action instead of an intention and is, therefore, a more neutral wording (in my opinion, as always).

Finally, I support briefly mentioning the creation of San Roque as a consequence of the 1704 capture of Gibraltar. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Whilst I don't object to the changes suggested by Cremallera above, I don't think the founding of San Roque deserves a mention here. Especially since the town wasn't founded till 2 years later, it is irrelevant to the subject matter of this and we are trying to keep the text compact. Justin talk 09:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see one inconsistency in including the term "drunken" but not including San Roque (as I see that most historians consider the latter much more relevant than the former):

• Most sources don't consider "drunkenness" relevant enough to be mentioned: only Allen mentions it: "Into the raw hands of fighting seamen, their tar-stained nails broken with work on rope and canvas and cannon, alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately" (that source also mentions that the sailors were "sex hungry", but I don't think that it is relevant either). I am ready to listen to explanations and to talk about it, but at the present moment I still don't see how it is relevant to the History of Gibraltar. I honestly think that "drunken" is quite a colourful and circumstantial term. Could anyone calmly and reasonably explain why is it so important, according to WP's policies? Please don't be bothered by my insistence in getting an explanation (I honestly think I have not read one explanation yet, only the reference to Allen's text).
• On the other hand, San Roque is mentioned by all sources (this should be the main criteria inside Wikipedia). Its inclusion would also be consistent with the criteria used in other parts of the article: the current article explains that some Sephardic Jews (who only lived in Gibraltar for 3 years) returned to Cordoba[32] after they left Gibraltar. If the History section explains that, how can it not describe the final destination of the people who populated Gibraltar for centuries? Especially if that destination was inside the municipality of Gibraltar, within sight of the town.

I think we should see this inconsistency solved before we can completely agree with the text. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Step by step, please. San Roque can be adressed a bit later. It does seem that at least Justin and me agree with the following wording:

"After the surrender, the drunken soldiery raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most of its churches. The villagers carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, on 7 August 1704, almost all the population still felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left (...)".

Anyone else? Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest Proposal December 2009

New section started as the old one got clumsy.

After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most churches. The townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, the allies provided assurances of a safe future but almost all the population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

I attempted to tidy up the language a little and added the safe assurance. Still a little too long "and desecrated most churches" could be dropped as that is usually part and parcel of raping and pillaging. Just a suggestion. Justin talk 14:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. That's not what has been proposed:

1- There were not only sailors in the plunder. Sources attest that Royal Marines were also present. I hold no grudge against the corps, but if the term "soldiery" is dropped in favour of "sailors", then the Marines should be mentioned on equal grounds (that is, precision, perhaps?).

2- As far as I know, the "allies" (I had no idea that the term was appliable to the austriacist side on the War of the Spanish Succession) didn't "provide assurances of a safe future to the population" after order was restored. Rooke offered the Terms of Surrender before Gibraltar's capitulation (obviously). Then, there's the rapes, murders, plundering and desecration of churches. 9 years later, there's the Treaty of Utrecht.

3- I've already made my case on why I do preffer the wording "staying in Gibraltar" instead of "living in Gibraltar". You had no objections to it. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

After the surrender, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most churches. The townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, despite the assurances of the Terms of Surrender, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

Hows that? Any comment on my suggestion to just stick with raped and pillaged? Justin talk 15:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain, but I don't like this outcome. Instead of trying to explain why, I'll just rearrange the order in which terms concatenate in your proposal, but keeping the very same words, as I think I'll make my point clearer this way:

Despite the assurances of the Terms of Surrender, after the surrender, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated most churches. The townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

It's still factually correct, it's even more chronologically accurate, and -no offense intended, really- it's still tendentious. You know what I mean? Anyhow, a link to the Terms of Surrender is a very good addition to the text. I just don't agree with this latter attempt at it. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have no problem with proposing your own version, it makes the discussion easier to follow and avoids misunderstanding. The problem I see with it, is that it implies that the Terms of Surrender were deliberately ignored, whereas the intention was to respect them but the men were out of control.

Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, desecrating most churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

Hopefully that accommodates all sensitivities, note that I don't see the need to mention surrender twice in the same sentence,

. Justin talk 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And the earlier version implied that the population left in spite of their rights being assured, whereas the townsfolk were brutally abused previously.

Concerning your proposal: it sounds sensible to me. There's no reason to use twice the word "surrender", its poor style (I just didn't dare to omit a single word, as all I wanted was my position to be understood). Given the proposed wording I concur in the need of mentioning that "commanders lost control". Finally, may I suggest using this link instead of gibnet's? Cremallera (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, this is your version that I agree most with, so far. I still think that the drunken state of the sailors and marines is less relevant and supported than the exodus to San Roque (which is not present in the text). But I am ready to leave this discussion for later.

One question: would it be correct to say "The Terms of Surrender" instead of "Terms of Surrender"? I don't know why, but it sounds better in my ear: "The Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders..." --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Either "Terms of Surrender" or "The Terms of Surrender" could be correct in this example, wikisource is fine, I simply used the text link previously supplied. I don't see the need to mention San Roque in this overview article, its mentioned in the History of Gibraltar as is appropriate. The San Roque article itself goes into it in way too much detail, its like nothing else ever happened there. Justin talk 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really excited that people are liking the compromise. :) It sure looks good to me. What about splitting the difference on San Roque, and mentioning Campo de Gibraltar instead of San Roque? Or even a piped link, if that's too much info in the text. (Something like "left for nearby areas of Spain".) -- Atama頭 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not the mention of San Roque that is the problem, its the fact that prior to all this we were trying to reduce the size of the article. In an overview, San Roque is really irrelevant. Anyway they didn't leave for San Roque for the simple reason it didn't exist. I also find it difficult to see how a piped link would work. Is the History of Gibraltar not the most appropriate place for details? Justin talk 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, in order to put this thing to bed, if we can leave the element of drunkeness, which is in any event supported by a reference, I'll support the nearby areas of Spain which is sufficiently neutral and accurate, and we can all go down the pub and celebrate. --Gibnews (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it might work, Justin:

Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, desecrating most churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704 for nearby areas of Spain.

That adds 4 words to the article. It links to Campo de Gibraltar, which lists San Roque. And Justin, the only reason why I am proposing this is because it seems like a harmless addition and it has been a point of contention throughout this discussion being advocated by at least half of the people participating. -- Atama頭 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sorry to be the fly in the ointment but I'm still not convinced it is necessary. The proposal is sufficient without embellishment. Justin talk 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

For the sake of consistency in the article: please take a look at the case of Cordoban Sephardim Jews who just stayed for 3 years in Gibraltar (from 1473 to 1476) and therefore could not have much impact in the history of Gibraltar. The current Gibraltar overview article explains that "In 1476, (...) the Sefardim were then forced back to Córdoba and the Spanish Inquisition."[33] Please notice that the Gibraltar main article explains that 1) some Spaniards 2) went from Gibraltar to Cordoba 3) to face the Inquisition. And this text, let me remind you, is about some individuals who only stayed for 3 years in Gibraltar.

On the other hand, we have that 1) almost the whole population of Gibraltar 2) went from the Rock to a hill 6,500 meters away inside the municipality of Gibraltar and within sight of the Rock 3) and two years later they were given the title of "city of San Roque" (and its inhabitants became "villagers of San Roque" instead of "villagers of Gibraltar"). Let me remind you that these events are about the people who populated the town of Gibraltar for centuries.

Which of these two events would you consider more relevant to the History of Gibraltar? Why would we want to mention Cordoba and avoid mentioning "San Roque"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, lets actually compare apples with apples and not with oranges. Both events are covered with due prominence, a minimum of facts necessary. Now we've already compromised multiple times, resulting in a text longer than we wanted. So lets not get down to accusations of bad faith that we're not providing equal coverage of the subject. Because bad faith accusations really piss me off and put me into stubborn mode.

I don't see the need to mention San Roque IN THIS ARTICLE focused on an overview of Gibraltar, it wasn't founded till 2 years later, its also given due prominence in History of Gibraltar. The San Roque article itself is already grossly distorted by the events of 1704, reading the article you'd think nothing else had ever happened there. So rather than bandy about accusations of unequal treatment, provide a reasoned rationale to convince me otherwise. Because whenever I hear this sort of bad faith accusation it is not unreasonable to conclude that nationalist POV concerns are driving the discourse rather than a desire to improve the article.

Actually look at the article and compare the space allocated to the events, they're pretty much spot on with due coverage, though the text we propose to add will actually favour the events of 1704. Justin talk 10:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Piece by piece (like Jack the Ripper):

• San Roque's article may be grossly distorted by the events of 1704, but that has to be adressed in its article. I hope we'll concord here. History of Gibraltar has its own talk page as well.
• Gibraltar's inhabitants left the town in 1704 and subsequently settled down in the township. This is a direct consequence of the capture, which is the very issue reported here. From September 1704 to April 1705, Spanish and French troops tried to recapture the fortress and eventually lifted up the siege. This is also mentioned in this article. In 1706, most of the townspeople were already living at San Roque, but it was then when Philip V of Spain labelled the settlement as "city", which came as a recognition provided that, obviously, buildings did not suddenly materialise between December 31th 1705 and January 1st 1706. Therefore, a short notice about it is appropriate.
• This article is indeed oversized, I do sincerely agree. And it should be trimmed down, but not at the expense of relevant information which can be explained in a few words.

Last but not least, Justin please, spare us the epithets regarding nationalism and the like. Imalbornoz hasn't been disrespectful to you and you have no need to be derogatory. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure my previous post has not accused anyone of bad faith.

