Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

RfC: Should the lead mention Gibraltar's inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is opposed to inclusion in the UN list being mentioned in the lead. The majority of editors have said that the UN list does not satisfy the requirements of MOS:LEAD as an important point in Gibraltar's article body. AlexEng(talk) 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the lead mention Gibraltar's inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories? TFD (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include per "Manual of Style/Lead section": "The lead should...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Could any editors wishing to reply, please post their comments in the "Threaded discussion" section. TFD (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per comments below. WCMemail 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is WP:Lead fixation. I do not accept TFD's evidence-less suggestions, neither that this is one of the most important points about Gibraltar, nor that independently of the sovereignty dispute it is a prominent controversy. Kahastok talk 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not see the presence of Gibraltar on the list in question as a particularly notable point in itself, let alone a point which provide such salient information about Gibraltar that it fits well in the lead. Even in the body, I'd prefer inclusion to be done in such a way that it demonstrates its relevance, rather than as a bland point of fact. CMD (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't think Gibraltar's inclusion on the list constitutes one of the "most important points" about Gibraltar or a "prominent controversy". The list isn't especially well known outside of academic circles (which of course includes Wikipedia). The lede already has two sentences devoted to the sovereignty dispute and a prominent link to the Disputed status of Gibraltar article; I think that's sufficient. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:lead the lead is a summary of the most important points. I don't think being in the list is important, to be in the lead. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Glancing at the lead briefly, it seems like the "prominent controversy" which is the Anglo-Spanish debate over ownership of Gibraltar is already highlighted in the lead. I'm not sure how throwing in a factoid about the UN's opinion on the matter will help. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - This article is the general article about Gibraltar, not Disputed status of Gibraltar, it might merit an inclusion in the lead of the article about the disputed status of the territory, but definitely not in this article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies to the UN that would be decolonized. The UN added these colonies to its list of non-self-governing territories which would ultimately be given independence. Since then most of these territories have become independent, but a handful of territories with small populations remain on the list. The UK has requested the removal of Gibraltar, claiming that the establishment of internal self-government meets the UN concerns. Spain objects, saying that the local population are not an indigenous population and the UK has colonized a part of Spain. The UN has not taken a position on this dispute and has asked both sides to continue discussions.

No editors question that the dispute between the UK and Spain should be mentioned, but disagree on whether the status as a non-self-governing territory should be mentioned. I think it is important because it elevates a bilateral dispute over territory to one of significance to the international community. Removal from the list is a major concern of the Gibraltar government.

TFD (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Disagree I believe this to be an example of WP:LEDE fixation. We cannot cram every fact into the lede or otherwise it becomes impractical i.e by necessity we have to trim the facts we can relate to a bare minimum. The significant fact per MOS in this respect is the sovereignty dispute, which has its own dedicated paragraph in the lede. The list does not elevate the sovereignty dispute to one of significance to the international community; the annual hearings are so routine as to not be worth mentioning outside of the countries involved. So whilst I consider we could cover this better in the text and have made my own modest suggestion above commensurate with an overview article, I don't believe it belongs in the lede. It is worth noting that this has repeatedly been discussed in the past, see the archive for previous discussions and has been subjected to RFC (albeit at a time when any discussion on the subject became needlessly heated). Current consensus has been not to include it. WCMemail 16:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Partly Agree Partly Disagree The same information can be written in less words (removing sentence on "since then most territories...") . Also, I think it is incorrect that the UN has not taken a position on the dispute. It has taken the position that the question of decolonization must be resolved through bilateral discussions on the basis of the UN principle of national integrity while taking into account the interests of the people of Gibraltar. That is a position. The UK took a similar position of entering sovereignty negotiations upon Spain entering the EU with the Brussels Accords, but changed it some years later. In any case, should the UN position not be included as WCM demands, the long section in the lead explaining the Gibraltarian position (including a long quote) should most certainly be removed.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You don't need to single out other editors and should stop doing so. Don't use weasel words to claims something I never said, I haven't demanded anything, I've made a comment on content and guess what, didn't feel the need to refer to anybody - you should try it. WCMemail 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You have consistently reverted all references to UN resolutions or positions in the lead, so yes, I stand by my statement and it is visible in the article history.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

