Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 27

Lede Discussion

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

Seems reasonable, it doesn't seem current enough for the lede. It would be a real relief to stop going over old ground! What about moving from the present: "It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population.[dubious – discuss" to simply "It became an important base for the British Royal Navy"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I have no objection to that, my suggestion was going to be "It was an important base for the British Royal Navy but today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.[4][5]" Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems good to me, but of course it still has some importance (let's not argue about exactly how much!) as a base for the Royal Navy. What about "it became" an important base, otherwise as you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[1] 2 x 16 m Patrol Launches and 3 x 6.5 m RIB. I'd say "was" is appropriate, we have no mediterranean fleet anymore. Per Dodds, the base is now a few % points of the economy, prior to 1980 it was 60%. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, do you want to make the edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. If the article stays stable for a while we might consider reviving our earlier text proposal on the sovereignty issue. I'm planning a break for a while. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's OK with me. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for Reverts

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

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

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

I suppose we could restart this discussion. I'm willing to try, though I can't think of much to say that hasn't already been said. I still think we'd all do better to concentrate on other issues for a long time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK here is a suggestion.
Lets take a couple of sources. Say Jackson or Hills or any one of a number of historical treatises on Gibraltar.
Lets look at the page space devoted to the capture in total.
Lets count how many sentences are devoted to detailing the exodus.
Lets count how many sentences are devoted to explaining why Gibraltar was selected for capture.
And then lets compare that data with the article that we currently have here. This will then give us a metric to identify whether the coverage in the article is proportionate to the actual coverage in the literature. Imalbornoz is always insisting on a metric for consideration of inclusion, what is wrong with what I've just proposed.
So to start this process, could you and Imalbornoz identify the sources you're using. And by identifying sources, I mean sources actually in your possession. Whether it is Garratt, Jackson, Hills, Bradford, Francis or any of the commmon sources I have access to them.
Also the definition of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits".
So as previously requested, could you offer proposals to address the POV issues we've identified? Could you detail your objections to the edit proposed by User:Pfainuk?
Simply vetoing any proposal put forward claiming "No consensus to change", without explanations and refusing to engage in talk is disruptive. Please put forward your proposals for dealing with the issues identified. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
To which I'd add a self-revert to the current consensus would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The revert was deeply contentious. Pfainuk and WCM (especially WCM, after several sanctions) know it. I have been away trying to forget a bit about this dispute already two years long and when I return I find that -yet again- some people want to remove some events. Please notice that the contentious edit has been there for 5 days (not weeks). The previous text has been there for months (or even a year).
If someone has a problem with the wording, please propose some new wording here in the talk page. For the sake of consensus, I will explain (again) my position:
  • I am ready to agree with alternative wording (and I am sure WCM also is -yes, I believe there is some light here).
  • The rapings, looting and desecrations that took place after the capture are very notable and relevant, so the alternative wording should not eliminate the reference to those events. If the words sound ugly to someone, propose a different wording that sounds better but does not eliminate those facts.
  • The exodus to San Roque is very notable and relevant, so the alternative wording should not eliminate the reference to those events.
  • If you want to include additional references to the capture "in the name" of the Habsburg Archduke, it's only fair to include some reference to factual English rules (free port declaration by Queen Anne, English Governors).
I am sure we can find some agreement between my position and yours. Let's try once more if you want. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are ready to accept an alternative wording, I believe it would be a good idea if you were to suggest alternative wordings that take account of the objections raised against the current wording here and here.
The violence was already mentioned by the text that you reverted. Please identify the basis on which you claim that the extra detail in your proposal is "very notable and relevant". Bear in mind that relevance and notability can only be defined in relation to the weight given to the point by individual reliable sources, so I suggest that you do this based on the weight given to this point by individual sources.
Please also identify the basis on which you claim that a mention of San Roque is also "very notable and relevant". Again, this can only be judged based on the weight given by individual reliable sources - in particular, it cannot be demonstrated by giving a raw count of sources. We are looking for the weight provided by individual sources, not the number of books that happen to mention a point that may also be significant to some other topic.
Please finally identify - again, based on the weight provided by individual reliable sources - on what basis you claim that, if we mention the fact that Gibraltar was captured in the name of Archduke Charles, "it's only fair" to mention Queen Anne's declaration as well. In particular, this would seem to require sources that both treat the latter point as a counter to the former point, and give it similar weight to the former point.
If you are not willing to do this, then I'm afraid I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect me to take vague statements that something is "very notable and relevant" as an objection of substance. Pfainuk talk 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would endorse those comments, with the addition of a note that the POV tag associated with this text has not been restored, the POV issues with the text have been clearly articulated and repeatedly this text is restored without inclusion that is has been tagged for POV issues. In the spirit of co-operative discussion I would request Richard self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think the main objections during these two years have been about too much detail regarding the rapes, desecrations and looting. I think those words are already a summary (they don't go into the details of the separate events of looting during and after the capture of individual homes and almost all churches, the rapings in Our Lady of Europe Chapel and other rapings, the desecrations of Our Lady of Europe and every single church except one defended by its curate...). BUT I am tired of discussing this and am READY TO AGREE to a summary of the summary (even though I think it is not necessary), with the condition (or the hope) that we finish this discussion so that we can dedicate this time to more productive things. Pfainuk already agreed to the current text but then changed his mind after "The Return of the Justin Jedi". Please, I am really hoping that we all are able to honor the consensus we reach now. Are you ready to agree to this?
(About the POV note: Sorry, I will restore it right now, WCM). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please focus on the content not the editor. I would request you remove that personal comment and apologise for it. In addition, please remove the reference to my identity given that I have changed my editing ID for reasons of off-wiki harassment (you are aware of this). Using it again with a derogatory comment is doubly insulting and insensitive. I also note you fail to recognise that Pfainuk has already indicated that he felt pressured into that agreement and was never happy with it.
The text proposed by Pfainuk is already a summary and eliminates POV issues, on that basis I'd request you self-revert and yes I will be prepared to discuss it, as I always have been. And yes I have better things to do that argue for our WP:NPOV policy to be honoured and in particular for WP:DUE coverage per the sources. You've repeatedly requested a metric to judge WP:DUE, well I proposed one above. Please indicate your response to that.
In addition, you've been repeatedly asked to identify your sources to hand. You constantly refer to the importance of sources and have repeatedly stretched my good faith with the inferrence that I was not accurately sourcing my edits. It was particularly galling to find that you sourced your edits using Google snippets which is not a reliable source. So going forward I feel it is important to identify which sources are being used to identify the due coverage in the literature.
Finally, you've both been repeatedly asked to identify exactly what your issue with the current text is and to offer your own proposals. Please do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My objections (again):
  • The rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned (not necessarily with those words): Pfainuk's text ("they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant") does not comply with this requirement.
  • The exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History, and thus must be mentioned. Pfainuk's text does not mention this episode at all.
My proposal:


That's it. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict, but I was coming to a very similar point independently. (Also I'd have reinstated the tag myself if it hadn't been done first.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You state (but do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned". Why, in your view, and based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail?
You state (but again do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History". Again, based on the weight given in individual reliable sources, in what way is this "notable and relevant"?
All you've done here is state a position. You've not made any attempt to justify it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you do so.
I would also note that I do not consider your paraphrasing of your point to be a "summary of a summary". Your text does not summarise the previous version, it merely uses euphemisms - which certainly does not address the serious undue weight that the existing text puts on the violence. I would also note that it entirely fails to provide adequate historical context, so it means that our readers still don't get told why Gibraltar was captured. This is a point that Jackson, IIRC, devotes several pages to, and that would seem to be very relevant to our readers' understanding of the capture. Again, I would like to hear the reasons why you feel that our readers should not be told why Gibraltar was captured.
Indeed, the only people who seem to be allowed reasons for their actions in this are the townspeople. Why is this? You say fairly explicitly that they left because they felt the town was too dangerous. But then promptly contradict that by pointing out that they themselves said they left out of loyalty to Philip. The sentence flat out contradicts itself in the space of barely twenty words. And that section where you mention Philip is itself distinctly strange. The Bourbon claimant to what? San Roque? How are our readers supposed to understand the relevance of Philip and the Bourbons when you've taken out the bit that explains it? Why, in your view, is the townspeople's support for the Bourbons acceptable but the largely Anglo-Dutch force's support for Hapsburgs unacceptable?
Given all of this, I think it's clear that I cannot support this text. But you will note that I have given rationales behind my objections here. I would ask you to do the same. Pfainuk talk 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I would endorse that viewpoint. This is doing nothing but state a national narrative, which was promoted by the Fascist Dictator General Franco in the 1960s. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". It is selecting and giving undue prominence to certain facts, to promote such a narrative. It directly contradicts what the population themselves gave as a reason for their departure; their loyalty to Philip (and I concur with Pfainuk that it is written in a contradictory manner). In addition, other factors are mentioned in the literature such as the anticipation of a counterattack and the expectation their "exile" would be short.
You might like to check your named sources as well above as the link to Andrews doesn't work. I suggest you also check the Andrews reference you have as checking on Google snippets indicates to me that the cite you made doesn't support the edit. Perhaps you could provide us with the extensive quote you repeatedly ask others to provide.
I also note that yet again I have proposed a metric for deciding on due relevance. Imalbornoz has repeatedly requested that we use such "metrics", although his metric has usually been unfiltered google searches. I believe I've proposed a relatively simple way to measure due relevance.
I've also asked you to name the sources in your posession that you're using to source this edit and determine due coverage.
Again I remind the pair of you that amongst the definitions of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits". Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Addendum. I note my request for a self-revert has been ignored. Could I ask whether either of you intend to respond to that? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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


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

I would reject that for precisely the same reasons that are delineated above. Its giving completely undue emphasis to certain facts and in doing so results in text that does not comply with NPOV.
Again I have proposed a metric for providing an objective measure of what is due relevance. Do you have any comment on it?
Again I've asked you to name sources that you're using to decide on due relevance. Can you do so please?
I asked if you would self-revert. Could you indicate your answer please?
Could you please address the points put to you by Pfainuk? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Your metric could at least be helpful, but I don't think it should be a precise guide - RS don't necessarily use encyclopaedic criteria to decide on how much space to give things. If you'd like to go through the exercise this might be illuminating. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. Proportion of a given text (the metric that you propose) is more an indicator of the number of details that a given event has than its notability and relevance. A very important event can take only one paragraph and yet be crucial. Likewise, years and years of unimportant events can take several chapters of a book...
Anyway, if you want, you can make the exercise of finding out in books about the history of Gibraltar the average proportion dealing with:
  • Neanderthal
  • the Conversos from Cordoba
  • Operation Felix
  • Suez Canal
  • Battle of Trafalgar
  • Phoenicians
  • Carthaginians
  • American Revolutionary War
  • The capture episode...
Then you can tell us. I am sure this will be a very interesting contribution to the discussion, although it probably should not be the main criteria (in my opinion). But, please, do not hesitate to try with a large enough sample of relevant sources. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that I have ever claimed that the history section is perfect. Indeed, as I recall I've said several times that it needs a lot of work. Once we have resolved this issue I will be happy to consider your reasoned proposals for change to other areas of the section. However, the fact that there are a lot of other problems with the history section does not mean that we should not try to resolve this one.
Given your later comments, perhpas you could explain what you are basing your claim that the details of the violence, in your words, "have to be properly mentioned" and a "requirement" on? Bear in mind that per WP:NPOV, the weight we should be putting on points should be based on the prominence given to the point by reliable sources. Could we perhaps compare the weight that Jackson puts on the reasons behind the capture and the violence that occurred, for example? We could do with similar such evidence for your claim that San Roque is "notable and relevant".
I'd note finally Richard's text does not address the issue I raised with the last sentence, which is that it takes a position on the reason why the townspeople left. It says that they left because they "felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous". The fact that the letter is mentioned as an afterthought does not change this. Fact is, reliable sources give multiple reasons for the townspeople's departure, so giving a reason outright without giving the others as per both proposals would appear inaccurate. This is why I worded my proposal the way I did: to give reasons for the departure without actually saying it was this and this alone. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think two people are labouring under the understanding that I am expected to do all of the leg work. Well this is supposedly a co-operative enterprise and I expected that if you accepted my suggestion then you would be prepared to do the work as well. This is why I have repeatedly asked you both to name the sources in your possession. I've asked many times but the request is repeatedly ignored, which leads me to suspect that neither of you have access to any sources.
I also note that Richard has repeated verbatim an edit that it is claimed is supported by Andrews. This seems a neat trick to me, as the link does not work as the copyrighted work it referred to was removed from archive.org about 2 years ago. Using Google snippets I have investigated that claim and it appears to me that the cite does not support the claim. So again either Richard or Imalbornoz can provide me with the extensive quote from the source that you believe supports that edit. Again this isn't the first time I've asked, you expect us to provide quotes, please reciprocate.
I also note that the following points are not addressed:
So again, could you please respond based on the weight given by individual reliable sources.
And again I've asked you to self-revert, could you please give me a response. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been proposing to change the last consensus. Even so, It's me who's been providing most evidence to the discussion (just for you to question it). But the truth is that the onus has always been on you (and at the moment I don't have much time to keep doing your job). I will be happy to discuss the evidence that you bring to eliminate the detail of the atrocities and the exodus of practically all of the Gibraltarians of 1704 to San Roque (BTW, your question about why this is relevant to Gibraltarians in history answers itself if you look carefully). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, no. The onus is on you to fully justify your reverts. You should not revert an edit unless you are willing to justify that revert.
The onus is also on you to fully justify the claims that you want to see included. If you just state something is "notable and relevant", or that details "have to be properly mentioned", but then repeatedly refuse to make any kind of argument to back that up when invited to do so, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that this is because there is no argument for them. Indeed, such refusal is explicitly mentioned in WP:DE as a sign of a disruptive editor. If you are not willing to make any kind of argument to retain something when it is removed by another editor, then you should not reinstate it.
Bearing this in mind, I await your answers to the questions quoted by Curry Monster above with interest. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