Looking at Justin's response, I realize I have probably erred in the wording of my question, so I will apologize and try to reword it:

Which is more relevant to the history of Gibraltar:

• a)"some Cordoban Sephardim who had stayed for three years in Gibraltar went back to Cordoba and never came back"

or

• b)"almost the whole population of Gibraltar left the town, took refuge around the chapel of San Roque (6,500 meters from the Rock) and stayed there near their homes for decades / centuries"?

Justin, I am hoping that -in good faith- you can answer whether Cordoba or San Roque as a destination of those two groups of people leaving Gibraltar is more relevant. I think this exercise could help you to see things from a different perspective (thank you very much, I know it's very difficult to answer a question like this in a discussion like this one). --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of points, we have been getting close to an agreement, however whenever we do it seems the goalposts are moved. There is no way I for one agree to a mention of San Roque here. Nearby areas of Spain (unlinked) is adequate acceptable and no more. And that was conditional on agreeing the rest.

Atama's version is close but the wording needs to be slightly better use of English. However its non controversial, and actually is my fault! The original wording I used regarding the reasons the Spanish left town was carefully chosen to be neutral. Why would they leave? One reason might be that in the subsequent siege the town was flattened by cannonfire. San Roque remains intact. There is also a historical precedent of the population leaving to avoid diseases. I recently bought a book about that. I am also promised a transcript of Juan Romero's diary. However I feel we should finish the main article with a concise sentence and move on to the detail in the history of Gibraltar article.

After the surrender, drunken sailors engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating catholic churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-mass for nearby areas of Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I would thank you very much (together with Justin) if you could give an honest answer to the following question, so that we all have a clearer understanding of everyone's position about the importance of events in the article.

Which is more relevant to the history of Gibraltar:

• a)"some Cordoban Sephardim who had stayed for three years in Gibraltar went back to Cordoba and never came back"

or

• b)"almost the whole population of Gibraltar left the town and took refuge around the chapel of San Roque (6,500 meters from the Rock and their old homes) and stayed there"?

If you could also give the reasoning to your answer, so that we can understand your position, it would be very valuable for the discussion (I am honestly interested). Thank you very much. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is phrased in a manner that assumes bad faith, that two different subjects are receiving unequal treatment. And I have ALREADY given you an answer. Both events receive due coverage already. I invited you to provide a convincing reason, instead you persist with a bad faith presumption. Seeing as you have chosen to continue with the same bad faith presumption, not providing a convincing argument, I'll simply presume you don't have one. Good day. Justin talk 10:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't really understand your current stance, Gibnews. First of all, you should acknowledge that the sentences we've already agreed to (yourself included) are a proposal based on your text and ultimately revised by Justin and Atama, whose English isn't worse than yours, nor than King's English for that matter. Furthermore, you are very welcome to hold your own point of view, but please notice that it has to be endorsed with proper reasons and reliable sources; not with bartering attempts hostaging a wording which is supported by almost all editors involved in this discussion and by every availabe reference as well (except the word "drunken", which you've advocated for and is only supported by one of them). I hope I've been clear enough. Cremallera (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Justin, but a convincing argument of why the settlement of Gibraltar's population in the Campo de Gibraltar, mostly in San Roque, should be mentioned has been provided: it is a direct consequence of the 1704 capture, and it is relevant enough. Your concerns regarding this article's length have been commented as well. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As a consequence of the events of the 1704 capture would make it relevant to the history of San Roque, it does not by the same logic make it relevant to an overview article on the subject of Gibraltar; a completely different place. The population played no further part in the history of Gibraltar itself. So no I don't find that a convincing argument and I am entitled to hold that opinion. So given the events have received appropriate coverage and further details are available on the History of Gibraltar I really don't see the need to mention it. Now I'm perfectly willing to listen to further reasoning but what I'm not prepared to accept is accusations of unequal treatment based on a bad faith presumption.

My concerns about article size haven't been addressed at all, not so long ago we were talking about how to trim it down. Now we're adding text, its always just a little bit more and a little bit more but it all adds up. So unless we come up with a really convincing reason or simply an alternative that doesn't increase the size of the paragraph this time I'm going to need convincing.

Having explained my reasons multiple times, I'm not prepared to do so again. And just to make it plain I will not tolerate a further accusation of unequal treatment. Is that clear enough? Justin talk 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. So do historians López de Ayala, Sir William Jackson, George Hills and Allen Andrews, who in their books wholly devoted to the history of Gibraltar itself (namely "Historia de Gibraltar", "Rock of the Gibraltarians", "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" and "Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar") mention it.

Now, is there a reason, other than your opinion, not to mention this fact? Regards. Cremallera (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Books devoted wholly to the History of Gibraltar not an overview of the place. So my answer is so what. I've fully explained my reasons, now quit with the bad faith or I am going to just withdraw. I have had a gutfull of it. Justin talk 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Bad faith? You keep using that tag. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Look. Firstly, it was just relevant to the history of San Roque. When refuted by simply stating that most books dealing with Gibraltar's history do explain the fate of the villagers, you remark that those books are "devoted wholly to the History of Gibraltar, not an overview of the place". Well, the sentence we are quibbling on is meant to be included within the history section of this "overview" article. Of course, History of Gibraltar's article has to explain such event as well, just as it addresses the very capture.
Perhaps you've fully explained your reasons, but I still don't get your point. And I mean it bona fide. So long, there's just the excessive extension of this article issue left, and whilst I agree with you on principle as I consider it too long, I can't see how preventing reasoned and abundantly sourced editions complies with WP:SIZE policy. Moreover when we are not even proposing the addition of a little paragraph, but of a few words.
Besides, splitting this article or trimming it down merits a talk page section on its own, and the involvement of some additional editors as well. Count on me then, but for now, we should focus on the current debate. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep using the "bad faith" tag as you put it, because it is implied that my concerns have no value. I've explained why and had in return the implication that we're giving the "jews" more prominent coverage and treating the "spanish" unfairly. I've got to admit that I'm pretty uncomfortable with the fact that of all the examples that could have been picked it was that example that has been seized upon. Not to mention the Ku Klux Klan reference below.

The comparison itself also leave me uncomfortable, both events are significant. Yet there seems to be more value attached to one than the other. Both receive due coverage in the article, so the presumption that one group is favoured is on the face of it is invalid. We're proposing to include an awful lot more detail about the 1704 exodus, yet there seems to be a desire for even more. Yet its the former and not the latter that is allegedly "unbalanced" when clearly that isn't the case.

"Just a few words", already its been just a few words and then it'll be just a few more words. At which point will the just a few more words stop. Look back at the course of this discussion, every time it seems agreement is near, the goal posts get moved and we're no further forward. Your suggestion was to put San Roque to one side and as soon as we gain agreement, you are pushing for it to be included again.

I really don't see why in a limited space we have to mention what happened to the people after they left Gibraltar, when there are more detailed articles that reference it. I really don't. Dredging up the fact that other authors do in extended tomes on the subject is not addressing that point. If something is summarised in an overview, facts irrelevant to the focus of the article get missed out. Its that simple. Justin talk 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you. I've read Imalbornoz's comments twice and I've not found any reference to "the Jews", neither any ethnic comparison with "the Spanish", nor any allusion to "Ku Klux Klan" or similar statements. What I've seen is a reference to a Sephardic group which at one time resided in Gibraltar. On the one hand, "Sefardí" or "Sephardi" isn't -by any means- a derogatory term, and applies to a specific collective (with a quite interesting history, I shall say).

On the other hand, you'll have to admit that both events he is refering to aren't precisely given equal prominence in history essays. Yet, while it is attested that "in 1476, when the Duke of Medina-Sidonia reconciled with the Spanish Crown" (sic., actually that should read the "Kingdom of Castile") those "Sefardim were then forced back to Córdoba and the Spanish Inquisition" (and here, the term "Spanish" is anachronistic), there is not a single reference regarding the fate of Gibraltar's population in 1704. The article as it is now just states "they left".

I am perfectly content with relating Enrique Pérez de Guzmán's (the 2nd Duke of Medina-Sidonia) bad deeds. But it is somewhat inconsistent not to mention San Roque's bit as well, if we are to follow those history books previously mentioned. All that said, assuredly, without any defamatory/offensive/injurious intention at all.

Finally, and just for the record, I've never suggested to put San Roque to one side permanently. I've said pretty explicitly, I think, that the mention to San Roque had to be addressed after settling the capture description. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please, don't see my question as an assumption of bad faith. In fact I think that unequal coverage is the right thing to do with events or issues with different relevance. Thus my question: if the final destination of Sephardim leaving Gibraltar after 3 years is more important to the History of Gibraltar than the final destination of the population of Gibraltar after the capture, then the right thing to do is to mention Cordoba and not San Roque.

I am sorry to repeat the question again, but I want to understand your viewpoint: Which do you think is more relevant for the History of Gibraltar: Cordoba as a destination for those Jews or the chapel of San Roque for the population of Gibraltar?

(PS: don't be uncomfortable with Jews as an example. I am partly a descendant -on the side of my mother- of one of the last groups of Sephardim remaining in Spain -the Chuetas-, and I don't feel uncomfortable at all: it was very natural to pick the nearest example available; maybe it's the lack of coverage of other groups which should make us feel uncomfortable). --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you explained that, because I was really uncomfortable with it. Let me respond by saying that the question you've asked is not the right one. What we're discussing are two separate events that are important in the history of Gibraltar. These events should be covered with due prominence commensurate with their coverage in the main stream media. As this is an overview article we cannot cover every single aspect of both events and in summarising the events we have to prune some facts. With the example you chose, their ultimate destination is relevant because it had a major impact on their future. With the events of 1704 it did not, their ultimate destination and the founding of San Roque is not relevant to the History of Gibraltar. So it happens to be a fact you can prune.

Equal treatment is not mentioning exactly the same set of facts in both cases. Equal treatment is covering both events with due prominence to their significance. This means we mention what is relevant to both events for the subject of this article and that is what we should focus on. Otherwise articles become completely unbalanced, the San Roque article is one such example where looking at the article you'd think nothing else had ever happened there.

Also I have suggested that mentioning San Roque on the History of Gibraltar article, so I'm not suggesting it is not mentioned.

And being charitable, the way you phrase the question is unfortunate, since the phrase "the lack of coverage of other groups which should make us feel uncomfortable" could well be taken as a bad faith comment implying other editors are suppressing coverage of the Spanish. Equally taking single sentences out of context and the question you posed can be taken as a bad faith presumption of unequal treatment.

I would also ask you to be honest and ask yourself whether you're perhaps being a little overly stubborn about this and whether you have actually listened to the arguments presented. Un abrazo. Justin talk 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Well apart from a long argument, perhaps its time to ask the dissenting editors what exactly they want?

I tidied up the wording as although you can rape women and men or small children and goats depending on your preference, a town is something else. It was my drafting error which has been propagated.

After the surrender, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating catholic churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Although order was restored, the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-mass for nearby areas of Spain.

Now, the essence of this dialogue is to come up with something that is consistent with the limited references we have, and everyone can live with. I am accused of trying to trade words, but its simply a matter of making compromises. If others are not prepared to also make compromises we could be talking about this for a very long time to the exclusion of anything else. Also this is the Gibraltar main article, and as such needs to be concise. We can go into more detail in the history of Gibraltar article. Lets not divert into other topics in this thread. I certainly did not expect the Spanish Inquisition. Lets do the business and move on ! --Gibnews (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Per below, I think that for now we should go with this text (except that "en-mass" should be "en masse"). -- Atama頭 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• agree --Gibnews (talk)

A final request

This mediation seems in danger of failure, editors on both sides have been concerned about too much of a focus on editors' motives than deciding on what to put in the article. It seems to me that the most recent line of questioning (should the exodus to San Roque be given equal prominence to the exodus of Jews in another incident) is relevant but is still being treated as a bad faith assumption. So my request is this.

We've seemed to compromise on everything but San Roque. I don't think mediation is going to settle that particular point. It looks to be too sensitive and neither side will budge. One group of people insist it must be included, another group insists that it can't be included. My request is that we go with the compromised text, excluding San Roque, for now. Put San Roque to the side. We can then consider the greater matter concluded.

As to San Roque, I think that it can't be resolved with this small group of editors. Some outside intervention will be necessary, I'd suggest an RFC for that particular issue. Sometimes it is recommended that one or more Wikiprojects be enlisted to help, but I foresee disaster because this article is covered by Wikiproject Spain, Wikiproject UK, and Wikiproject Gibraltar and I don't doubt that engaging those groups would only inflame nationalist conflicts. But I think outside opinions need to come from somewhere. Since I've pledged to maintain neutrality for the purposes of mediation it would be a conflict of interest for me to render a personal opinion on the matter.

In essence, I think that we should cut our losses and go with what we've agreed to for now and try a different approach for what's not currently working. I'm open to what the rest of you think of this idea. -- Atama頭 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal: include that text now and keep the San Roque issue for a discussion with some outside commentators (even though I have already said that "drunken" is less supported by sources than the exodus to San Roque... I am ready to let it go as is). I don't have enough experience in WP to propose where we should ask an outside comment, but I agree that it should be something balanced (I don't know if it would add more value to have more Spaniards, British or Gibraltarians raising suspicions of trying to push nationalistic views...). --Imalbornoz (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification I don't insist San Roque isn't mentioned, I just don't see it as relevant for this article. In fact I do suggest it is mentioned on the History of Gibraltar page. Anyway, see what the response is to my reply above before we go down any other route. Justin talk 20:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Wasn't this wording agreed to?

Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704. Cremallera (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That was Justin's proposal, and Gibnews said he was okay with it as long as it left in the mention of drunkenness. I honestly forgot about that version but you're correct, that is the most recently proposed compromise. -- Atama頭 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No I never agreed to that version, although its close to the one I proposed, which could be altered to:

After the Surrender, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape, and pillaged the town, desecrating Catholic churches. There were reprisal killings. Although order was restored, the majority of the population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en-mass for nearby areas of Spain.

Thats the shortest version so far, removing the mention of the nationality of the inhabitants and tidying some elements. Any takers?? --Gibnews (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. You had said, "OK, in order to put this thing to bed, if we can leave the element of drunkeness, which is in any event supported by a reference, I'll support the nearby areas of Spain which is sufficiently neutral and accurate, and we can all go down the pub and celebrate." I interpreted that as meaning that you were okay with the entire text as long as it included drunkenness, but I presume now that you only meant you'd agree with saying that they left for nearby areas of Spain.

I wanted to point out that you can make a simple Wikilink to other Wikis using WP:IW. Linking to the Wikisource article above would only require the link s:Terms of surrender of the Spanish authorities of Gibraltar in 1704 which you can pipe quite cleanly to surrender. -- Atama頭 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, don't take me wrong but, have you been following the discussion lately? Because you've had 3 days already to comment on Justin's proposal (and I thought you did, if I tell you the truth). What's wrong with it, really? Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss this as there is a complete record of the discussions here. However, I'm not getting paid to edit wikipedia so responses are on an 'as and when' basis. I do have a life. But lets not get bogged down in detail, what do you think of my latest version above which is NPOV to the point and minimalist. Regarding the link to the terms of surrender, thats fine. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Gibnews but I have a problem with it, it fails to mention the fact that the commanders lost control of the men, otherwise it implies that the allies ignored the terms of surrender. Cremallera acknowledges this above. I'd offer the following as a compromise, which hopefully satisfies all parties but is achieved at the expense of trimming a few words. Let me state that I'm not prepared to add just a few more words. Justin talk 09:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for nearby areas of Spain.

OK, I can live with that, but if that is not acceptable to the rest, lets stick with what is on the page currently - I'm not prepared to argue or concede any more. I don't think we need to say 'townspeople' as its pretty obvious who engaged in reprisals but its neutral and will do. Its reasonable to include the wikilink to explain pillaging, and Catholic should be capitalised. --Gibnews (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? What does it mean that you are not prepared to concede any more? To concede what? Do I need your permission to edit this article as of today? Is it of your own?

Sorry but yes, we should discuss what's wrong with the aforementioned wording because, despite the existing complete record of the discussions here, you've just dismissed it without substantiating. It's been debated and accepted by Imalbornoz, Justin and myself, and it is supported by reliable sources, so the least you could do -out of the most elemental respect to us all- is explaining what exactly do you disagree with, why do you disagree and why should your opinion have more bearing. You've had plenty of time already to enjoy your life and, on top of that, share your thoughts with us in this particular matter. Thanks in advance for your minutes. Cremallera (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop rattling my cage and concentrate on the wording, you have not said whether you accept the above proposal. That is what we are here for not an endless argument. --Gibnews (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made an effort to not give my opinion on what the text actually says, I just want to help come to a consensus between the regular editors here. But I admit that in Gibnews' proposed text, I find it confusing when it says, "There were reprisal killings." My first thought is, against whom, by whom? If I didn't know already from the discussions on this page I doubt I'd be able to understand what that means. I just wanted to point out that it's probably pushing brevity a bit too far, saying at least who did the killings or who was killed would probably be sufficient clarification. (The reader would assume that if the townspeople carried them out, the sailors and marines were the victims, or that if the sailors and marines were the victims that the townspeople committed the acts.) -- Atama頭 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but Justins version above I altered slightly does address that. --Gibnews (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, I think in context the average reader would have no trouble figuring out what was meant. I'll wait for others' input but it looks like there's very little difference between your proposal and the proposal endorsed by Cremarella and Justin. The only differences I see are that you removed the word "most" from "Catholic churches" (for brevity, I assume), and you omitted the year from the date that order was restored (again, for brevity, and because the reader can assume it was the same year as the surrender). Both are minor changes.

The biggest change is saying that the population left for "nearby areas of Spain". Since I've proposed that we leave out San Roque until a broader discussion about that subject an occur, could we agree that including information about the population leaving for nearby areas (if it's included) does not imply that the San Roque discussion is over? I know that before I suggested a piped link to Campo de Gibraltar might substitute for a San Roque mention, but since that was rejected I wanted it to be clear that if it's included now that it doesn't constitute an acceptance of the compromise I mentioned before. With that said, does anyone object to including that information as Gibnews has proposed? -- Atama頭 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think 'most' does not read as well, although I believe it was 13/14 which is most. Leaving out the year was an error, yes that should go in. Nearby areas of Spain is more accurate than San Roque, a town formally created in 1706 as that was just one of the places. --Gibnews (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the few changes purely for brevity that you've noted, thats how I was able to shoe horn the changes to fit your suggested compromise in. Lets look at what is actually suggested shall we, the others want to include an edit that says they departed for a town that didn't yet exist. Does that not seem somewhat illogical? Justin talk 13:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for nearby areas of Spain.

Wikipedia operates, I believe, by consensus and the question is do we have one? --Gibnews (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, as previously stated, it does not seem illogical at least to the following historians: Sir William Jackson, George Hills, Ignacio López de Ayala and Allen Andrews. The population settled around San Roque's shrine, which exists since XVI century . As explained already, it is impossible to disconnect the exodus of Gibraltar's villagers from the creation of San Roque's municipality. The place was populated from day one. Philip the Fifth granted the status of "city" two years later, in 1706.