UNINDENT

OK:

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

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

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

Thanks Imalbornoz. For two years or more there have been suggestions that we should remove from this article a very brief and encyclopaedic description of the major facts about why the previous population of Gibraltar left, and where they went. These points are central to an understanding of major issues in Gibraltar at the time and now. To suggest removing them is, at best, a strange idea; it would require strong arguments and we have seen absolutely none. After so much time and so much raising of peripheral or frankly-irrelevant issues, I suspect that no such strong arguments exist. In fact, even a weak-but-relevant argument would make a welcome change. To put in more information is also perfectly defensible, but to remove what we have is not. Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I note that yet again the questions are avoided to instead indulge in bad faith attacks suggesting that editors wish to suppress facts. You state repeatedly in your opinion these facts are relevant and notable but you don't justify it on the basis of the weight given in the sources. Please do so.
The constant bad faith accusations of suppressing information is getting rather tiresome. The point I've made for some time is that of due relevance and if we are to disregard that then you do indeed have to include an awful lot more information that you have done. I've done precisely that and you both rejected it.
I also repeatedly asked you to state what the sources are that you're using to establish due relevance. You've failed to respond, am I to conclude you don't actually have access to sources? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I've mentioned that including more information may indeed be a way forward. Can you put forward a draft of a consensus text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have done so already - you vetoed it.
Again I ask the question, what sources are you using to establish due relevance? I mean how difficult is to answer such a simple question. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

You're an experienced editor and I don't usually feel the need to repeat basic policies to you. But, to reiterate yet again, we are discussing (I think) your proposal to remove from the History section a brief comment on the violence that helped to persuade the previous population of Gibraltar to move out in 1704, and where they settled? The words are verifiable; they are suitably re-edited versions of those used by reliable sources, specifically Jackson and Hills (and I believe Sepúlveda, though I haven't yet verified this myself, an omission I will soon rectify). They are neutrally phrased and a lot of thought has gone into that neutrality - as Garratt points out these facts are discreditable to the invading force and some historians have preferred to omit them to avoid national embarrassment. They are given due weight by their very brief current mention - they were of prime importance to the Gibraltarians of the time, they determined much of the historical course of Gibraltar since then, and they have ongoing significance in the context of national discourse. I'm not puzzled by your preference to remove them - these things are, as we've recently been reminded, ultimately a matter of good editorial judgement, and in an overview article it's always arguable that any fact beyond the most basic should be pruned out. I accept that you have no national motives in trying to remove these items. But I am genuinely puzzled by why you should insist on their removal at such length and on such feeble grounds. Can you enlighten me? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would first of all comment, that the comment "feeble grounds" is an indication of a presumption of a lack of good faith in the argument presented and is directed toward the editor not the content. As is the accusation of removal, when there is no intention to remove material merely summarise it.
I have no idea of Pfainuk's objections but let me offer my own.
I have never had a problem with the inclusion of this information. However, having access to sources I have been dumbfounded by the argument that inclusion of these facts is driven by WP:DUE, since the inclusion at length is grossly disproportionate to the weight attached to this by the sources. In addition, the text as currently written is far from neutral and definitively follows one line of the two national discourses and presents a one sided view favouring a particular national narrative. As it happens in this case it is that of the Spanish sovereignty claim as included in Spain's Red Book on Gibraltar. It thus fails NPOV.
There are a range of opinions put forward in the literature, if we are to include this information we should provide reference to all opinions in the literature giving due weight to each. However, each and every attempt to present the range of opinions has been vetoed with the argument "No Consensus to change". Simply reverting without dicussing the objections you have to an edit or stating "No Concensus" are not valid grounds for reverting.
With the latest text offered, Pfainuk asked a very direct question, given that his text refers to the violence and its consequences, why based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail? There has been no response to that, simply the reiteration of the same tired and worn argument that the more it is examined crumbles into dust.
WP:DUE is argued on the basis of Google Hits from carefully crafted searches predicated on key words. As best the results are confirmation bias in that the results are predicated by the search terms. In reality, this is not an acceptable way to determine due as we found at WP:NPOVN.
You don't have either Hills or Jackson to hand and the real clincher for me is that neither you nor Imalbornoz actually have any access to sources. As we've found Imalbornoz works from Google searches or 3rd hand information, you Richard have never had access to sources or even domain knowledge. How you can argue WP:DUE when you don't have access to sources to decide the weight of opinion is beyond me. Again we've found at WP:RSN unless you have access to sources you cannot quote them 3rd hand.
You repeat Garratt's accusation again and again that this is somehow embarassing to British historians. I do not accept this opinion of his is accurate. Byng's and Rooke's account included it in the 18th Century, as did Drinkwater later, it is in the 19th Century literature - Ayala's account was translated and published in 1845 for example, it is included in all the 20th Century literature including Garratt, Andrews, Hills, Jackson, Bradford and Francis. I am unaware of the basis for Garratt's comments but even a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be not founded on solid grounds. Now I have pointed this out to you repeatedly and yet you return to the same point again and again and again.
I would finish by pointing out that Pfainuk's edit does not remove this information, it summarises it and provides additional information to produce a text that is much better than what we have currently and has been crafted with access to sources giving due weight to individual points. This is an overview not an opus and as you yourself pointed out to Richard including all the details of who did what to who is just not appropriate for an overview. I personally still consider it is far more than is needed for an overview but am prepared to compromise on that to achieve a concensus. I would again ask you for a self-revert to a text that fulfills wikipedia's policies. As an experienced editor you must know that your objections to Pfainuk's proposal are not sustainable under wikipedia's policies. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It is ironic that Richard starts by saying he is "repeat[ing] basic policies" to me - only to then fail to make any policy-based argument at all. The claim that the status quo is due weight, notably, does not make any reference to sources (even to back up its own highly debatable claims). The claim that it is neutral boils down to a statement that it is neutral with no attempt to back it up. The statement that it is verifiable is beside the point. The claim that I propose that there not be mention of the violence is patently false, and I learn that Richard and I have almost alarmingly different definitions of the words "very brief". The contrast with Curry Monster's source-based points on weight and neutrality is stark.
It is, however, a touch disturbing that a lack of neutrality (through the use of undue weight) - a failure in one of Wikipedia's core three content policies - is dismissed as "feeble grounds" to alter an article.
It's been just over twenty-three hours since my last post. I'm happy to wait the extra hour before re-adding, to see if any policy-based argument pops up. But I haven't seen one so far. Pfainuk talk 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I really don't know how to make it any clearer, but this section does at least elucidate why we're never going to reach a consensus on this issue. I still don't understand how you can justify, even to yourself, removing very brief description of major elements of the story of Gibraltar and replacing them with whitewash, but I will simply have to accept this as one of the mysteries of life. I will comment that your attempts above to make this removal a matter of fundamental Wiki principles strike me as simply bizarre; this is a matter of editorial judgement. It seems clear to me that due weight requires or at least strongly suggests mention of why almost all the population left and where they went. I have yet to see any actual argument that suggets otherwise.
I have re-edited so as to replace the elements of the long-standing consensus. I have not simply reverted; other referenced details have been supplied which may well improve the article, and I have left them. I have also removed the reference to Andrews since the external link is defunct, I don't have immediate access to the text, and we have a perfectly good reference for the point anyway. I hope that this is time to move on to more fruitful endeavours. Failing that, perhaps a request for external comments would be better than this incredible, futile debate? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Again there is the accusation of removing material, material has not been removed it has been summarised and in doing so better represents the weight of opinion in the literature. This is a fundamental wikipedia principle per WP:NPOV, the text you constantly impose does not - it represents a single opinion and you have vetoed any attempt to redress this imbalance. You must know this is not a sustainable argument.
Again please explain to us, how you are able to assess WP:DUE without recourse to sources. You do not possess any sources.
You refer to Jackson as a source, a source you do not possess. Please refer to WP:RSN#Is a cite reliable if it is 3rd hand? and I will quote one of the responses Editors are not allowed to use material from sources they have not seen. If they have not seen the sources — complete and with the material or quote in its full context, none of this "snippet" nonsense — then they cannot use them. If they don't have (have not seen) such sources as are authoritative for that topic then I would question their competence to do any substantial editing of the article. I added the emphasis as it had an empathic meaning for me. You suggest external opinion, well we have sought external opinion and with the information that has emerged your position is simply not sustainable under wikipedia's polices. You still have not stated what is wrong with Pfainuk's edit - you merely state your 'a priori' position.
If anything does give reason why there has never been any agreement, it stems from the fact that editors on one side have always been arguing on the basis of WP:DUE based on a reasonable view compiled from reading and collating sources. I am unable to understand how anyone can argue their edit is due coverage when they do not have access to sources and are relying on selected 3rd hand information or Google snippets. I have reverted your edit on that basis - you will note I have explained my objections by the way. We can perhaps reopen the debate when you have accessed and read the sources but I would confidently expect a competent wikipedian to acknowledge Pfainuk's edit as superior to the previous text. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I note the failure to engage in talk before reverting. I have clearly identified the problem with your edit and you've failed to address it. I have asked you to self-revert rather than edit war to impose a text that is not sustainable, please do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is getting even more strange. You have straightforwardly removed major points in the history of Gibraltar and justify this as giving a fuller range of opinions? I have restored the fuller version. I can only suggest outside opinion at this point. RfC perhaps, or would any concerned admins care to comment? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I see, is that a refusal to self-revert? Pls note the outside opinion I refer to above.Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

3 reverts in one day to restore text for which the two editors responsible have no access to sources to back up their comments on WP:DUE. I am disappointed but not surprised. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Added back the NPOV tag and await with interest an explanation how you can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources. I will restore the edit in 24 hrs if one is not forthcoming. Note neither editor has chosen to engage the issue in the talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

If there is an actual policy-based objection to my edit, please tell me what it is. If you are not willing to, please revert back to it. These are the only choices that are available to you, Richard and Imalbornoz, according to policy and guidelines. It is fast approaching the point where I will feel I have no choice but to go to WP:AE and ask administrators to prevent the disruption caused to this article by the continual refusal to explain what the problem with this edit is. Pfainuk talk 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources, a way forward?