As for the text you both are preparing; I'd like to know first what's wrong with the formerly agreed text. And I ask this hoping not to be rattling Gibnews' cage in the process. Cremallera (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jackson says they dispersed into the campo seeking temporary homes, some people went to Medina Sidona, Ronda, Malaga, most of the fishermen went to the ruins of Algeciras. Other families moved to Los Barrios which had grown to a small town by 1716 But what Spaniards do in Spain stays there and is not pertinent to an article on Gibraltar. 'Nearby areas of Spain' describes things quite well. --Gibnews (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So the statement that they went to San Roque is in fact incorrect, then is it not. It is even more illogical now. The question I asked was whether it seemed logical to say they went to a place that didn't exist in 1704, which wasn't founded till 1706. It isn't logical unless the intention is to add just a few more words to describe how they dispersed. And as we've acknowledged the issue around adding more and more, that won't be the case will it? You were amongst those pushing for saying where the population went, we've offered a compromise, is it acceptable or not, or shall we continue with reams of unproductive talk discussion. I believe the ball is in your court. Justin talk 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've read the discussion and, as I had to take a wikibreak some days ago, I left my explaination open.

I'll try to summarize the rationale under my proposal. It was this:

“ After the surrender, drunken sailors raped and pillaged the town, and desecrated churches. The Spanish carried out reprisal killings. Order was restored after three days, but the majority of the Spanish population felt that living in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left en masse for the Campo de Gibraltar, where they founded a town nearby called San Roque shortly afterwards. ”

Now, I'll provide the arguments that support my redaction. I'd wish that discussion were about arguments and not about "feelings".

• The article talks about Gibraltar as a whole, not about the British territory of Gibraltar (it does not follow the approach of Taiwan and the Republic of China). Gibraltar was a Spanish town, head of an extense municipal term for two centuries and a half. It remained so until 1713, where it was ceded to Great Britain. Claims that "Gibraltar are not Spain" are only valid when talking about the British fortress/colony/overseas territory/whatever. Talking about Gibraltar and its Spanish inhabitants is valid until 1713.
• The fact that the Gibraltar population left the head of the municipal term and scattered through the municipal term (but mainly in San Roque) and even beyond is something that is quoted by all historians dealing with the history of Gibraltar (thus proving again my previous statement, that talking about San Roque is not strange to the history of Gibraltar). And I highlight again that we must be supported by secondary sources. See some examples:
  • Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:

“ All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (..) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. ”

• • William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.:

“ On 7 August a dejected procession filed out of the Land Port with Queen Isabella's banner at their head, followed by the city council, the garrison with their three brass cannon, the religious orders, and all the inhabitants who did not wish to take the oath of allegiance to Charles III. Some four thousand people left the city; only about seventy of the original Spanish inhabitants took the risk of staying behind in the town that at the time had twelve hundred dwellings. (..) Then they disperses into the Campo seeking temporary homes. One of the leading city councillors offered to keep Isabella's banner and the city records in this country house. Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ”

• • George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.:

“ Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, 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. Philip V, in granting the authority and in subsequent communications, addressed them always as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. ”

The conclusions of these quotations are simple: the movement of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque is something that is extensively described by secondary sources dealing with the issue. With regard to factual accuracy, it's obvious that a) the most of the Gibraltar inhabitants settled down in San Roque (mentions to Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga are included just to describe the spacial extension of the exodus, but only in minor numbers, therefore, in a summary like this are not needed); b) San Roque establised itself as the "continuation" of Gibraltar (it kept its standard, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council...); c) that status was recognized in 1706, when Gibraltar was not a British territory.

BTW, neither Jackson nor Hills mention the conversos issue.

• No mention to San Roque as "continuator" of the town (as a whole) of Gibraltar are introduced, however its significance. No mention to the standard, the coat of arms, the motto granted by Philip V. That's a concession that I make in order to avoid further conflicts and any accussation of undue height or POV. However, I can't see any similar concession from the other side.
• Finally, I think that this is the time to acknowledge why any mention to San Roque is being "vetoed". I understand the stance by Justin and Gibnews. When during the Francoist dictatorship, the dictator tried to twist the Gibraltarians hand (he didn't treat their own citizens much better), one of the arguments that the dictatorship used was that the population of Gibraltar was allegedly "artificially planned" to the prejudice of the original population which "had been expelled". Moreover, when the Gibraltar question was analyzed by the UN Committee on Decolonization in 1964, the mayor of San Roque was given a hearing as a representative of the 'Town of San Roque where the most noble and loyal city of Gibraltar dwells'. He described San Roque as the direct continuator of the old town of Gibraltar, occupied by the English, having been established by the original and real Gibraltarians ['gibraltareños' in the original text] and to its inhabitants as the descendants of the original and real Gibratarians [same comment] or the legitimate Gibraltarians [same comment]. Gibraltarians are described as the current population of Gibraltar. I understand that such kind of statements (about real and not real Gibraltarians) deeply hurt Gibraltarians. But it must be also stated that only because a fact is malliciously used by a "bad guy" it does not mean that such a fact must be hidden in order to avoid further ills.
• To sum up, my proposal just aims to asepticly describe a fact, avoiding any mention (for example, the Philip V motto) that might be understood as a POV excuse to support propagand from any side. As I've proved, such a mention is relevant (all historians mention it), tightened to the topic of the article (it does not only talks about British Gibraltar) and described in a balanced way with due height. If my proposal is not accepted, I can't see any other option than finishing the mediation (something that would be a very bad outcome of this process). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NO The references you quote extensively, perhaps enough that you are infringing their copyright - there being a policy about not posting excerpts for discussion like that on talk pages - actually say that the people went to the Campo and other areas and not specifically San Roque which did not exist as a town in 1704 which is the time we are discussing You say that the other places are included to show the area of dispersal clearly wp:or.

It is not a fact, and yes the propaganda aspect is used maliciously and although Franco is dead, his ideas about Gibraltar live on. Sad as I thought we were near a consensus. --Gibnews (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gibnews, it's extremely disappointing to see your lack of arguments, especially considering the length of my argumentation. Besides your refusal and an irrelevant aside about quotation (such quotations are in a talk page and only with the purpose of allowing the discussion, they may be removed afterwards) you simply say that "actually say that the people went to the Campo and other areas and not specifically San Roque". Let's take Harvey (its work has a foreground by Field Marshal Sir John Chapple):

“ All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (..) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. ”

Possibly my English is poor, but it explicitly quotes that many settled in San Roque. Not other "many" settled elsewhere.

Let's take now Williams, the Governor:

“ Then they disperses into the Campo seeking temporary homes. One of the leading city councillors offered to keep Isabella's banner and the city records in this country house. Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ”

Possibly the most important settlement (..) was around the Hermitage of San Roque refutes clearly your statement about "not specifically San Roque". It's really difficult to find a consensus if you openly denies something that has been written down by sources just two paragraphs above.

On the other hand you say "in 1704 which is the time we are discussing". No, I'm not discussing about 1704. I'm discussing about the Gibraltar article. Should the article on Gibraltar describe where the inhabitants of the town settled down when they left it, where they re-established the city council and where they kept the memoirs of the lost town? As long as this article is not devoted to the British territory but to the whole concept, it's clearly relevant, as any historian describing its history mentions. Besides your NO, there is no arguments. Obviously, in that situation is difficult to find a consensus. Possibly Franco invented that San Roque existed. Has anyone seen it? ;-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The item we are discussing ends on August 7th 1704. At that time there was no town of San Roque and whatever happened in Spain thereafter is the history of Spain and NOT Gibraltar. You might believe that there is a 'Spanish Gibraltar' Ayala who Jackson cites might also have believed that there was one later on in 1706, but there was no such thing in August 1704. And you know very well why its important to you to include this myth about San Roque, for propaganda purposes to deny Gibraltarians status as a people. Wikipedia is not for myths and propaganda purposes. --Gibnews (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

End of Mediation?

1. We've never vetoed any mention of San Roque, far from it. You do not help your case by making a falsehood.
2. It is patronising in the extreme and utterly wrong to try and "explain" our objections. I've explained myself repeatedly, this just demonstrates more than anything else, that the above editor does not approach the discussions in good faith.
3. Whatever other authors feel the need to express in an extensive tome on Gibraltar does not dictate that we mention it here. This is a summary for an encyclopedia not an academic reference work.
4. I don't accept your proposal, if you wish to try and derail mediation that is your prerogative. We already had a proposal on the table that we were already discussing. If you wish to walk away from mediation that doesn't mean the rest of us can't work together to try and sort this out. Justin talk 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin, nobody is really in a position to veto anything, but the obsessive inclusion of San Roque has a Scottish verdict of 'case not proven' Might I suggest that our mediator calls for a straw poll to see if Ecememl is the only editor who can't accept the last compromise version drafted or we have achieved nothing in these long and tedious discussions. --Gibnews (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, we are not simply quoting "other authors". A majority of reputable historians who have published work concerning Gibraltar's history has been cited, as opposed to your opinion and Gibnews'. By which standard are we "obsessed" when it's you who object to publish in a Wikipedia article what almost every verifiable source "feels the need to express"?

I sympathize, however, with your disapproval of "patronising in the extreme" comments, just as I really dislike your inclination to judge on your interlocutors' alleged good or bad faith, or your attributing the "wish to try and derail mediation" to Ecemaml. May I remind you your acceptance of this proposal prior the one you (that is, Gibnews and yourself) are currently discussing? It has been ditched out without even a tentative explanation to the other editors who were debating it as well. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The version you quote is the same as the one I have been proposing excepting that the latter includes that the inhabitants went to Spain which someone else added to the previous version. If you feel leaving that out is better, then I am quite happy to do so. Apart from some minor tidying up of language, sources and capitalisation, its the same. So are we in agreement?? --Gibnews (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• a) Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, desecrating most churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

• b) The Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for nearby areas of Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excepting the exclusion of the term "most" in the sentence "desecrating Catholic churches", and except the last sentence "By August 7 1704 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed" as well, which uses the conjuction "but" inbetween the statements "order was restored" and "(...) the population (...) departed". All this has been discussed earlier. There was some sort of incipient agreement.

And no, I don't think that leaving the fate of Gibraltar's villagers out is better. I think it should be explained, just as the siege, capture, subsequent siege and ulterior Treaty are reported. The references already provided do so as well. Cremallera (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera, the phrase "If my proposal is not accepted, I can't see any other option than finishing the mediation", please explain to me how that isn't an ultimatum and about to derail mediation? Also could you please explain how you clarify Ecemaml's comments about Gibnews and myself.

I've also trimmed just a few words to try and get a compact description of where the populace went. Pls can we compare apples with apples, the fact that many authors mention something in a book does not mean we also have to mention it here in an encyclopedic article. Can we address that please instead of repeating the same argument. Justin talk 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How's that going, Justin? The phrase you quoted is similar to this one, yet you remained silent then, so I can't understand why should you be annoyed now. As for Ecemaml's comments, I believe that you refer to the penultimate paragraph (the "I understand the stance by Justin and Gibnews"...). Well, I think that's merely his opinion. You can either agree or disagree, but I wouldn't deem it "patronising" nor would I feel insulted. Althought that's simply my perspective, of course.

Regarding apples: indeed, "just because many authors mention something in a book does not mean we also have to". Provided that a good reason exists to just dismiss what all those historians seemingly consider relevant and thus, publish. And I truly mean it. However, please understand that while I appreciate your opinion, all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign objective relevance values to that information. Cremallera (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because I was just as frustrated with the lack of progress at that point in time. But in case you hadn't noticed both Gibnews and I have made a special effort to try and reach an understanding since. Its also extremely patronising to be told what your opinion is, it happens to be wrong. It was also way out of order, when Gibnews has been out of order, you'll find that I've told him so. Interesting is it not.

But a good reason does exits, its been provided. If we had to included every single opinion mentioned by authors we could never summarise anything. A simple reductio ad absurdum to show what your argument doesn't hold water. The criteria I've suggested is the relevance to the subject matter at hand, which is a summary suitable for an overview on Gibraltar bearing in mind this is an encyclopedia not a definitive academic reference work. Lets just take a quick look at what another encyclopedia might find relevant see [34]. Neatly illustrate exactly what I mean. Ciao. Justin talk 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[UNINDENT]

Hi all. Justin, I'll comment on your comments: 1. You'll notice that I've used quotation when talking about "veto". The fact is that you and Gibnews does not accept any mention to San Roque here. That's not a falsehood. Otherwise, we'd not be here in this everlasting discussion.
2. I'm trying to figure out which is the reason not to include any mention to the destiny of most of the Gibraltar inhabitants as I haven't seen any sensible argument yet. Wondering about the rationale of editions does not mean that bad faith is assumed, far from it. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.
3. On the contrary, what reputable secondary sources mention is something that is mandatory as basis of an encyclopaedic article. I remind you that the mentions to San Roque has been dismissed as not relevant to this article. Its mention in whatever secondary source just means that is relevant. You haven't provided yet an argumentation about why it cannot be mentioned provided that this article deals with Gibraltar as a whole. 4. This mediation has been the first effort by the Wikipedia "system" to help us to make this article neutral. I cannot see any reason to make it derail. I just remember that it's you the one that has talked about "finishing the mediation". On the other hand, we did agree on the Atama's proposal some days ago. Some parties (me among them) disagreed on not adding a mention to San Roque to finish the paragraph. So a partial consensus was clear and the San Roque issue may be agreed on in the future, if you wish. I've provided my arguments above and, just as an aside what Cremallera has said ("all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign relevance values to that information") is a short of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to wipe something that sources clearly state you must have very, very good arguments. And I haven't seen them. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see.

1. We have never vetoed its mention, point of fact, we suggest mentioning it on [[History of Gibraltar]. Your comment does not reflect the discussion. Misrepresenting what people say is unhelpful.
2. The compromise I've offered does mention something.
3. Sorry but I did provide an appropriate example. You're actually misrepresenting what people say yet again. We say that mention belongs in a detailed article but its inappropriate for an overview.
4. Sorry but I have provided a decent cogent argument, ignore it all you like, it isn't going to go away.

The point you keep making is a logical fallacy, you say we have to use what other authors consider relevant as the benchmark. The logical extension of that is we must include everything that those authors highlight in their work. This is clearly impractical as no article could be shorter than the reference used.

And I'm not wiping out what sources say, I merely suggest that certain details don't have to be in an overview. Further when the previous mediator used the wikipedia "system" you referred to, funnily enough the current article was picked as the most neutral.

There is a compromise that was under discussion, please don't derail it.

Yet again the arguments are misrepresented, the actions of other editors maligned. Do you think this is helpful? Please address the points made for once. Justin talk 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of fallacies... :) Hmph yes, while Wikipedia has it's policies, I believe Britannica has it's own... policies, as well. As for my argument holding water and all those 'simple reductions ad absurdum', I'll reiterate this: you've your opinion. I've got mine. Both are respectable, but mine is supported by a vast array of reliable sources and yours isn't. Provided that the usual procedure is to publish an edition as long as it's properly referenced and compliant with other guidelines, you should bear powerful reasons to claim otherwise. And please notice that a reductio ad absurdum isn't an argument but a logical tool to try to negate other's arguments. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

May I observe that you're incorrect, the process isn't to insist on publishing something simply because its sourced. Sources can't necessarily be used on their own to justify an edit but a lack of sources can be used to justify removing uncited material. The process is to build a consensus and to convince others, using reasons. Yes you're right a reductio ad absurdum isn't an argument but a logical tool. In this case I was simply trying to use it to demonstrate that there is a logical fallacy you're missing not to try and negate an argument. Justin talk 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to end mediation. This one has been the most balanced discussion I have seen in this article, so far.

I will not use the word "veto". But the fact is that two editors don't want the words "San Roque" mentioned in the History section of the article at any cost, even though it is supported by all sources. On the other hand, these two editors are totally OK with events that maybe only one source mentions, such as "drunkenness" on the side of sailors and marines pillaging Gibraltar and to "Cordoba" as a destination of some Sephardim who only stayed in the Rock for three years. I do not say that I don't want these events mentioned in the article, I am only saying that it looks very inconsistent and I have not seen yet a reason to explain why -opposite to what most historians think- "Cordoba" or sailors being "drunken" is more important to the history of Gibraltar than San Roque.

On the other hand: should we publish what we have agreed and go on with San Roque afterwards? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we go to The Bar Torres and discuss it in detail there. --Gibnews (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"But the fact is that two editors don't want the words "San Roque" mentioned in the History section of the article at any cost, even though it is supported by all sources." Sigh, to be blunt that is nonsense and bears no relationship whatsoever to what has been said. Can we just stop this please, continually repeating the same thing, which happens to be untrue is getting us nowhere. If you want mediation to fail then continuously mischaracterising what people say is a certain recipe for success. Justin talk 15:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I barely had time to even glance at Wikipedia this weekend, I wish I had made time. In any case, going back to the compromise itself, does anyone have any problem with this text (which I put together based on Cremarella's comments above):

The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.

Does anyone object to changing the text to this language for now? We can then start a new discussion about San Roque, asking for outside views. I can help get that started. We can also remove the protection on the article if this text is accepted. Thank you. -- Atama頭 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me to putting this in the article. Before we unprotect the article can we have a solemn undertaking from all involved not to introduce contentious material before suggesting it in talk first.

Not to be negative about this but I can only see this moving forward when people stop mischaracterising what people say. Would you be averse to commenting when people do that? Justin talk 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, if you want me to comment on mischaracterisation, at this point I think that as far as this particular article goes both sides have taken a hard stance on San Roque. One side says it can't go in, the other side says it must, which is why I suggested excluding it from this mediation. I don't see it as a mischaracterisation that yourself and Gibnews are inflexible on that point as far as this article goes, but you two are no more inflexible than Cremarella, Imalbornoz, and Ecemacl. Sometimes that happens with articles, it's just part of Wikipedia.

You are correct that Imalbornoz's second point isn't completely accurate. A compromise was suggested that didn't explicitly mention San Roque, but did discuss more generally where the population went to, which was rejected because it didn't explicitly mention San Roque.