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

Here we have some sources we have used in the discussion:
  • Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar.
  • Dr. Johannes Kramer (1986). The History of Gibraltar: English and Spanish in Gibraltar. Buske Verlag.
  • Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire.
  • Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
  • G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
  • George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  • Ignacio López de Ayala (2010, first published in 1782). The History of Gibraltar: From the Earliest Period of Its Occupation by the Saracens. BiblioBazaar.
  • Isidro Sepúlveda (2004) (in Spanish). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza. Madrid: Alianza. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.
  • Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:
  • Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
  • Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.
  • William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
I hope they are useful. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
And how many of those do you have in your possession? As opposed to relying on google snippets. I'm happy to list what I have, I note you have both repeatedly refused to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The name "google snippets" is not accurate; it's "Google Books", actually. Therefore, "As opposed to relying on google snippets" is not accurate either, you know. In google books there's: Full View, Limited Preview, Snippet View, and No Preview Available. I recommend that you read the google books help page here.
Some of the books in the list above are in full view, others are in limited preview (with enough open pages dealing with our issue), some are in snippets ... Some of them were in full view outside google books when I consulted them (like Andrews), and others were in the possession of Ecemaml when he made the summaries and found them relevant to the article.
Could you please answer Richard's question now? Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I indicated I would answer Richard's question and will happily do so, delineating all of the sources I have either borrowed from the library or I actually own. As I'm at work it will have to wait till I get home.
Thank you for the lecture on Google books, I think you'll find I was referring to your use of Google Snippets to "find" cites to whatever content you wish to add. This is kind of putting the cart before the horse so to speak, as the recommended process is to read sources (note plural) and to decide content based on the weight given in reliable sources. As we found at WP:RSN, your practise of citing using Google Snippets was in the main not reliable sourcing.
I was also surprised to find during mediation that you didn't have either Jackson or Hills, since you use those sources to cite edits. That seemed most odd to me, as you continuously refer to the need to reliably source edits and have regularly made bad faith accusations as to my own sourcing. So I would really like you to name the sources you actually have access to.
You also claim Andrews is in full view, wonderful, I don't actually have a copy and I can't find one at the moment. I was most concerned when I looked at Google Snippets that it appeared your edit wasn't supported by the cite. I'm also slightly confused as you gave a reference to a snippet copy in mediation, repeatedly claiming it supported your edit, when it was actually about a much later period. Seeing as you have access to a full view of Andrews then you can provide extensive quotes to clear this up can't you?
So can we see those quotes from Andrews and have a list of sources you actually own. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT the relevant quote from the policy being Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. You can't use cites provided by Ecemaml, you have to do it for yourself. So to re-iterate, Google snippets are not WP:RS and cites provided by someone else doesn't meet WP:V. You have to see the source for yourself and in sufficient context to establish WP:DUE weight. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Wee Curry Monster's Sources

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

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

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

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

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

So we have Hills, Jackson, Francis and Bradford as suggestions so far? Garratt makes some useful points but I'd have said that 1939 is a bit too far back for us. Any other ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to see if we need any more sources. If you wait a bit, I intend to be back soon with an answer. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully these will be sources you actually have. I'm still waiting for the extensive quotes from this full copy of Andrews that you have. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to come up with a consensus list of top-quality reliable sources, not to compete for the largest personal library. Any more suggestions? Pfainuk? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Recourse to some sources would be an improvement over none. I note I am yet to see the requested quote from Andrews to demonstrate that the edit is supported by the cite. From the evidence I have seen to date, it does not. I note you've dropped that particular claim but still cite sources you've never seen other than selected quotes from a 3rd party. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUE policy applied to this dispute

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


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

To make things clearer:

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

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

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

For what must be about the three-hundredth time, the edit concerned does not remove mention of the violence that occurred. I know you've ignored that point every other time, but that doesn't make it not so. All the edit does is reduce the prominence on this point.
WP:WEIGHT notes that
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
It also notes (emphasis mine) that:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
And that:
in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
The notion that it isn't a problem if we give something massively more weight than is present in reliable sources is a novel reinterpretation of the rule, and it seems particularly shaky when the sections that are given this massive undue weight also happen to be the very points that one of the modern claimants currently uses as part of its modern arguments in a dispute - as in this case. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again: What "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" are not mentioned in the fragment you dispute about the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque?
  • You raise an interesting point: Which is the weight "appropriate to its significance to the subject" (Gibraltar and its inhabitants) in the case of an episode of widespread rapings, desecrations and looting of the city of Gibraltar and its inhabitants? And the significance to Gibraltar and its inhabitants of a massive exodus of almost the whole town, the largest part of which went to San Roque (as mentioned by almost all sources)?
  • "Prevalence: the quality of prevailing generally; being widespread" Are the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque not widespread among almost all of the sources?
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the problem of giving massively undue weight to facts from reliable sources is given in the essay WP:CHERRY. In favouring one national narrative and neglecting to reflect the weight of opinions (note plural) this text you favour seems to me to be an example of just that. I note that we still have not seen precisely what your objection to the Pfainuk's text is, and your only comments misrepresent what the edit says.
Tell me again, as I have asked this repeatedly, how can you decide due weight when you don't have access to sources? I also ask you how you have established due weight without recourse to sources. Pfainuk's edit is based upon giving due weight to these events, based upon reference to reliable sources. I only repeat these questions by the way as you have repeatedly avoiding answering them.
The principle sources cited are Hills and Jackson you admit you have neither. Both are only available in Google Books in snippet view. There is no way you can establish the weight of opinion in the sources attached to these events from snippets. We sought external opinion at WP:RSN and the weight of external opinion there supports this viewpoint.
You claim notability on the basis of counting Google Hits. Again we sought external opinion at WP:NPOVN as to whether this was a valid argument. The weight of external opinion we found there is that this is not a valid means to establish notability.
You state you have no sources and have relied on a 3rd party to provide you with quotes. Again we have sought external opinion at WP:RSN and this is not acceptable.
We acknowledge these events are mentioned in reliable sources. That is not the issue. We do mention this in the edit but at a summary level appropriate for an overview. And to be honest even at this summarised level, the weight attached to these events is still disproportionate to their coverage in the literature.
And I can illustrate just how much your edit is giving undue weight with a simple metric based on bibliometry. Let us take Jackson as an example. He devotes Chapter 7 to the Capture. p89-93 are devoted to establishing the political landscape leading up to the dispatch of the forces including the various options to attack (inc. Gibraltar), p 94 is devoted to the decision to seize Gibraltar, p96-99 are devoted to the capture, p 101-103 covers preparation for the counter attack, p104-111 describe the siege and p112-p114 cover the period leading up to Utrecht. The events you attach such weight to merit a paragraph of a 1/3 page on p99 and the exodus a similar sized paragraph on p101. In one chapter of 25 pages, 2/3 cover these events (approximately 2.6% of the chapter) in a book of 311 pages (approximately 0.2% of the book) yet you dedicate 14% of the history section of this article to these events. You claim these events are more significant than Gibraltar's role in the Battle of Trafalgar, which Jackson devotes the whole of Chapter 11 (21 pages).
And again I would re-iterate Pfainuk's point, we do not remove anything merely summarise it appropriately. In insisting on this text, you have repeatedly excluded the weight of opinions in the literature to focus on a single opinion in the literature. As it happens that focus on a single opinion favours a particular national narrative.
I note yet again you use emotive language and refer to atrocities, yet when repeatedly asked to provide a reliable source to substantiate this you have utterly failed to do so.
Let me offer you a quote from Bradford, p101
Should we be covering this noted atrocity, addressed in the very same sources you refer to? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Add from WP:WEIGHT
Which pretty much covers what is wrong with the current text. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I note two things. First of all you didn't address the point on WP:DUE, again, and your response is nothing but criticism by speculation.
Interesting. I have for some time argued that Bibliometry was not a suitable basis for deciding due relevance. From Day 1, Imalbornoz (example here) has argued on the basis of Bibliometry based upon the very crude measure of the number of raw hits in Google searches. The most crudely absurd bibliometry possible and yet you backed that argument. What I offered above, although crude is far more relevant. 20% of one chapter devoted to geopolitical considerations, 2.6% the details of the events of the capture - yet you insist on devoting 14% of the entire history section to discussing details rather than notable events and claim geopolitical considerations are not "notable".
And we are discussing relevant weight attached to details of the capture, not the capture itself which is the notable event. You're equating coverage of notable events with the details of those events and that is not the same argument. Its akin to discussing the luggage of the Roman officials, whilst discussing their expulsion.
I not you don't even have access to relevant sources, so how can you argue due weight and notability? If you remove this crude bibliometry, then there is absolutely no argument for continued inclusion.
And just to re-iterate the same point again. Richard. The exodus is not solely explained by the violence that occurred during the capture, there a multitude of opinions given. Your insistence on allowing only one and one that favours the Spanish national narrative is problematic. I note you do not address this but allege the converse that, like other British historians, we are "embarrassed" by these details and "eliminating" these details is the British national narrative. This is untrue and that can easily be demonstrated by two points. First of all, we have consistently suggested the coverage in the History of Gibraltar needs to include these details, secondly all British sources named include them, as the literature has consistently since the 18th Century. Finally, the claim we are "eliminating" these details is a false premise, they are not eliminated they are summarised. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would point also point out that above there are 3 examples of external opinion that basically say this situation is untenable under wikipedia's policies. Yet you still insist on perpetuating it, whilst demanding more external opinion, without responding to a simple request to identify how you can establish due weight without recourse to sources or to identify your issue with Pfainuk's edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually your comment that all recent good-quality sources do include these details, crudely backed by Imalbornoz's ingenious search, do provide a relevant (though far from decisive) bibliometric argument for inclusion, certainly more relevant than the space taken in individual sources. Just to reiterate, this is about including reasons why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went. I'd be happy enough to include more detail but not to leave out the bare essentials, for the experience of the population at the time, for local and international reaction, and for a long-term understanding of ongoing issues. This we have most recently expressed as:


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


Your version was:


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

I see, so now your argument is that crude hit counts based on Google Searches are a measure of notability in direct contravention of the external opinion we have received. Interesting, so basically you're ignoring external opinion. "Imalbornoz's ingenious search" are you serious? You're continuing to insist this is a valid means of establishing notability?
Inclusion of details in a historical treatises on the complete history of Gibraltar are not compelling arguments for including said details in an overview, particularly when it excludes the inclusion of significant events as you are doing right now. Mere inclusion does not decide due weight and depth of detail, quantity of text are also a factor.
And how can you decide due weight, without recourse to sources?
Really, how can you do that, decide due weight, without recourse to sources?
Your argument boils down to include these details, 'cos I said so.
You want diffs? Well you can go to the noticeboards and read them, the dicussions are still there. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section

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


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

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

I will go out on a limb and claim, as a correct reading of policy, that 1) an editor may not cite sources that he has not seen, and 2) notability is not determined by Google hits. If that is not sufficiently clear and authoritative perhaps more senior editors might be requested to comment.

I would also point out that two distinct issues have been raised here, and care should be taken to not confuse them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Correction. The editors opposing this edit actually argue that:
  • The facts Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk want to remove are widely cited in dozens of sources, and their factuality is undisputed.
  • They are much more widely cited in books about the History of Gibraltar than other events that WCM and Pfainuk accept in the text without any problem.
  • The text removed is about events that affected the whole population of Gibraltar (all churches except one were desecrated, many women were raped, practically all homes were looted, and almost all Gibraltarians left, with the largest part establishing themselves in nearby San Roque within sight of Gibraltar). Other events that WCM and Pfainuk want to include, on the other hand, do not deal directly with Gibraltar or its inhabitants.
  • Therefore, WCM and Pfainuk want to apply inconsistent criteria to the text of the article: REMOVE facts that -coincidentally or not- have been cited as embarrassing by British historians but are widely mentioned, but KEEP events that tare not as widely mentioned and do not deal so directly with Gibraltar (but which -coincidentally or not- are not considered embarrassing by British historians).

G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)[2]

Finally, I should add that a RfC would be much more useful if we agreed on a consensus text for it (with pros and cons of each alternative). That way, I will not have to rush and complete the facts "left out" by Wee Curry Monster and PfainUK. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A) In previous RFC outside comment was deterred by large walls of text as we see above. B) Using Garratt it is frequently alleged British historians are embarrassed by and suppress details and by inference those proposing this edit but details are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works and those proposing this edit suggest it should be in a more appropriate article; I see this as no more than a bad faith accusation. C) Nothing is removed merely summarised appropriately for an overview and this is persistently misrepresented as "removal" to paint those proposing the edit as unreasonable; notably despite repeated requests to provide it no justification as to why undue weight is given to extra details as "very notable". D) If Imalbornoz & Richard could for once explain how they establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources that would be good. E) Neither Richard are Imalbornoz have access to sources. F) The details we wish to include explain why Gibraltar was captured and add other opinions in the literature as to why the population left. Please allow external opinion, that is the entire purpose of an RFC. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong about my access to sources. Though your library does seem to be larger than mine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that we agree in at least one point "details are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works". Thank you, WCM. I am sure we can build on this common ground. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So, your argument is indeed that, the weight given to information in this article should not be based on the weight given to them by reliable sources, but based purely on raw numbers of hits you can find in a Google search? As per outside comment when asked this, it doesn't work like that. Your continued refusal to accept that this argument does not comply with policy is a violation of WP:IDHT. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Er... no. My argument is that these events are very notable and relevant to Gibraltar (much more than other events that are not under discussion). And there's some evidence to support this; for example -like WCM said- these "details are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works" (and, on top of that, as a tool for the discussion, I have counted many more sources about Gibraltar that do mention these events than other events undisputedly in the History section). I hope this is clear now: all major sources do mention these events (please forget about the hits in google books if that distracts you from the main point). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
So, you want weight to be judged based on raw counts of sources (and, as per outside comment already referenced, it still doesn't work like that) and your own POV? Pfainuk talk 09:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Easy there, everyone, this is starting to get just a little heated. As there is a closely related discussion at WP:NPOV#Due_weight_and_numbers_of_sources how about everyone backing off from discussion here of counts of sources and such. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC restart

The issue (stripped of its many tangential issues, see above and archives) is whether to include certain details relating to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704. It is, I think, undisputed that the surrender agreement was promptly breached by a three-day drunken riot in which the invaders committed rape, pillage, and desecration of churches, and townsfolk killed in reprisal. After that, the existing population decided to leave, citing their loyalty to the existing king of Spain, and they trudged out of the city. Many settled in San Roque, Cádiz, where in due course a town was founded, describing itself as the town of Gibraltar resident in its countryside. It's amply referenced to RS (a convenience link, most of which I have verified from the original sources, is conveniently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar).

At present in the article the description of these events is:


Are these details worth including in this overview? It's hardly necessary to say how significant they were for the inhabitants of Gibraltar at the time. The misbehaviour specifically of the invaders was also key to local and international reaction at the time and it has ongoing resonance. One flavour of nationalist opinion is happy to give it perhaps-oversimplified weight.[13] Another has passed over it in possibly-embarrassed silence.[14] I am nevertheless assured by another editor (above) that these details are more or less universal in modern English-language overviews.

The proposal is to replace the above text with:

This doesn't say who was rioting, or that it was in breach of the surrender terms, and it omits the destination of the previous inhabitants. Both of these points are pivotal to the later history of Gibraltar, in which a new population has developed a political and cultural identity of its own, distinct from Spain and from any claims that San Roque may still maintain.

Many other suggestions have been discussed, and there seems no insuperable problems with adding more information if that seems worthwhile. But I feel strongly that we should include brief, but sufficient detail for a casual reader to know why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went. Perhaps we could have here only brief and pertinent comments, from editors new to the dispute, on whether or not to include in this article:

a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms

b) destination of the refugees

c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?

The editors presently involved might help by continuing in the previous section rather than here.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm stunned, I genuinely cannot believe that you would completely hijack an RFC and install a huge wall of text like this. Every attempt at an RFC has been frustrated with this technique. The introduction to an RFC is supposed to be a neutral summary, mine demonstrably was, this demonstrably isn't. I could I suppose pick apart the many misleading points in the above summary but in answering a wall of text, would create another wall of text deterring the very outside opinion I've tried to solicit.
What is does illustrate quite neatly is how this edit has been sourced. Richard has no sources of his own and never has. He has compeletely relied on a 3rd party to provide carefully selected quotes and bases his opinion on that, he has never seen the material in the context of the original source. What is truly unbelievable to me is that with all the external opinion from WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN is that he still believes this is acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it to be fair to sum this up as saying that you don't think we should rely on the weight given to the events by reliable sources: rather that it should be based vague and unsourced speculation? Or perhaps you too feel that we should ignore the what the sources actually say and just count them (an approach you described as "ingenious" despite having been told repeatedly and by outside editors that it fails basic policy requirements)? I would note that you have also totally failed to provide a neutral summary of the dispute here as well.
As I've asked repeatedly before (though you have never answered), do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the individual details of the violence (as opposed to the violence in general) was "pivotal" to the later history of Gibraltar? The fact that there was violence is mentioned in the proposal above. The implied claim that things would have completely been different had it been other violent crimes that they were committing does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Pfainuk talk 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it would not be fair -in fact that description of our position would be completely off the wall.
The "weight" of an event in the sources can be measured in different ways: number of words dedicated in the sources, number of sources that discuss the event... As Richard said, a very important event can take only a few words, because there is only a certain amount of words that can be dedicated to it.
In this case, I suppose that the sources only can talk about the information that was recorded at the time, and even if it is very important they can not go for pages and pages talking about the atrocities and the exodus if there was only original information for one page. On the other hand, regarding the number of sources, it is clear that these events (to paraphrase Wee Curry Monster) are recorded in "all major British historical works". This is something you can't say of many events undisputedly in the History section. I would say this is enough evidence for you guys to start to think that maybe these events are notable enough to be mentioned in the article, isn't it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Rape and desecration of churches do carry a certain weight of their own. But no, I'd guess that any violence sufficient to persuade the majority to move out would have had much the same long-term effect. It just so happens that rape and desecration of churches are what happened, and so it's reasonable to say so. But not, I suppose, essential. Perhaps, if we can get outside opinion on whether to include these details in any form, we could then discuss, if we still need to, exactly what form? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We could mention an awful lot of what happened, and make this history section as long as the books we are discussing, on the arguments that "it's reasonable to say so" and that "carry a certain weight of their own". We don't because we don't want the article to be so long. And these are not arguments for giving them massively greater weight than they are given by the sources.
And giving things massively more weight than the sources do is particularly a problem when the points being given massively undue weight are also the points that are argued by one side of a modern dispute. The current text gives massively undue weight to the points that support the Spanish POV, to the exclusion of all else.
The point of this RFC was to get the outside opinion you say you want. You posted a wall of text to it. If you wanted outside opinion, that was a very odd way of going about it. Pfainuk talk 09:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
We needed the questions that your edit raised, in a form potentially-answerable by outside editors without requiring them to go to unreasonable lengths. The previous section doesn't present them in any comprehensible way, though WP:DUE is indeed the relevant policy. The next section presents clearly the specific points that you raised. I suppose we could reiterate the two texts as well, and we could present statements either way if you like. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The text gave a proposal, and the facts of the case. You wrote a wall of text in response, campaigning for your position and insisting on this bizarre idea that weight can be judged based on yours and Imalbornoz's POVs, regardless of policy. Pfainuk talk 11:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The questions

Just to repeat the questions at issue, they are whether or not to include in this article, in relation to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704:

a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms

b) destination of the refugees

c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No those are not the issues at all, the issue I sought outside opinion on is about WP:DUE in a small summary for an overview. More importantly how you establish due weight without recourse to sources. It seems clear to me from the opinions at both WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN that the basis for the current text is not justified by wikipedia's policies. I have deliberately avoiding commenting about the many innaccuracies in the above statements to avoid adding to the walls of text deterring outside opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  May I suggest that all involved parties here work up a list of what the questions (issues) are? Clearly and succinctly stated? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I would say that Richard's list is quite correct. It is undisputed that the invaders of Gibraltar carried out widespread rapes, desecrations and lootings on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture. It is also agreed by all sources that practically all the population of Gibraltar left after the violence and that the largest part of the refugees established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque (which would later become the town of San Roque, Cádiz).

  • Some editors think that these facts are worth mentioning in half a paragraph. They argue that they are relevant to the history of Gibraltar and its inhabitants, and that there are extensive references to these facts in sources about Gibraltar, much more extensive than other facts that are undisputedly in the History section of the article. They also say that these facts have been omitted in some British nationalist sources.
  • Other editors want to limit that mention to saying that there were disorders (without saying who committed them, what type of violence took place or which was the main destination of the population of Gibraltar). They argue that these facts take only a very small percentage of the text of the reliable sources and providing more detail would be giving undue weight. They also say that these facts have been used by Spanish nationalist sources in order to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar.

The questions would therefore be:

  • How do we determine due weight in this case?
  • Is half a paragraph too much weight and therefore non-NPOV? Is "three days of violent disorder" too little weight and therefore NPOV?

Thank you very much for your interest. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here from WP:RSN. I'm a historian, but not of this part of the world. I can't consult the cited sources but I'll make a couple of comments for what they are worth.
This section is intentionally a summary of History of Gibraltar. That (or an article specifically about the capture and its consequences) is the place for the detail. This is the place for the broader picture, in which, in the early 1700s, two things matter: 1. the population of Gibraltar: 2. the possession of Gibraltar. The event we're talking about
  1. led almost all the inhabitants to move out and thus to a population change that became permanent (if I've understood correctly): an unusual and very notable event in the history of any town.
  2. was less important in the history of the possession of Gibraltar (the crucial moment was the Treaty of Utrecht) but still significant, because physical possession rendered a claim to permanent ownership more realistic.
So we have to explain the population move. It's difficult to do, and the present paragraph doesn't hack it (if I may say so, no offence intended). It contains three statements that might be hard to source reliably, "commanders lost control" (the myth of the surgical strike), "almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous" (no one ever knows what almost all the population feels) and "fled" (History of Gibraltar suggests something different: they decided to move out alongside the garrison and did so).
The move is sourced, the disorder is sourced. If I were writing a book about this, I would need strong sources for the claim that the disorder led directly to the move (there's the nagging contradiction that "order was restored", which would need strong sourcing too), but certainly it's the best explanation available on Wikipedia this morning. Given that, the disorder must have been extreme and needs exemplifying. The real problem is to know what examples to give. The section here will be much easier to write when History of Gibraltar is improved (currently it is largely based on one source). Based on that page's current state, reasonable examples are given here: rape and pillage, desecration of churches, and reprisal killings by townspeople.
So, for the present, I would retain these details, shortening the section by not pretending to say what the commanders wanted or what the population felt. Andrew Dalby 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I fear that this is not based on the full facts. Other sources are available and have been cited. For example, we have a letter written by the townspeople that cite the reasons why they left here, on page 115, which does not refer to the violence that occurred (beyond the fact of the capture) but to the townspeople's loyalty to the Bourbon claimant to the Spanish throne over the Hapsburg claimant. Relevant to this is the fact that the townspeople were largely Catholic but the capturing force was largely Protestant. The current text does not even mention the fact that there was a Bourbon claimant or that Gibraltar was captured in a dispute over the Spanish throne.
We can also source that the townspeople may well have believed that the absence would only be temporary. Jackson says that:
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.
It is logical to assume that both sides, at the time, hoped that the situation would indeed be temporary. Though they did not know it, in 1704 the war still had 9 years to run. The English, Dutch and Austrian forces were hoping to use Gibraltar as a base to win the support of Andalusia for the Hapsburg claim (and eventually that the Hapsburg claimant would be recognised as King of Spain). Spanish and French forces were hoping that Gibraltar would be recaptured for the Bourbon claim. The more you look at the situation, the more this looks like a temporary displacement that became permanent. The behaviour of refugees from Gibraltar would not seem entirely different from the behaviour of refugees from other parts of the world.
None of this is mentioned by the current text, and the fact remains that the weight given to these points by reliable sources is massively greater than that given by any of the reliable sources cited. Pfainuk talk 11:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Andrew's suggestion is very reasonable. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] That page 115 doesn't show up for me, but I see from what you say that I was right to wonder whether the disorder, pure and simple, led to the move. And, yes, I'd noticed that the move might originally have been seen by one or both sides as temporary.
My suggestion for editing here is intended really as a stopgap: my main point is we need a better History of Gibraltar article (or an article specifically about the capture and its consequences) as a basis for a better summary here. Andrew Dalby 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, I agree that the History article needs improvement. I also agree that the disorders may have been just one of several causes and the exodus might have been perceived as temporary at the time (although I don't think this point is relevant historically for this overview article, maybe yes for the History article).
If you want to check the links and some excerpts of the sources we have been using in the discussion, you can do it here. Thanks for your comments.
I have one question (if I may abuse from your attention): do you think (from your very qualified perspective) that the type of violence, its authors, and the final destination of the largest part of the refugees (San Roque) are notable enough to be specifically mentioned in this article? Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Worth mentioning, of course, that those quotes have been specifically chosen by Imalbornoz in support of his position. It's certainly not a neutral list and does not accurately reflect the weight given to these points by the sources. Pfainuk talk 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) In that case, it's probably worth quoting it in a collapsed section for future reference:
Letter to Philip V as quoted by Sayer