The other points made are about the content itself, and I'm not going to get into a personal evaluation of the accurate representation of sources in the article's text and/or proposed text because that's not why I'm here. -- Atama頭 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text can be included in the article. I also think Atama's description of the current situation is quite accurate, and outside views would probably be helpful with the San Roque issue (right now we have entered a loop in the discussion around this point). --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But what we don't do is say that San Roque can't be mentioned at all, which is how it is portrayed. Further we did try to meet people half way. Some have been less flexible. Anyway do we have an agreement to discuss edits first? Justin talk 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Atama text is fine. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I have a comment on your statement "A compromise was suggested that didn't explicitly mention San Roque, but did discuss more generally where the population went to, which was rejected because it didn't explicitly mention San Roque." As far as I'm concerned, my main concern to reject the lack of mention to San Roque is (besides my lack of understanding about, paraphrasing to Gibnews, the "obsession" for not mentioning it) because, as I've shown above providing relevant sources, mentioning the Campo as a whole gives a false impression about a random and equally sized dispersion through the area, when it's not the case (San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños"). Moreover, San Roque was the place where the Gibraltar City Council was re-established, the town that kept the whole of the Gibraltar municipal term (but the peninsula), keeping all the symbols of the lost town (which are kept to date). Although such facts are possibly not relevant for the British territory of Gibraltar, is obviously relevant to Gibraltar as a whole. Not mentioning it while leaving a generic mention to the Campo is simply a POV (IMHO, obviously). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, I support the Atama's proposal on accepting what has been proposed and leave San Roque's "veto" as a next step in the mediation (or in a third-party RFC)

UNINDENT

Well, that's something. I already agreed with that text some days ago, and I still do. As you all know, I think that the description of the capture is incomplete without stating the fate of the villagers. I acknowledge your positions as well. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But you don't want to say they went to the Campo. I thought it was being helpful to include that but it seems to have put achieving a consensus back a few days; But I guess we are there. This talk page belongs in an archive. --Gibnews (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagreed with you on that but still offered a compromise in mentioning the Campo de Gibraltar. There we go. Whats next an RFC? Justin talk 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So the compromise is including a misleading statement that suggests that the Gibraltar population spread more or less anarchically, randomly and equally-sized throughout the Campo (that's not true). I can't see how such a "compromise" complies with Wikipedia principles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the objections to Campo de Gibraltar, so let's just consider that a compromise that didn't work. Since everyone is fine with the proposed text, I'll go ahead and implement the change, and I'll also remove protection from the article since Eyeserene protected it until mediation was concluded.

If nobody objects, I'm going to close the mediation with this compromise. Note that mediation is not like arbitration; nothing is binding, but it's hoped that everyone here complies with the agreed-upon consensus. I'm going to still hang around the article (I'll keep it watchlisted) and I'll help get the RfC started. -- Atama頭 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If the RFC is replacing mediation then fine, though I'd prefer it that you didn't close it just yet until a conclusion is reached. Justin talk 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see where this is going with false POV assertions like San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños" No, although a large number of Gibraltarians lived in the Campo until Franco forced them to sell their homes and move to Gibraltar and many Gibraltarians today buy property there. It is unproductive to further the myth that sitting in San Roque is the displaced population of Gibraltar awaiting their return. The only way they are coming back is if they buy property in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous entry

Hi, I've just included five people born in Gibraltar in the section "Notable people from Gibraltar". It's been removed on the grounds of being a "Ridiculous entry"!!! Sincerely, as time passes by I understand less such kind of editions.

To avoid any kind of offensive description, I've also changed the introduction of the section since it talked about "Gibraltarians" as it seems as if using such term for people not related to Gibraltar before 1713 and make both the title of the section and the introduction consistent (I mean, if a list of notable Gibraltarians is required, the best place would be Gibraltarian people).

I could understand that some of them could have been removed on the grounds of lack of notability. However, the removal has been total. I don't understand why the archbishop of a minor Catholic dioceses (Archbishop of Southwark) is most notable than the primate of Spain or why a merchant and political figure in Upper Canada is most notable that a Spanish colonial administrator (Captain General of Venezuela) which also founded a town with the same name as the one we're dealing with in this article. I don't understand why Simón Susarte or Juan Romero de Figueroa, both deemed as notable as they have an article in Wikipedia are not notable enough (especially considering that only thanks to Figueroa the Catholic Cathedral of Gibraltar is what we have today). As with many other editions, surprising. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at this shall we.

Do they meet WP:NOTABILITY NO.

Most were redlinks.

Lets also look at the real reason for the entry. WP:POINT. You're simply disrupting the article to make a point.

Yet again you're seeking to make ridiculous additions to the article to create conflict, like changing the date of the start of the second world war. Time you grew up. You're supposed to be an admin, your behaviour here is little short of vandalism. Justin talk 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring to change the date of the start of the Second World War.

Edit warring to keep none notable entries, red links and an entry with English and grammar errors? Even for you this is just getting silly. I'm not getting into a conflict with you. I'm off to bed, I've explained why I reverted you. Revert again if you like but we both know your actions won't be improving the article or wikipedia.

If you expended as much energy in constructive editing, as you do in creating conflict you might be a productive editor. Justin talk 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I really love wikipedia. It's the most amazing project I've ever taken part in it. However, spending more and more time in refuting baseless accusations is something really annoying. I think that the only crime I haven't been accused of having committed is to kill Manolete. Moreover, tt seems as if someone wished I give up and leave these articles. I won't. Sorry. I've asked you not to take this as something personal. It isn't. However, you insist in twisting any of my editions in almost vandalism. You claim that I tried to change the start of the WWII. Wow... I possibly thought nobody could notice that and go on in my plan on controlling Wikipedia. Even for a paranoid that would be two stupid. Stating that the active involvement of Gibraltar during the WWII started in 1940 is possibly something that could be denied, even if it's true. Here you have what I told to Gibnews:

“ Wow, stating that there was no active involvement of Gibraltar in WWII until 1940 is a "disruptive edition" (..) You possibly know about the Phoney War, that conscription was introduced in Gibraltar in 1940, that evacuation plans were drawn up and implemented in May 1940, that Churchill considered the evacuation of Gibraltar in June 1940 or that the City Council was suspended in 1941. ”

On the other hand, Justin, thank you for your patronizing piece of advice but... I'm a quite productive editor (especially considering that most of the article history of Gibraltar and 90% of the references in such an article were introduced by me).

Finally, as a personal request, stop with your ad hominem mentions. Provide arguments, especially linked to Wikipedia policies. Thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[35], [36] just two examples of you being needlessly provocative. Were those edits aimed at producing an encyclopedia or gaining a rise?

The fact is you did change the start date of the second world war, it was purely disruptive, that edit was pure vandalism. The posthumous justification is specious as right next to the text you changed is a chronology that refers to events in 1939. Adding 5 obscure Spaniards purely for the purposes of creating disruption is needlessly pointy.

You also seem to forget that is was me that proffered the proverbial olive branch only to have you dash it away, you also forget that it was also me that invited you to edit on Gibraltar. And if I don't see anything productive in your editing recently, that is an example of WP:DUCK not an ad hominem attack.

Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there. Justin talk 14:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If I might suggest, if an entry is bluelinked then it is notable. Wikipedia doesn't have biographies of non-notable people, any biographies of non-notable people should be and are deleted. Even a goatherd is notable if he has had an impact on history, which is supported by his article. If the people aren't notable then articles for deletion is where that issue is settled. People who don't currently have an article may or may not meet notability, perhaps the articles just need to be created, perhaps they never will be (and shouldn't be). A compromise for that list is to only include people who currently have an article in this encyclopedia, remember that there is a full List of Gibraltarians article with additional entries (many redlinks) that can include the people who don't currently have an article but should in the future. The list in this article is only a sample of the main article.

Edit wars in general are bad. Technically Justin has violated WP:3RR with 4 reverts in 24 hours, but since he has indicated that he is taking a short wikibreak, a block to prevent furthering the war would be meaningless. Others have allowed the war to continue, including Ecemaml who has had 2 reverts himself in that time period. Seeing this happen during mediation is disturbing. Please work out your conflicts here, not in your edits, please. -- Atama頭 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, technically I did not violate 3RR, the edit by English Bobby was pure vandalism in nature, removing sources and changing text for POV reasons. Given the grammar and spelling errors in Ecemaml's edits, not to mention the redlinks introduced, they were of questionable value in improving the article. Justin talk 14:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the people included are notable is immaterial as Gibraltarian status did not exist until 1816. The list of people has been kept short and the introduction of obscure Spaniards looks like an attempt to provoke and edit war, rather like the attempt to change Gibraltar's entry into WW2 or continual argument over Peter Hain's promotion of 'joint sovereignty' being referred to as a 'sell out' here. --Gibnews (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair point. For a list of notable Gibraltarians, they should be notable and they should be Gibraltarians. Meeting the former requirement doesn't mean they meet the latter one. Of course, who is and isn't a Gibraltarian has been argued. -- Atama頭 02:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is explained in the article Gibraltarian status --Gibnews (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarian [ˌdʒɪbrɔːlˈtɛərɪən] adj (Placename) of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants; n(Placename) (Social Science / Peoples) a native or inhabitant of Gibraltar

Hasn't there been a town called Gibraltar for centuries before 1713? Weren't its inhabitants called Gibraltarians? Should all notable (blueletter) Gibraltarians previous to British rule be deleted from all publications related to Gibraltar? (nobody take offense, but this is a bit "Orwellian") --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the term is recent and applies only to the current inhabitants; previous to the events of 1704 they were Spanish. Trying to label them as 'Gibraltarians' is revisionist Orwellian nonsense and an attempt to undermine the Gibraltarian identity. --Gibnews (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just some obvious remarks:

1. This article is about Gibraltar. Not about the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. Having separate articles (one for the town and other for the territory) could be sensible (we have an article for Formosa and other for Taiwan). Unfortunately, we don't have them, as the article covers the whole stuff.
2. Therefore, notable people from Gibraltar might be included here as long as they are notable. I simply remind you about the name of the section: "Notable people from Gibraltar". Therefore, it's possible to include any Gibraltar-born notable guy, regardless of being Gibraltarian or not (I won't argue about that... if you think that Simón Susarte is not a Gibraltarian, it's OK for me, although I can provide plenty of sources using the adjective 'Gibraltarian' to any Gibraltar-born guy).
3. To avoid confusions and useless arguments, I modified the introduction of the section, to make it consistent with the title of the section (as it talked this time about notable Gibraltarians). As I've stated in item 1 (we don't have separate articles) inclusion of any Gibraltar-born person in such a section is valid and compliant to the Wikipedia policies. If, for whatever reason, it's wished to have a list only with Gibraltarian (i.e. British subjects) notable people, its place should be the article devoted to Gibraltarian people, not the one to Gibraltar, which covers both the Spanish and the British period (obviously also the Moor, the Visigoth, the Vandal, the Roman periods and so on).