Letter Of The Authorities To King Philip V. 115

Sire,

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

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

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

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

Part of the problem here is the issue with the modern dispute: Spain has historically highlighted the fact of the violence to claim that the townspeople were forced out by the British and that the modern Gibraltarians are a transplanted population with no right to self-determination. There would thus seem to be a serious POV problem with the current claim that it was the violence and only the violence that caused the townspeople to leave, as well as with giving too much weight to the violence.
As to other improvements, it is difficult to deny that we have long needed significant improvement on most major articles related to Gibraltar - this one included. I don't know if you noticed that History of Gibraltar doesn't reach past the Napoleonic Wars, but it demonstrates the scale of the problem. Trouble is, there seems very little prospect of this actually happening at the moment. Best to just try to improve these articles as best we can, one bit at a time. Pfainuk talk 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I noted the purpose of Imalbornoz's page, but it was still very handy to me, so, thank you. Thanks also for the copy of the letter that google books refused to show me! I don't like to pontificate: I think the answer really will come from discussion and from better Wikipedia pages about the detail of the events. My impression right now is that the move of the population to San Roque is very notable for the history of Gibraltar. Therefore, what led to the move is also notable. It looks to me at first sight as if this should include the disorders and brutalities, also religious animosity, also political loyalties, and these are all connected. Nothing like the full story is as yet visible in a Wikipedia article. That's it from me, really. Andrew Dalby 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So, Andrew suggests that some points should be in: "disorders and brutalities, also religious animosity, also political loyalties" and the restoration of order. And some should be out: "what the commanders wanted or what the population felt"

Folding these in with the existing proposals, I get something like:


Does this seem like a way forward? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fine with me, although I would like to make one clarification (if possible) and one question (and then maybe propose some slight adjustment):
  • The clarification: I would note that the authorities cited their loyalty to King Philip on August 5 in a letter addressed to none other than King Philip himself (this is not irrelevant, it is different to cite your loyalty to a neutral Historian who is documenting the facts than to the person to whom you report or from whom you expect some favor).
  • The question: The surrender took place on August 4, in conditions of freedom of religion etc. The letter of the authorities to the King is dated on August 5, rejecting to stay and swear allegiance to Charles of Habsburg. The violence kept going on even after August 4 and August 5. Then, order was restored and, on August 7, the authorities and the population left the town. Am I wrong? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So this would give us:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, I although I would propose some tweaking to avoid repetition of dates and give some continuity (but maybe the result is worse). What do you think?:
Imalbornoz (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I cannot accept these proposals. They're doing nothing more than recycle the same text that is in the article and for me that is problematic. And they're ignoring the crucial piece of feedback we have received from outside opinion.
First of all if we're going down this route, I note from the outside comment Nothing like the full story is as yet visible in a Wikipedia article. , so starting from a sow's ear and attempting to make it into a silk purse is not the way to go. If we're going to write truly neutral prose a number of factors need to be included.
A) We need to explain what the men who carried out these events were like, in particular the brutal nature of their lives. Garrat can be used to source this.
B) We need to explain how discipline broke down and why. The impact of alcohol etc - Garratt does this well as does Andrews and even Hills.
C) We need to explain objectives and aims of the occupation and clarify what the intentions were (any one of the named sources). In particular, this was about Hearts and Minds, winning over the population to the Hapsburg cause, so very specific orders were issued:
i) The orders to protect Catholic churches for one
ii) The orders to respect the right of religions including Catholics
D) The events themselves and the violence on both sides.
E) The exodus and all (emphasis added) of the factors that led to it.
i) Chiefly the loyalty to Philip, this is the stated reason given by the population we should follow that.
ii) Expectation of the counter attack, this is cited by numerous sources so please no semantic argument it wasn't a factor.
iii) The violence, which several authors cite and I believe we should note that Spain uses this in its modern sovereignty claim. To leave the elephant in the room is not acceptable.
F) That the perpetrators of the violence were punished, order was restored.
G) If we must say where they went, we either do it properly as I have stated all along and mention all of the towns in the Campo that resulted. Where we mention San Roque, we should mention the connection to the modern sovereignty claim.
H) The impact of the take over, how the violence was exploited by Philip against the heretics and was counter productive to the war aims of the Hapsburg cause, the recriminations among the allies and the alienation of Andalusia.
This is not a priority list, its what needs to be included to produce a text that meets NPOV. I also believe that editors should name the sources they're using and have access to them. You cannot reliably source an edit when you don't have access to sources. So please can you name your sources, I have done so it is not unreasonable to expect you to reciprocate. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And BTW Byng's eye witness account blames much of the violence against women on Hesse's 200 Catalans, I would add we need to include their role as that is another element of the ethnic mix, including the Protestant vs Catholic issue. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks WCM. I could write at length but it's probably best to suggest that these points are best placed in the History of Gibraltar article and that the main issues, suitable for an overview, are fairly well-written in the versions just before your latest comment. Andrew, I hate to impose further on your goodwill, but as you see we do need outside opinion if we are ever to resolve these issues. I hope that we will attract other editors, but in the meantime, would you be good enough to give us your thoughts on the proposals since your last comment? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
When the feedback is "Nothing like the full story is as yet visible in a Wikipedia article", we should take notice of that and deal with it. I've been saying this for a long time, a large text is necessary to deal with all of the issues, alternatively we suborn details to History of Gibraltar and cover it very briefly. I'm happy to consider either approach, I've consistently pointed this out. So I find it rather irritating to see the edits proposed described as removing material, particularly where material is summarised NOT removed and additional information added. So if you want to include details of rapes, looting and the ransacking of churches then yes fine but you've selected the route of a much larger text.
A half-way house where selected information only is presented is not acceptable. I'm prepared to work on a compromise text that expands upon what we currently have to present the full story if that is what is desired. We've had outside opinion but it seems you want to ignore it to stick a band aid on a text that manifestly does not tell anything like the full story. Several times you have stated you're prepared to see the article expanded, more details included but when it comes down to it, you return to the existing text each and every time.
And I don't know how many times I've asked, I've lost count. Would you be so good as to share with the community what sources you actually have please? Material needs to be cited per WP:RS and that requires you have access to Hills and Jackson if thats the source, you state you're using. At the moment we're in a situation where you assert you have stuff but won't name sources, I mean how can you establish WP:DUE without reading extensively on the subject? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
With goodwill to all, I stick firmly at the need to write more detail, with full sourcing, on another page, first. Before that happens, any change here will be a mere stopgap.
Story: I recently published a brief biography of Eleftherios Venizelos. The most difficult page to write was about the Greek-Turkish fighting of 1922-1923 culminating in the capture of İzmir. Venizelos was no longer prime minister, he was in exile, but it couldn't be omitted and I had to summarise it extremely briefly. Within the brevity I had to describe or at least imply bravery, brutality, tragedy on both sides and unhealed wounds at the end of it. Extremely difficult: just slightly easier when you have a securely NPOV narrative on which you can base your summary. Andrew Dalby 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In the meantime, we still hope for further new comment, and for Pfainuk's ideas, but I propose to remove the Undue template and the present paragraph:


And substitute:


I appreciate that this is a stopgap, and in any case, for Wikipedia, there is no final version. I personally might have made slightly different editorial choices. But I hope that this will settle a longstanding wrangle. There is much more to be done - and the History of Gibraltar is calling, in which all of the points adduced above may possibly fit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, the Bourbon king as opposed to what? We can't very well go into the Bourbons without mentioning that the Spanish throne was disputed. And I don't accept your apparent assumption that the fact that we may be writing a longer bit so that we can summarise it means that in any sense the objection to this text on the basis of WP:UNDUE has been found wanting. If we are summarising a longer text, this does not lift from either the longer text or the summary a requirement that points be given appropriate weight, something that is not currently happening here and that does not happen in your text. Pfainuk talk 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have already registered my opposition to this proposal, which is not going to be ameliorated by ignoring my comments. Do I have to remind you that the defintion of a disruptive editor per WP:DE is one who repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;. I have explained my objections at length and I am prepared to work on improving the article. I have also, repeatedly asked you for information on the sources you're using, you've repeatedly ignored the request.
To be more exact, you've repeatedly accused me of not using sources. I am happy to assure you that you are wrong. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If I'm "wrong" then in a co-operative working environment you would have no problem with sharing them so that we can speak from the same page. That you have refused repeatedly to do so is not indicative of someone prepared to work collaboratively. So again I ask what sources you are using to establish due weight and in particular depth of detail, quantity of text. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy to revert to Pfainuk's summary text, this to my mind is superior with regards to weight; though again I feel we'd be better with greater brevity. And I would be happy to work on the History of Gibraltar, a text I'm already broadly happy with, it needs a minor improvement. Are you prepared to compromise on this point please, I have already compromised from my position to accept greater details perhaps you would compromise to accept less.. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk, I had thought of adding the Archduke - if we have one claimant we might as well have the other, though if brevity is an issue I'd suggest removing both. Here's another draft with him included:

WCM, I note your opposition. Due weight means conveying the essential points of the narrative, skilled editorial choice, on which Andrew has usefully given us his opinion. His ideas may not exactly coincide with those of any of the four of us, but they are the best bet so far for a consensus. Or would you like further outside comments, not an unreasonable idea if we can get the questions clear? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have compromised in accepting Pfainuk's text, I note the central point from the feedback you've got is that the current text doesn't give the story and you're not addressing that feedback with this text. And I also note that having asked if you'd be prepared to compromise the answer is a resounding NO to continue to insist on text you prefer. You note but ignore my opposition.
As a point of fact, I've accepted Andrew's point and I don't see it as a million miles away from what I've been arguing for some time.
I oppose this as a text to go forward whether as a stopgap or whatever, I will not accept it in its current form. It doesn't include details or depth of coverage to achieve a text that meets the requirements of neutral point of view. Do you have access to the sources you're relying on yes/no? Answer please. If I don't get an answer then I propose to restore Pfainuk's edit and include a cite that references the violence as a footnote. The material you claim you want included, will be included, so I fail to see any reasoned opposition. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've mentioned several times before, the answer is yes.
You're missing the reasons because they are not directly relevant to the policies you quote. Those policies assume, rather than lay out, the basic business of writing an encyclopedia, namely to distil the important points of the story and to tell them clearly. This is a process of skilled judgement; policy (and bibliometry) are there to avoid obvious wrong turns rather than guide us through these judgements in detail. Now, if you can persuade enough editors that it is right to leave out of this overview certain details of the departure of the previous population of Gibraltar - the drunken rioting that helped persuade them to leave and their immediate destination in particular - I'll accept this as consensus. There are no policies that tell us one way or the other, and I notice you;'ve tried hard enough to find one. Until you can assemble a consensus, I'll stick with the opinion that these facts should be in this overview, as salient points of the history of Gibraltar that have ongoing importance to new readers today. I note that my sentiment has been widely supported by other editors who have departed in the face of the immense almost-relevant exegeses of policy we see in the archives. We are here to write a better encyclopedia. If we want further opinion to help us, we should set our questions out clearly, without trying the Procrustean exercise of making policy fit the question. And then pay attention to the answers. In the meantime I propose to insert the draft that stands immediately above, per suggestions from Andrew Dalby and Pfainuk. I'd encourage you also to take Andrew's further suggestion and work on the History of Gibraltar where indeed much more detail is appropriate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If the answer is yes, then as I've asked several times would you care to share, as I have done.
Not really, thanks. If it becomes relevant, I'll put in references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And if you do have access to sources, then why pray do you continue to insist that the "drunken rioting" is the sole factor in their departure, ignoring the weight of opinion that mentions other factors at play. Because as someone who has done a lot of research on the matter I remain non-plussed at the constant instance that this is the sole reason.
The rapes, pillage, desecration aren't presented above as the only reason, are they? They may arguably be the most important one in retrospect, of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to write a better article, I want the text to follow the policy of a NPOV. I've argued that is doesn't and tried to improve it, including mention of what you refer to as drunken rioting but you've vetoed each and every attempt I have made to improve it. Bibliometry is not a suitable means of establishing due weight, particularly when the metric is hits in Google Sources.
And yet again you write with the bad faith accusation that I don't wish to include points. Again and again you make this accusation, it was untrue the last time, its untrue this time, it will be untrue the next time you make it. If you wish to include such material you need to include additional details to achieve a neutral text. This you ignore again and again and you're ignoring the feedback that the current text doesn't give the full story.
It can't. It's an overview. It needs a limited number of carefully-selected facts, those most relevant to understanding of major events. The selection is the point. Including the facts you dislike does not have to depend on including a lot of others of lesser salience. The History of Gibraltar awaits your fuller story. Or a fuller story, anyway. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the insertion of the text above and yet again you're ignoring my opposition to impose your solution. You don't have a consensus, same as the last time you decided to impose a solution. When I want to make a change, its reverted with the claim there is "No consensus to change" so how come we have a different standard to any change you propose? You mention compromise, you expect me to compromise but you never do. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Rather than reprise the archives, I'll let them speak for themselves on the matter of compromises. And I will wait for a genuine consensus (possibly minus a small minority) before making any changes. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to remind you [3]. You assert the motives for those in opposition were "on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia." The grounds for opposition for inclusion were on the basis of WP:DUE. Now if you assert they are grounds "not relevant to Wikipedia", then you are assuming a bad faith presumption as to my motives.
I don't think I've made any such assumption about your motives. Reading through the link you supply I think I was referring to someone else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No Richard, I asked you on your talk page about, your comments were dismissive and repeated the same accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You also continue to accuse me on the basis of "Including the facts you dislike does not have to depend on including a lot of others of lesser salience." The factors I suggest for inclusion are accorded equal weight in sources, they are not of lesser significance. Neither are they facts I dislike and again here I am forced into the position of having to defend myself against your bad faith presumption. The carefully selected facts do not present a true picture, they mislead by not presenting the range of opinions in the literature. Worse still they're favouring a modern national narrative and you're ignoring this issue.
To repeat, your good faith is not disputed by me. For any encyclopedic article, especially an overview, we need to select facts. I hope you're not suggesting that we need to put in every fact that a reliable source mentions, in order to justify putting in one? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
OK so when I pointed out they're of equal weight and equal signficance and favouring a national narrative, could you explain to me so that I can understand where you're coming from, why you're ignoring me if you're assuming good faith and my opinions matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence that would lead me to conclude that you have access to relevant sources, everything you do is quoted from carefully selected excerpts on wikipedia. You deny easily verifiable material which is of at least equal relevance and continue to ignore unacceptable methods of sourcing edits, worse still lauding it as "ingenious" bibliometry. I don't see how anyone who has full access to the sources Jackson and Hills would make the assertions that you do. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You don't? I do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think you could follow WP:TPG and not break up my comments. OK if you do have access to sources, could you please name the ones you personally are using for my edification. If its Hills and Jackson, I for one would be very interested to know why you think the aspiration to gain the hearts and minds of Andalusia for the Hapsburgs, which both discuss at length is of "lesser signficance". Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the RFC has been derailed with a wall of text - again. I note there has still been no substantial objection to the text offered by Pfainuk. I note you still do no respond to the following: a) Name the sources you're using. b) The feedback from WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN that Google Snippets et al is not a reliable sourcing method. c) The persistent comments about "ingenious" Bibliometry not being a reliable means of establishing due weight. d) The suggestion of a rather larger text, then producing a summary. e) The comments that the current text does not tell the full story.

Noting e) above, this chimes with my consistent comment that the current text does not comply with NPOV policy as it doesn't present all relevant opinions in the literature. I note no response to the comment about equal weight and equal significance.

If the situation persists, then I will conclude there is no substantive objection to the edit, certainly not one sustainable under wikipedia's policies and I will once again restore Pfainuk's edit modified as I suggested. I will wait 24 hrs. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Text Suggestion

Following Andrew's suggestion I've prepared a rather large text capturing what I believe are salient points, without attempting to summarise for an overview.


I await other contributions with interest. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential discussion collapsed to focus on the suggested process

OK, so what would you put in an overview? Just for comparison, the current text is:

And the current proposal is:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the approach suggested was to tell the whole story, then having the whole story work toward a summary. An approach I'm following. Do you want to follow external opinion or not? You seem to want to trample straight to a text, which pretty much continues with everything wrong with the current article and, well, ignore what was suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
See here Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a suggestion. How about taking your megatext to History of Gibraltar where it will be more appropriate? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the first paragraph, I think there was loyalty of the Aragonese territories (including Aragon, Balearics, Valencia and Catalonia) to one potential Spanish king (the Habsburg claimant), so I dont think its justified to talk about "antipathy of the Catalans to the Spanish Crown". Can it be worded to reflect this issue more accurately? Also, could you please cite some sources saying that the invaders wanted to gain support of the people of Southern Spain with he capture of Gibraltar? (I do remember some source saying that Hesse intended to obtain a beach head with the capture, but nothing about gaining support of the people).
I'll review the rest of the text later on, but I wanted to share this first comment with you.
I guess we can continue this discussion in the History article, like Richard suggested. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to follow the outside suggestion then do so, all of the above can be sourced. Otherwise your comments are not relevant to the proposed process. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Beg your pardon? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Try listening, it would make a pleasant change. The proposed process is to produce a larger text that deals with relevant issues, then summarise. You and Richard seem to want to trample straight to the summary by recycling the current flawed text that doesn't tell the story. Lets see your suggestion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, I was talking about your megatext:
"Regarding the (WMC'S) first paragraph, I think there was loyalty of the Aragonese territories (including Aragon, Balearics, Valencia and Catalonia) to one potential Spanish king (the Habsburg claimant), so I dont think its justified to talk about "antipathy of the Catalans to the Spanish Crown". Can it be worded to reflect this issue more accurately? Also, could you please cite some sources saying that the invaders wanted to gain support of the people of Southern Spain with he capture of Gibraltar? (I do remember some source saying that Hesse intended to obtain a beach head with the capture, but nothing about gaining support of the people).
"I'll review the rest of the (WMC'S) text later on, but I wanted to share this first comment with you.
"I guess we can continue this discussion (about (WMC'S megatext) in the History article, like Richard suggested."
BTW, I don't think this discussion is tangential (in fact, I think your megatext is tangential for this overview article but not for the History article, so I propose we continue its discussion in the History article talk page).
Please ask before collapsing other editors' comments. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would ask you not to derail discussions with walls of text, I am following the process suggested by outside opinion.
The process broken down:
a) produce a larger text that deals with relevant issues
b) summarise.
I would ask you not to derail this by being argumentative and insisting on inserting further walls of text to deter outside comment. I have offered a suggestion, I would recommend you direct your energies to producing your own contribution. I did see your comments, I have replied to then, repeating them was unnecessary. I would ask you to not personalise matters also. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See [4] and [5]. Congratulations gentlemen, mission achieved? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to follow this process. However, I note that we already have larger texts that deal with relevant issues - our RS are such texts. In every case where we have tried to agree on the facts, we have succeeded. Where we have failed is in coming to a consensus on selection of facts for an overview, specifically in areas where no mechanistic process (or policy) can give us precise directions. With apologies to Andrew and thanks for his substantive contribution here, I really can't see this process as likely to get us any further. Don't let me discourage anyone from trying it! The only thing that I can see as allowing progress is one or more editors who are prepared to make well-informed and sophisticated choices on the selection of facts to appear in this summary, and then to stick to them in the face of endless uncomprehending distractions. Or a single admin, prepared to make choices and then enforce them as gently as possible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are rejecting an outside suggestion, one of the few we've received after the introduction of a huge wall of text. Every attempt at an RFC has been defeated by the introduction of huge tracts of text. And you are discouraging it by introducing a wall of text and repeately removing the collapse box I inserted to stop this discouragement.
I tossed the above out in about 15 minutes, as I happen to have quite reasonable domain knowledge of the subject. Could you do that? You refuse to even name the sources you're using to establish due weight (if they exist). We've seen that Imalbornoz doesn't have access to sources, he relies on Google Snippets and asking a 3rd party. You're arguing WP:DUE on the basis of "ingenious" bibliometry, conveniently ignoring the opinion on WP:NPOVN this is inappropriate. This is neither well-informed nor sophisticated selection of facts to appear in a summary; the facts were selected and then justification created.
Admins don't enforce solutions Richard, wish they would sometimes but you know they don't. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I really cannot think of any explanation that's likely to get through to you, so I'll avoid further reams of prose here. I'll just repeat, please feel entirely free to develop a much longer text on some more appropriate page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Text suggestion for the Gibraltar page

Andrew has indeed suggested getting together a fuller account elsewhere, and I'd applaud that. In the meantime this may only be, as he says, a stopgap, but it's an improvement on the present text which is:

And the current proposal, slightly copyedited by me (I have elided the competing kings to wikilinks) following useful input from Andrew Dalby, Imalbornoz, and Pfainuk is:

I'll make the change this evening, unless there are any coherent objections? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Object - still does not address the problem of WP:DUE, still does not tell the full story, still does not address the range of relevant opinions in the literature. Notice the clear direct and coherent objections. I remain opposed to this text for that reason. In addition, please stop including irrelevant material on this thread. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would really prefer it if a consensus could include WCMonster, but we may have to live without that happiness. Does anyone else object? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is clearly not a consensus for this text, I have explained my objections. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, for reasons already given. If we are following another means of getting consensus on this point then that does not imply either that this point has been resolved, or that the existing text is appropriate in terms of WP:WEIGHT. I also don't really think it's appropriate for you to announce that you're going to ignore Curry Monster without making any attempt to address his concerns. Pfainuk talk 17:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I merely note that the suggested change goes some way towards addressing everyone's concerns. Even WCMonster's, and we've spent months addressing every tangent of those. However, until we can get a consensus for change, I refrain. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It does not address my concerns, it simply perpetuates them. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell your objections appear to be founded on your personal preference not on the actual facts as recorded in histories, I see no reason why such objections should not simply be ignored. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest you withdraw that needless personal attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this comment from Guy is very relevant (especially coming from an experienced editor and admin like him). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Guy, if you are not able to edit this article without bearing personal grudges, making personal attacks and assuming bad faith in other editors, it is probably best if you do not edit it at all. Pfainuk talk 12:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Um, I don't know if you've noticed, but I haven't edited the article. I am not one of the small group of obsessives pressing their preferred text here. Nor am I the one pursuing grudges (that would be the multiply-renamed WCM). It is a simple fact that objections which are based on opinion not fact can simply be ignored. WCM appears to have a visceral reaction to the very mention of San Roque, until he can overcome that his edits fail the most basic test of WP:NPOV. That's all I'm saying. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Obsessive - not sure I really like being one of them, but after over a year of voluminous argument I suppose I have to accept the label. I still think of myself as responding to a certain RfC, primarily about mentioning San Roque and secondarily about achieving a reasonably neutral point of view in the overall story of Gibraltar which we are here to tell. I see NPOV as best achieved by including a straightforward description of all the well-evidenced facts that are important to any of the three national stories involved. When that's done I'll plan to take a break and not to worry about the exact length of text devoted to what I personally see as less important issues.
I would like to note to WC Monster's considerable credit - he clearly had very strong feelings and I can empathize with them - that he has now accepted that San Roque is at least mentionable and so are other important aspects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Your statement about national narratives is not an argument for your position, which is that we should give massive detail about the Spanish POV and nothing on anyone else's. Even if it did, "a straightforward description of all the well-evidenced facts that are important to any of the three national stories involved" would be only appropriate if this were an article on the dispute, and we were writing a section describing the modern arguments. But it isn't and we aren't. This a history of Gibraltar. There is no reason why points that later became arguments in the modern dispute should be given such massively greater weight in a general history of Gibraltar than points that did not. Which is why our sources don't do that.
Neutrality requires that we give due weight to all aspects of Gibraltar history whether they are related to the dispute or not. There is nothing in the context of this section that leads the reader to believe that it is written on the basis that it is a précis of the modern arguments in the dispute, nor that it is a history of the modern arguments of the dispute. On the contrary, it appears to be a history of Gibraltar. So giving massive extra weight to points argued in the modern dispute - and consequently downplaying points that are not - gives the reader a distorted impression of the history of Gibraltar, which is something that we should not be doing. We should be playing with a straight bat - trying to emphasise the arguments on either side is inappropriate.
The places to be making points about the modern dispute are in the two articles we have on the modern dispute. Not on a general article on Gibraltar.
I note that Guy, amongst his personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, says that "[i]t is a simple fact that objections which are based on opinion not fact can simply be ignored". Can I take it thus that you agree, Guy, that the statements that things are "very notable and relevant" or "have to be properly mentioned" - without further argument or explanation - are not valid arguments and thus should be ignored? Those are the principle arguments for inclusion of these points - despite the fact that the current text gives them massively greater weight than is given by reliable sources. Pfainuk talk 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG, Wee Curry Monster has done it again!!!!!

It's not easy to keep a cool and structured discussion with this type of behaviour. We have been discussing alternative texts for several days and now comes WCM like an elephant in a glass store changing the text without even saying it here (not even afterwards):

  • He includes "The men ran amok" as the only euphemism for the widespread rapes, lootings and desecrations (which were notable even at the time, like many sources say).
  • On top of that, he includes other things more appropriate for a a history of the War of Succession. For example: that the invasion was "disastrous for the Habsburg cause" or the reasons for the invasion (some of which are not even supported by all historians -Hills, for example, does not support that the invaders expected to gain the support of the Southern population, and he cites the document of the meeting that decided the invasion).
  • He makes assumptions about the feelings and intentions of the villagers (I thought we had all agreed not to do this, in one direction or the other: WCM has systematically vetoed Jackson's assertion that the villagers "did not want to run the risk" and stay -which is the only reason Jackson -WCM's main source- gives for the departure).
  • ...

On the other hand, he -for the first time!- does mention San Roque (that's a good sign).

Please, undo the edit and let's discuss this over. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this does remind me why I've gone to the effort of following my original brief comment for so long. The process has quite often made me giggle, but I haven't had such a good laugh for a long time. WCMonster, I don't think this was quite what Andrew had in mind. Anyway, I have made another bold edit, this time folding together WCMonster's version with the nearly-possible version in the last section. Since most of WCMonster's text is in the footnotes, this gives us a section only somewhat longer than I would personally have judged ideal, and it seems to include everything that anyone has seriously suggested should be included. I hope for a consensus that this is a basis for progress? I'll revert to yesterday's longstanding version if not.

I should say that in doing this edit I haven't checked any references - I'm at work and my books aren't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Andrew had in mind. Nice to see you editing without recourse to the sources that you still haven't shared with everyone. It does include everything discussed and more.
I decline to self-revert, the edit I produced was a reasonable summary of the salient points. It was extensively cited, with extensive quotes. I fail to see how Imalbornoz can claim that the cites don't support the text as the extensive quotes I gave from the sources clearly do. And anyway, how he can make that claim without access to the source is beyond me. The edit is clearly supported by cites and detailed quotes. I reject all of his comments as not sustainable under any wikipedian policy. If he has a problem with it, then take it to WP:RSN as I am confident my sourcing will stand up to scrutiny and I would relish the chance to have it examined in open forum. I believe it is simply not possible to argue this text is not an improvement over the perversion of English grammar that preceded it.
You will note that I clearly add details of the violence in the extensive quotes I included, which seems an appropriate way of dealing with matters. I see the usual accusations about San Roque have surfaced yet again, so good to see that in spite of 2 years pointing out that I never had a problem with mentioning it in context but sadly indeed that falsehood is repeated again. If nothing else it clearly demonstrates one of the major problems we've had and that is failing to listen.
I appreciate Richard's good faith attempt to go with what I'm trying to do but I have reverted for a good reason. Your edit removed salient facts, including the efforts of commanders to regain control and the punishment of rioters. I deliberately included extensive quotes from all the sources for that reason. I feel I have struck a better balance between summarising details and giving undue weight to those details resulting in a text that flows far better. One of my comments about the previous text that the attempts to produce a charge sheet of all the crimes crammed into a single sentence, it produced a sentence so convoluted and with appalling grammar it was not suitable for an encyclopedia of any merit. And it failed NPOV by not addressing the way the violence was dealt with.
I do hope you won't revert, as clearly that would be disruptive to revert well written prose, supported by detailed cites to a text that fails WP:NPOV and that is badly written. I also hope we won't see references to the Great Siege of Gibraltar removed again as "not notable" as that is a clearly false premise and would be disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that was a forlorn hope that you wouldn't revert, you didn't even wait for an explanation. Please self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW you re-inserted false information again. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


WCMonster, I'm sorry that you don't feel able to engage with these suggestions. I have reverted to yesterday's longstanding version as promised, but keeping your comment on two of the major sieges of Gibraltar. I paste the combined bold version here in case it's ever of any use:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a Anglo-Dutch force of the Grand Alliance[28][29][30]captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was selected, after abortive attempts elsewhere, for its strategic value, its weak garrison, and as a base to raise Andalucia against the Bourbon king in favour of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne.[31] Orders were given to respect civilians,[32] and the terms of surrender promised property and religious rights.[33] However, officers lost control[34] and during the following days sailors and marines[35] engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings.[2][36][37] A few of the invading force were hanged as rioters.[38]

On 5 August, the authorities wrote to the Bourbon king, declaring their loyalty to his cause.[4][4] Two days later, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[2] Several factors influenced the decision including the expectation of a counter attack[39] and the violence[40] during the capture. These events frustrated the war aim of bringing the Andalucians to the Hapsburg cause.[41] The subsequent siege failed to dislodge the invading forces and the refugees mostly settled in the Campo de Gibraltar. The settlement around the hermitage of San Roque became a town and in 1706 was granted its charter as the Most Loyal town of Gibraltar resident in its Campo.[42]

In 1711, the British and French Governments started secret negotiations to end the war; the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 established English sovereignty over Gibraltar.[43]

Spain attempted to retake Gibraltar in 1727 and most notably in 1779, when it entered the American Revolutionary War on the American side as an ally of France.[44]

Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that the argument against the proposed edit, once again, boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is also disappointing that you reject the process suggested by Andrew, for no apparent reason at all.
Usually I just leave you to have the last word. But you might notice that I was engaging with the "megatext" idea and trying to use it. I'd still think it more appropriate on another page but I'd do almost anything to get this thing moving. And the reasons for improving on WC Monster's version include lack of sourcing of the precise details and timing of whatever the officers did to actually regain control (as opposed to waiting for sobriety to return). Pocock (in Hills) reported strenuous efforts, probably by the 6th since that's when he went ashore, but I haven't found exact details of what crimes took place when. The hanging of rioters is mentioned more clearly in my version. Generally I tried to supply a version that also profited from the discussions over the last couple of weeks. I'm sorry you and WC Monster don't like it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an interesting point that Imalbornoz raises, where he claims that everything has to be mentioned by every source: aside the fact that he has stated that he does not have access to Hills (and thus I wonder at his statement that the point is not supported by Hills) there is a difference between a point not being mentioned and a point being refuted. A raw count of whether something is mentioned in X source or Y source does not determine whether it is accurate or not, provided that it is verified (which this point is). And I would suggest that the reasons why Gibraltar was chosen would seem to be very significant - and from what I've seen this is borne out by the weight provided by individual reliable sources. Pfainuk talk 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't say that everything has to be mentioned by every source. I am saying that it's funny that you and WC Monster want to include an issue that is not mentioned by some major sources while -for 2 years- you have been trying to remove other issues that are mentioned by all major sources plus quite a few more).
From the point of view of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians, I assume that what actually happened to them is much more significant than what some sources say were the strategic reasons for their being invaded (of course, from the point of view of the invaders, the reasons might seem the most important thing, of course).
As a side note, I do have access to Hills (and other sources). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT


Since we are going into this level of detail, I just wanted to point out that only one rioter was hanged (not a few). Also, if we are going to mention the consequences

Regarding intentions and consequences, I am not too sure that we should go into this level of detail here. In case we want to, then I have a few comments. To start with:

  • I object to the theory that the invaders intended to gain the favor of Andalusians. This is only mentioned by Jackson. All other authors only mention the poor state of the fortifications and the need of a base and a victory for the Habsburg cause. If you look at the transcription of the war council where the attack was decided (in Hills, for example), there is no reference whatsoever to gaining the support of the Andalusians.
  • Therefore, I also object to saying that the violence on the civil population resulted in the invaders "being frustrated".
  • Talking about consequences, there are a few more relevant to Gibraltar than the loss of support to the Habsburg cause; for one (which should be mentioned in case we start to talk about consequences) is that practically no Spaniard stayed in Gibraltar and that allowed its colonization by a new set of (non-Spanish) inhabitants. This is mentioned in "The Dispute Over Gibraltar" (Melissa Jordine), "Gibraltar, identity and empire" (Edward G. Archer), "The Dispute Over Gibraltar" (Dr. Johannes Kramer), and quite a few other sources.
  • Another relevant consequence, if we are talking about that, is that the population that left to San Roque was rewarded for their loyalty by the Bourbon King, and it was named "My most loyal city of Gibraltar residing in its Campo" (mentioned in many more sources than the "frustration" of the population outside Gibraltar).