IMHO the removal of Gibraltar-born notable guys from this article on the grounds that they're Spanish is a clear sign of gross POV edition. Obviously, we can discuss on a one-by-one basis if the five guys I've suggested are notable or not (or if they can be included in the section). After a more careful reading, I've noticed that the list includes people that was notable beyond Gibraltar (otherwise we could list any person in the wikipedia that was born in Gibraltar) and therefore, possibly both Simón Susarte and Father Figueroa (beyond its key role in the preservation of the Catholic faith and the now cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned in the first years of the Habsburg and then British rule) should not be added, since its notability is mainly confined to the Gibraltar history. However, I can't see any reason not to include a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church (Diego de Astorga y Céspedes) or a conquistador that founded another Gibraltar in the other end of the world (Gonzalo de Piña Ludueña or Gonzalo de Piña Lidueña, see here for a sample search on one of the variants of the name; don't worry about the red link, I'll turn it into blue tonight) in the list. On the other hand, I'd like to call for calm. Baseless accusations on any kind are not a sign of civil behaviour. Insinuations of sockpuppetry are really annoying. If some of you feel I have a sockpuppet, please, ask for a verification. You can count on my permission. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The current edition of the Gibraltar Who's Who lists around 150 notable persons who are more significant than pre 1704 Spaniards. Indeed most of the entries listed under Gibraltarian people are of more interest, apart for use in provoking an edit war. Come to that, I have an electronic copy of the Gibraltar telephone directory, which is out of copyright, but it would be as inappropriate to add that to the Gibraltar article; so lets get some perspective and although Gibraltar is accustomed to harassment from Spain, rise above being a Spanish editor and pushing your POV onto these articles, its bad karma. --Gibnews (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, please, I'd be pleased to include such 150 notable persons. It wouldn't do the people I've include less notable (notability is not defined by comparison). Have you got any sensible argument to prevent notable Gibraltar-born people from being added to a section on notable Gibraltar-born articles beyond your paranoia about evil Spanish plots to harrass Gibnews and his fellow countrymen (it's rather boring). --Ecemaml (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The people you list are of no consequence in relation to the history of Gibraltar, and are not listed in the registry here as having been born in Gibraltar. The reason for inclusion is transparent. --Gibnews (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"The people you list are of no consequence in relation to the history of Gibraltar". It could be. The same happens with William George Penney, Michael George Bowen, Henry Francis Cary, Thomas William Bowlby, Frederick Stanley Maude, John Beikie, Don Pacifico, John Montresor, Gustavo Bacarisas or Peter Dignan (10 out of 13, and being quite conservative). In fact, only two of them, Don Pacifico and Gustavo Bacarisas, are actually Gibraltarian (in the sense you define it). The rest are British subjects that were born accidentally there, as their parents were garrisoned there. With regard to "registries", they're not needed. Possibly you know that verifiable sources are needed for everything. Have I provided sources stating that the persons I've listed were born in Gibraltar? Yes. The reason to do so is pretty clear, as you've openly described: "Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens."

As I've described, there is not such a "long" list. I initially proposed five guys for a list with 13 people already listed and currently I'm just proposing two. Notability has been explained in the articles and, as I've explained, this article is not the property of the current inhabitants of Gibraltar (as the article describes the whole of the history of the town, which started some centuries ago). Again, I suggest that you split the article into two (as with Taiwan and the Republic of China) but until it happens (personally I don't support such an option), you don't have any wikipedian argument to hide that there were Gibraltar-born people that were notable for the history of Spain (in the same way as 10 of the people that are currently listed were notable for the history of places other than Gibraltar). If you wish to list only Gibraltarians, a) you should transfer them to Gibraltarian people; and b) remove no less that eight since they're plain British subjects, without any Gibraltarian facet beyond that it was his place of birth. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The heading was in relation to notable people born in Gibraltar, not obscure people. Simón Susarte deserves a mention in the History of Gibraltar article, although there is no proof he was actually born in Gibraltar. But he is irrelevant in the main article. All you have done is dredge up some Spaniards with a connection to Gibraltar, who are not important enough to be featured in Wilipedia in their own right and added them to cause a dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you go on without answering to my arguments.

You say: "All you have done is dredge up some Spaniards with a connection to Gibraltar, who are not important enough to be featured in Wilipedia in their own right and added them to cause a dispute"

Well, most of the people listed in the section are British people with a connection to Gibraltar. Paraphrasing you, there is no proof that none of them had other relation to Gibraltar that being born accidentally in there as their parents were garrisoned in the town. On the other hand, you're free to challenge the notability of the people I'm including (I encourage you to do so). The fact that they're not included yet only proves the systemic bias of every wikipedia, mostly focused on the people of the linguistic area the wikipedia belongs to. The fact that you don't find them important (regardless of fulfilling the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY) only proves that it's an issue personal to you. What seems fairly clear in this section is that the only problem with these guys is them being Spanish. Why? I don't know. But anyway, I haven't seen yet any argument related to a concrete Wikipedia policy or convention. And as I told you, as far as this article is devoted to Gibraltar, as a whole, and not to the British political entity, I'll add notable people from whatever period, not only the ones you like (and, to avoid your suspicion, I won't intend they're Gibraltarians —most of the ones in the list aren't so— but simply Gibraltar-born people). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They are still insignificant nobodies you have dredged up to cause a dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, read carefully Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gibraltar and you'll discover who's actually creating a dispute on unknown grounds. The consensus by uninvolved editors seems clear. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of William Penney, who developed the only reliable British sunshine, and such is very notable, the ones I added were all Gibraltarians. As the idea is to keep the list short, and there is a category for people from Gibraltar there are some who could go along with your obscure Spaniards. Another famous ex-resident is smallpox as the samples in captivity were born in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, read carefully Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gibraltar and you'll find a clear consensus by uninvolved editors (not least you've been warned about giving up your controversial editions) --Ecemaml (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To confirm, the view from ANI is that a list of notable people from Gibralter should contain notable people of all nationality born on the rock in any time period. It is the geographical location, not the regime, that is significant. Following precedent, if there are too many to fit in the main article, a list article should be created, as has been done at List of Gibraltarians. I note this does not currently include anyone born on the rock prior to the current regime, an oversight that should be dealt with. If necessary, that article should be renamed to List of people from Gibralter, in line with every other list of people from....article. A discussion will be necessary as to who are the rock's most famous sons/daughters, to go in the main article, but for other entries it should be assumed that if people have an article they are notable. Given the contentiousness, it is probably safer not to add any redlinks - first establish notability by creating at least a valid stub. If notability is disputed for any individual with an article, AfD is always available to test the opinion of the community. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think the idea of including smallpox as mooted above is novel but probably valid.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would violently object of the view was that Spaniards should be excluded if they were of merit. The point being that adding 5 obscure people simply because someone wrote an article to then add then here to start a dispute is being pointy. I note you comment that a disucssion is required to add them to the article, thing is if the Brits oppose obscure people being added, then the other side is going to scream censorship. I made a detailed comment at AN/I. Justin talk 13:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Justin, just to be clear, the Pointy thing was solely with reference to the attempt by Gibnews to PROD the articles in an effort to get them off the list, which was entirely the wrong way to go about it. The right way is to put them on the long list, and discuss whether they are notable enough to go on the short list - this wouldn't be disruptive at all (unless the discussion really really went downhill, which one of course assumes it wouldn't). I personally would think that only John Galliano is well enough known to go on the short list, but I'd probably fall foul of WP:RECENT over that one :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I would agree with all of that. Do you plan on sticking around? Justin talk 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen's comments. Considering Gibraltar had a long history before 1704, it would be strange if nobody of note lived there prior to that date. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to summarize, this is what I've included in the ANI section related to this "incident". These are the notable Gibraltar-born people I've introduced:

1. Simón Susarte: he led one of the attacks over Gibraltar during the first Spanish siege. He's notable for two matters: it's the only Gibraltar-born guy that lead an attack to the town and the only that did it over the top of the Rock. It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. However, as the section under discussion seems to list people that were notable "outside" Gibraltar, I have no problem (and I've said that above) if he's not included.
2. Juan Romero de Figueroa: the "local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people". That town happens to be Gibraltar. That town happens not have reached again 4,000 people until the 19th century (that is Henry Francis Cary, John Beikie, Don Pacifico and John Montresor were born in a town smaller than Spanish Gibraltar). That parish priest happens to be one of the 60 people that remained in the town after the Anglo-Dutch takeover. That parish priest happens to be the only eye-witness of the siege and takeover from the inside. That parish priest happens to be the primary source of what happened in those events by all the historians of Gibraltar (yes, including William Jackson, the British Governor of Gibraltar) That parish priest happens to be the responsible of that the current Cathedral in Gibraltar stays where it stays and has kept Catholic worship for five centuries. That parish priest was the first Vicar General of Gibraltar (that is, he was no longer a parish priest). That Vicar General happens to be especially respected by the Catholic Dioceses of Gibraltar and buried in the Cathedral (here). However, same comment applies.
3. Diego de Astorga y Céspedes: Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain, Grand Inquisitor, sponsor of one of the finest Baroque artworks in Spain (the Transparente). It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. I don't think further comments are needed.
4. Gonzalo Piña Ludueña: Spanish conquistador, governor of the province of Venezuela, founder of several colonial cities in nowadays Venezuela. Founder of the only other town in the world which shares the same name (as it was given it by Ludueña). Same comment as before.
5. Juan Asensio: General of the Mercedarian order, president of the Council of Castile, bishop of Lugo, Ávila and Jaén. At the moment, as he has no article, I don't object not to include it.