Thank you, Richard, for helping to integrate all of our suggestions. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this based on the photocopied texts provided by Ecemaml? If so, then I do not believe that I can accept this as reasonable evidence that a point is not mentioned, unless he has (illegally) photocopied the entire book for you.
I note that all of this is based purely on counting sources. Counting sources is not, taken either on its own or along with otherwise-evidence-less assertions of relevance, an appropriate means of judging weight. As such, I reject these arguments in their entirety.
That said, nobody has ever (I believe) claimed that it is not due weight to mention that the townspeople of Gibraltar left - this is you misrepresenting the arguments again. That we should mention that they left does not, obviously, imply that we have to go into detail about San Roque when that point has had no impact on the later history of Gibraltar. It might be mentioned in a history of the Gibraltar dispute - but that's not what we are writing.
I believe, on the other hand, that providing the sort of historical context that our sources provide is appropriate for an article such as this. It seems distinctly inconsistent that you insist on going into enormous detail (coupled with rank speculation and unwarranted implication) about the reasons why the townspeople did what they did but refuse to accept even the most basic points about why the capturing forces captured Gibraltar in the first place. These points would seem to have had a significant impact on the later history of Gibraltar and would appear to be covered in some detail by the sources. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


I hope that you all will stay cool and calm. Not that I personally care much about this discussion, but if any of you get riled up it is likely to raise the temperature in other discussions, such as on the NPOV noticeboard. I would also urge caution in raising any "counting sources" issues here, as that may entangle the discussion at the noticeboard. Thank you. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the points above:
a) Hangings. ie more than one. I supported this by a direct quote from the source (Andrews), I included this specifically because we've had the same sort of nit-picking criticism previously. You ignore the quote, pass over the source, demonstrating you haven't read the proposal.
a) Andalusia & Spanish support. This is mentioned in several reliable sources per WP:RS. It is not mentioned by only one source but referred to by multiple sources (I will check on Hills later but I'm sure he mentions it). The reasons for the council of war selecting Gibraltar are documented historical fact. Regarding the source for losing the support of Andalusia, I source this to Francis with a direct quote. Again you ignore the quote, pass over the source, demonstrating that you have not read the proposal.
c) Impact of the Exodus. Reliable sources confirm this was counter productive to the Hapsburg cause and it was used by Philip V as propaganda against the "heretics". Again look, there is a direct quote supporting this.
d) Spaniards. That practically no Spaniard stayed is not true, that they never returned is not true. When the siege failed a number filtered back to their homes. The comment that this "allowed the colonisation" demonstrates a distinct POV mindset, the evolution of the population of Gibraltar did not follow a set plan as you infer. I would suggest you calm down a little.
e) The declaration on San Roque is of no relevance to Gibraltar, it is tangential at best. As there is a wikilink to the San Roque article there is no need for it here.
And responding to your claim to now have Hills, whereas previously you acknowledged you did not. Getting selected extracts from Ecemaml as you have done (I saw the posts on the talk page on es.wikipedia.org) is not gaining access to sources. Nor does it help with you continuing to quote from sources you access via Google Snippets or limited views in Google Books. If you continue to look for sources to support a pre-conceived notion, all we see is Confirmation Bias. We need to be looking at sources in the round.
As regards what Richard did with the text I proposed. You have both gone on extensively about how there is a need to mention the rapes, the ransacking of Cathlic Churches and the looting. All of which were amplified in considerable detail in the text I produced. I also included details of the efforts to regains control as described by Pocock. You removed all of that to replace it with far less detail than I'd included and watered down the coverage of the efforts to regain control. I also avoided WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL you put them straight back in. I was in the process of explaining this when you simply removed the entire text without waiting to listen.
And still we see, what is blatantly obviously by now, the false accusation that I wish to remove details. I am asking for the last time for you both to cease this bad faith accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
a) Sources only talk about ONE Englishman being hanged (Hills, Garratt, ...). For example: "Some attempt was made to stop the looting, but not many were punished. A few men were sentenced to death to discourage the others, the choice being made by throwing dice. One British marine 'was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman, who had 10 and the Englishman 9'." (Garratt)
b) I'm afraid we disagree about the number of sources that mention that the intention of the invaders was to gain the support of Andalucians. You say that many sources do mention this. Please bring a few cites (if there are so many, it won't be so difficult for you) so that we can solve this.
c) The atrocities were surely counterproductive for the image of the invaders. What I am saying is that the image is not mentioned by sources as one of the priorities or their lack of as one specially important source of frustration. Please bring some cites.
d)That practically no Spaniard stayed is not true????? All sources agree that thousands of families left, except about 70. More than 95% of Spanish Gibraltarians left their town:
  • "All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave" (Andrews).
  • "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." (Hills)
  • "the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain." (Archer)
  • "Most of the civilians who left Gibraltar never returned. Of those who left, most settled in the town of San Roque, overlooking the Bay of Gibraltar. These individuals not only remained within sight of “the Rock” but preserved the traditions of Spanish Gibraltar, retaining the flag and the standard that was bestowed by Queen Isabella." (Jordine)
  • ...
e) Well, I suppose that we differ here. I don't know how the main destination of almost all Gibraltarians of 1704 is tangential to the history of the city and its inhabitants. Well...
Going to the point, please answer my questions. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A) NO THEY DO NOT. The sources you refer to are a direct quote from Andrews p35, where he describes how those selected to hang as examples were chosen. See Decimation (Roman army) for the concept. I note you ignore the quote and source I provided. Again. May I also refer you to footnote 58 on p176 Hills.
B) Bradford p.42, Andrews p.27. Hills p.168, Francis p.115, Jackson p.94. I also note you ignore the quote and source I provided. Again. To which you can add, English and Spanish in Gibraltar, Dr. Johannes Kramer p.9.
C) Again I refer you to the source and quote provided.
D) NO. My words. "That practically no Spaniard stayed is not true," you provide quotes that prove me correct in that statement. Thank you. I also stated "that they never returned is not true". I refer you to Andrews p.54. Both points are moot as your claim is they were expelled to make room for a settler population, which is completely untrue.
E) Did you have a question? I will however offer the riposte that mentioning the destination was not in dispute, seeing how it is included in my proposed edit as is Algeciras, which is given just as much prominence in sources. My comments referred to the status conferred on San Roque as of tangential relevance. Please focus on the point.
Finally, criticism by speculation and claiming that material is not relevant because it is not included in all sources is not a valid reason for excluding material. Cited per WP:V and WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Noting I have addressed all comments and having no further response I am restoring the material I added. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Humbly I offer my edit (the one above, incorporating the points made by others, but now further modified to take into account those made since then by WC Monster). In particular I have removed the reference to the later status of San Roque, which may arguably be given enough weight by the internal link. I'll take WC Monster's word for Andrews mentioning more than one hanging, since I don't have access. I have also removed the sentence (again of dubious weight for Gibraltar itself) of the frustrated war aims. With hope springing in my breast I trust that this may serve as a useful basis for further progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've copy edited it to better reflect what the sources say. I'm bemused given the persistent demand to mention San Roque, that Algeciras, which is also mentioned is expunged so that San Roque can be mentioned twice. I will add something back for the frustrated war aims, it is cited by a reliable source and we don't censor wikipedia on the basis that someone doesn't like it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've further copy edited it to better reflect what the sources say. I'm afraid it is still too long, but I guess we can work at it in the following days.
  • Regarding the hanging of rioters, I've left open the possibility that there might have been more than one hanging to satisfy WC Monster. What Pocock (the witness on whose account Andrews, Jackson Hills etc base their accounts of the capture) says is:
"Great disorders had been committed by the boats crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman who had 10, and the Englishman 9."
In spite of this, I insist I've left open in the text the possibility of more hangings.
  • Regarding the intentions of the invaders, I'm not sure if "trying to gain the support of Andalucians" is accurate. It is not mentioned by several historians, and what the Council of War said is:
"Upon reading and considering my Lord Ambassador Methuen's letters of the 10th and 17th N.S., with a copy of the proposals made by the Kings of Spain and Portugall, for attempting Cadiz etc, as also a Letter receiv'd this day from his Highness the Prince of Hess; It is agreed and resolved Than since wee conclude it is impracticable to attempt Cadiz, with any prospect, or hopes of success, without an Army to co-operate with a Fleete: that we Land our Mareens, English and Dutch, under the Command of the Prince of Hesse, in the Bay of Gibralter, to cut off that towne from any communication with the Maine, and at the same time that wee doo Bombard&Cannonade the Place from our ships, and endeavour by that means to redce it o the King of Spaines Obedience."
I really don't see the intention to gain the support of Andalucians (Hills doesn't seem to do either). I don't know why we should follow Jackson's description and not Hills'.
There are a few other things I am not too sure of about the current text. But I have left them in order not to raise too much discussion with the text for the moment. I have finally added some lines about the transition years after the capture (those facts have much more weight in the sources than the intentions of the invaders, in any way you try to evaluate it).
Anyway, as I said, I am sure we can discuss this further. I would kindly ask other editors to wait for me until after Easter (I'm going away with my family for the holidays during next week).
Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the latest changes. There was no consensus to add what you did about de facto control, which appears to be largely WP:OR and to explain such complex concepts in an overview is not appropriate. You also removed references to the Catalan component of the forces involved. I also gave you a page reference so you can get Ecemaml to photocopy some more of Hills. All the material I've added is sourced and supported by direct quotes from the text I got them from.
I don't seem "I'm not too sure" as a valid reason for removing material, this is simply criticism by speculation. I have other material to add and so will decline your request to avoid editing whilst you are away. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a very great relief to see some progress, and I'm sure we can make more. Thanks to all for all the helpful contributions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
  3. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. Saunders. p. 115. Retrieved 4 February 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Sayer-quotes-letter" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. Infobase Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 9780791086483. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
  6. ^ a b William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: A History of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Books. p. 94. ISBN 9780948466144. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
  7. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  8. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  9. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  10. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  11. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  12. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  13. ^ Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses sacked".
  14. ^ G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
  15. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  16. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  17. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  18. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  19. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  20. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  21. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  22. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  23. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  24. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  25. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  26. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  27. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  28. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 96. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Hesse's force, including the Dutch Marines and a detachment of Catalans, was just under two thousand strong
  29. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 96. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011.The British units in the landing forces were: Fox's Marines ...the Royal Regiment of Marines...Sanderson's Marines...Villier's Marines
  30. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 94. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011. As the fleet sailed north toward Toulon, Hesse persuaded Rooke to attempt raising Barcelona in the archduke's cause by landing troops there
  31. ^ William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1990). /books?id=zmKTPwAACAAJ The Rock of the Gibraltarians: A History of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Books. p. 94. ISBN 9780948466144. Retrieved 4 February 2011. Consideration was given to what other project might be undertaken by Rooke's powerful fleet of fifty-two English and ten Dutch ships of the line. In the debate, three reasons were given for selecting Gibraltar as the target: the place was indifferently garrisoned; its possession would be of great value during the war; and its capture would encourage the Spaniards in southern Spain to declare in favour of the Hapsburgs. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)
  32. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 165. Retrieved 7 April 2011.Ormonde issued a proclamation. "They were come not to invade or conquer any part of Spain or to make any acquisitions for Her Majesty Queen Anne...but rather to deliver Spaniards from the mean subjection into which a small and corrupt party of men have brought them by delivering up that former glorious monarchy to the dominion of the perpetual enemies of it, the French" He laid particular stress on the respect that was to be shown to priests and nuns - "We have already ordered under pain of death of officers and soldiers under our command not to molest any person of what rank or quality so ever in the exercise of their religion in any manner whatsoever.
  33. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 99. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights
  34. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 175. Retrieved 7 April 2011."Great disorders", he found, "had been committed by the boats crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines
  35. ^ G. T. Garratt (March 2007). Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. Lightning Source Inc. p. 44. ISBN 9781406708509. Retrieved 7 April 2011.One has but to read the books left to us by the sailors to realize the peculiar horror of the life between-decks. Cooped up there, like sardines in a tin, were several hundreds of men, gathered by force and kept together by brutality. A lower-deck was the home of every vice, every baseness and every misery
  36. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  37. ^ David Francis (1 April 1975). The First Peninsular War: Seventeen-Two to Seventeen-Thirteen. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 115. ISBN 9780312292607. Retrieved 7 April 2011.But some of the sailors, before they could be recalled to their ships broke loose in the town and plundered the inhabitants
  38. ^ Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. Evans. p. 35. Retrieved 7 April 2011.a few of them hanged as rioters after the sacking. One Englishman had to throw dice with a Dutchman to determine who should hang pour encourager les autres. They stood under the gallows and diced on a drum. The Englishman threw nine to the Dutchman's ten, and suffered execution before his mates.
  39. ^ David Francis (1 April 1975). The First Peninsular War: Seventeen-Two to Seventeen-Thirteen. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 115. ISBN 9780312292607. Retrieved 7 April 2011. ...plundered the inhabitants. Partly on account of this, partly because they expected Gibraltar to be retaken soon, all the inhabitants except a very few...chose to leave
  40. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011. 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. ... 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.
  41. ^ David Francis (1 April 1975). The First Peninsular War: Seventeen-Two to Seventeen-Thirteen. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 115. ISBN 9780312292607. Retrieved 7 April 2011. So the damage was done and the chance of winning the adherence of the Andalusians was lost.
  42. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 100. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
  43. ^ Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson (1987). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 113. ISBN 9780838632376. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
  44. ^ "Gibraltar." Microsoft Encarta 2006 [DVD]. Microsoft Corporation, 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_23&oldid=1050248247"