Therefore, I'll add just two Spaniards to the list, as their notability and relevance has been clearly established: Diego de Astorga y Céspedes and Gonzalo Piña Ludueña. Besides, after a quick look at Category:People from Gibraltar, Ayyad ben Moussa, a notable Gibraltar-born individual from the Moor period would be possibly worthy to be added. Best regars --Ecemaml (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my absence, Thanksgiving was crazy at my house and I had to take an unexpected Wikibreak. I'm glad for the opinions brought into this discussion and hope that the regular editors to this article respect them. It should be worth noting that even the article doesn't start at 1704, and it seems inconsistent to declare that Gibraltar sprang into being at that time. If editors object to calling people "Gibraltarians" if they lived there before that year, perhaps saying "Notable people from Gibraltar" would be more appropriate. -- Atama頭 18:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is problematic when it is applied to the Spaniards living in Gibraltar before 1704, there is tension related to the term caused by the claim that the people living in Gibraltar are not the real Gibraltarians. I offer that purely as an observation not a comment. Hence, Atama's suggestion seems sensible to me and avoids offending certain sensibilities.

Other than that, I have no problem with the suggestion to include the 3 named above, provided the addition is brief and to the point. Justin talk 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I the one that has proposed the inclusion, I can't see any problem. However, I must make some points clear. I've never stated anything about "real" or "unreal" Gibraltarians. My editions, as reverted by Justin, didn't change the subject of the section ("Notable people from Gibraltar"). Moreover, to avoid any misunderstanding, the introduction was changed so that it would not suggest that all the guys in the list were "Gibraltarian", because I know that such statement is strongly objected by some editors. As I've done in the ANI page, my proposal, to avoid further suspicion was, instead of using the birth date as ordering criteria (since it would put the Spaniards at the beginning and it'd be labelled as controversial and intended to create an edit war) using a surname alphabetic criteria (I prefer the former, however). On the other hand, I'm still trying to understand which point I was trying to make. That Gibraltar was a Spanish town and municipality for 260 years? Is that a point? Come on. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've never stated anything about "real" or "unreal" Gibraltarians." Did I say you did? No, I even went to the trouble of making plain it was an explanation to avoid any possibility of doubt or uncertainty. So the question that springs to mind is why you feel the need to infer a bad faith motivation for my comment?

The only other point I will make is if you actually discuss and make a proposal in talk rather than try to bulldoze changes into the article you make more headway. Justin talk 23:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I understand you last statement is a purely rhetoric one. It's not me the one that created the edit war with this issue. My proposals were crystal clear and I always accepted a case-by-case discussion. As I've said previously, stating that the inclusion of 5 Spaniard in a list of 13 Gibraltar-born notable guys is controversial is as unbelievable as is I were including an Afro-American in a list of Alabama-born notable guys. This topic is over (with an agreement), and we'd better not to go on with the quarrel. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your analogy poorly chosen and gratuitously offensive, its purely intended to portray anyone objecting to your edit as little more than a racist. Its intended to close down reasonable debate. Now I have previously explained why I reverted you, I don't intend to do it again. But I had a reason for doing so and I explained it. What I will not accept is your naked attempt to portray it as racially based. Justin talk 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin, you had a reason and you explained it. It's crystal clear written down above. You mentioned two points: WP:NOTABILITY (2 out of the 5 guys added had an article, so that they're deemed as notable, and two of them were given references to support its notability when you questioned them); and WP:POINT. And I wonder (answer me if possible) which was the point I was trying to make? That Gibraltar has had a Spanish past? Is that a point? Were you serious? Branding an edition as pointy just because it shows that there have been notable guys in the whole history of Gibraltar is as stupid as branding as pointy an edition including notable left-handed people in a list of notable people that does not contain any of them (if you prefer this analogy). Which is your motivation? I don't know. If fact I don't mind. You're a vocal advocate of NPOV, but at the same time it has taken one week, a block of the page, kbytes of discussions and the intervention of four administrators to allow the inclusion of three notable guys prior to 1713 in the involved list (well, it could take months as our friend Gibnews goes on supporting the block of the page; hope than Atama would be sensible). You know that NPOV requires that all points of view are shown with due height. The problem here is not the degree of height given to the Spanish history of the town, but simply to have it visible or not. I don't label your motivation as racist, it was simply an analogy. But what I can't see is any argument related to Wikipedia principles, since all the arguments have been refuted (not only by me, obviously). In that sense, Gibnews is transparent (hope your motivations and his are not the same, it would be awful). This one is very good: "Gibraltar is more than 'a rock' it is the home of 30,000 Gibraltarians who are still being harassed by their neighbour in relation to a 300 year old irredentist claim and although being attacked in cyberspace is preferable to hot cannonballs, its still not what I think Wikipedia should be about." (clear example of an obvious WP:COI), but this one is invaluable: "some of the articles were created solely to cause a dispute". Wow, I always thought that creating articles was what the game was about. However, creating articles of Spanish guys and attempting to include them in the article of an entity that was Spanish for two centuries and a half is done "to create a dispute". I think that Elen has clarified it very well. Fortunately there is no quarrel between Saxons and Normands. Anyway, if you feel insulted, it was not my intention and sincerely apologize. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Degree of height? I think you mean weight.

I have already explained myself I don't really see the need to do so again. However, coming to the article the day after changing the start date of WW2, edit warring to keep it and coming up with the most ridiculous excuse for it, adding 5 obscure Spaniards with what appeared to be tenuous links to Gibraltar seemed to be an attempt to disrupt by artificially creating a dispute over whether Spaniards could be included. Now I have listened to the arguments for the inclusion of some of them and have come to the conclusion that some may have merit. The thing is I simply changed my mind, convinced by the argument.

You have approached every subject with a degree of antagonism and confrontation. This dates back to the very first time I saw you on Wikipedia, you instigated an edit war. There I was explaining why I reverted to what I presumed was a good faith change by an editor unaware of the issues and pointed out the problem. Did you listen? No you didn't, you simply plowed on with an edit war. Eventually you got yourself blocked for edit warring but not as a result of a report by myself (lets remember I didn't report you, I rarely do), yet you still blame for your block and you tell other editors on the Spanish Wikipedia that I can't be trusted. And in spite of all that bad feeling, I offer to draw a line under the past, proffer the proverbial olive branch only for it to be dashed from my hand. You still choose a gratuitously offensive analogy and given the bad blood I find it difficult to accept your apology as genuine. Even when I agree with you, you can't accept it gracefully. Justin talk 13:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the categories that gather Gibraltarians/Gibraltar-born people are really a mess. I'd suggest a reorder of them. Depending on the approach, we have two options:

1. If we adopt the "ethnic" option, with Gibraltarian only valid for post-Utrecht guys, considering also that British members of the garrison and their sons are only British, we should have the category Category:People from Gibraltar with all non Gibraltarian directly in that category and Category:Gibraltarian people hanging from Category:People from Gibraltar.
2. It the term "Gibraltarian" is accepted as generic for any Gibraltar-born guy, we can do it in the opposite way and having Category:Gibraltarians as generic container and Category:Spanish Gibraltarians, Category:British Gibraltarians (and so on) and Category:Gibraltarian people under the former.

I personally prefer the first one, but I don't have a strong opinion. Anyway, mind that I've objected to the content of the article List of Gibraltarians since it includes people that are simply British, regardless of having been born in Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That would seem sensible, I hadn't noticed it had become so untidy. Justin talk 23:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For a start the term Gibraltarian is a modern one and only applies to people who qualify as such. Its application anyone prior to 1800 has no basis. However, the section was entitled 'Notable people born in Gibraltar' irrespective of whether they were Chinese or Jewish (we ignore the racist clauses in the ToU) It may be that a couple of the entries could be dropped as insignificant as the people are there because they are particularly significant, and on merit. Anyone who becomes a multi millionaire because of their creativity, eg Galliano and Hammond deserves a mention as does Penney, who may not have made money but certainly made a bomb, and Don Pacifico who marked the end of gunboat diplomacy. However in the past other editors have insisted on removing the section on Gibraltar bands on the grounds that they were not sufficiently notable. Undoubtedly more people know about Melon Diesel than Diego de Astorga y Céspedes as his CD's are not on Amazon. I'm not objecting to people simply because they are Spanish, but because they are only there to make up the numbers. --Gibnews (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, more people know about the Spice Girls than Oliver Cromwell, and they certainly beat him at CD sales as well, but that does not make him non-notable. *And I know* that Diego de Astorga wasn't the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland but, admittedly, Melon Diesel aren't the Spice Girls either. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, you've been already mentioned (I think) WP:RECENT. Take a look at it again. Also, read Wikipedia:Systemic bias. On the other hand, your efforts to wipe the Spanish past of Gibraltar have been already highlighted and dismissed by several uninvolved people. I don't think your obvious efforts to wipe the Spanish past of Gibraltar are worthy to spend more time to refute. It's so transparent. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, your remarks about "Gibraltarianness" are certainly unnecessary as, as I've told, I personally prefer the first option listed above. As explained, categories are really a mess, with "pure" British subjects (offspring of garrison members) listed as Gibraltarians and even a Gibraltar-born Moor guy listed as "Gibraltarian emigrant to Morocco". I won't personally fix them as I'm not an expert and possibly any minor error would be regarded as an intolerable effort to undermine the Gibraltarian status, so that, it's your time to do something constructive.

No people born in Gibraltar are that, irrespective. Otherwise we are being racists. However there are no Gibraltarians prior to 1800 as the term was not in use. If there are any Spaniards that are +really+ notable then they should go in the main article, otherwise if you want them listed they belong with all the others in a category. Its most certainly not about 'racial purity' or suppressing spaniards, but nor is it about giving them any undue prominence. --Gibnews (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)