    • I was not suggesting that all the information I provided should be put into the lead, I was explaining why the lead should mention the inclusion on the list. TFD (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose. I reject the key claims made by TFD here.
TFD claims (without evidence) that the listing serves to "elevate a bilateral dispute over territory to one of significance to the international community". This is not accurate. The listing is not a consequence of the UK-Spanish dispute, and is not directly involved in the UK-Spanish dispute. Indeed, Gibraltar was on the list for several years before the Franco first laid claim. In reality, the UN is not a significant player in the dispute. The UNSC has never commented on Gibraltar and the UNGA hasn't mentioned it since the 1960s. We're talking subcommittees of subcommittees saying the same things over and over again and getting ignored. Prominent enough for an article mention, realistically, but not for the lead.
TFD implies (without evidence) that Spain's position is the only reason why Gibraltar is not removed. Note that 9 other BOTs are listed, 8 of which are not subject to any kind of dispute. Are we to believe that Anguilla is listed just in case some country at some stage in the future invents a claim to it?
I see no indication or serious attempt to argue that the UN C24 listing is significant independently of this claimed link to the sovereignty dispute. Ultimately, this does not plausibly come under "the most important points" about Gibraltar (not the dispute, remember - Gibraltar as a whole) and does not plausibly come under "prominent controversies" as TFD claims. I note that articles on other territories on the list, as a rule, do not include a mention of the list in the lead. Kahastok talk 19:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The UK has not asked that any other British Overseas Territories (BOT) be removed from the list. The Gibraltar representative and constitutional scholar, Peter Caruana said, "we are seeking to achieve our decolonisation through the exercise of our right to self determination, by a process of reform and modernisation of our current constitution."[1] No claim has been made that any other BOT has received that degree of self-governance. While there are no claims against any other BOT except the Falklands, in every other case the inhabitants oppose independence and want British police and courts and to revert to direct rule during political crises.
As Samir Bennis, a political adviser to the UN said, in comparing Gibraltar to Spain's territories in Africa, "Spain...persuaded Morocco not to take the matter of Ceuta and Melilla up with the UN but agree to make it a strictly bilateral issue between Spain and Morocco.”[2] In other words, inclusion on the list, which requires annual reporting by the administering power to the UN, makes it an issue of international concern and other nations are represented on the UN Committee for Decolonization.
Spain indeed opposes removal from the list and their case was presented by Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo. According to him the constitutional reforms by the UK were "irrelevant to the decolonization of Gibraltar."[3] What other reason would the UN have to refuse the request than opposition by Spain supported by a number of other countries?
TFD (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect, the UK has asked for BOT to be removed - and this has already been demonstrated so bringing it up again is a moot point but:
  • Author(s): Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell, (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife ), Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East), Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells), Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington), Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central), Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford), Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock), Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire), Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock), Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn), Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East), Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling),

Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston),

  • Title: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Overseas Territories, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08
  • Publication Number: [4]
  • Publisher: London: The Stationery Office Limited
  • Year: 2010


Your conclusion that "inclusion on the list....makes it an issue of international concern" is your own conclusion, we don't permit WP:OR on Wikipedia. You need a reliable secondary source to say that. But again the point remains that inclusion on the list is not the significant political issue, that is the sovereignty dispute. WCMemail 08:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said that the UK has asked for Gibraltar to be removed from the list and the UN has refused. That is what makes the issue a controversy. Also, it is not my conclusion that inclusion on the list makes it an international issue but the conclusion of the reliable secondary source I provided. In fact it is an issue routinely voted on by the international community in the UN. TFD (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You stated "The UK has not asked that any other British Overseas Territories (BOT) be removed from the list.", which I addressed as incorrect.
You provided three sources [5],[6] and [7]. None of these sources state that inclusion on the list makes it a matter of international concern or a controversy. And to correct you again, the outcome of the hearings of the C24 are adopted without a vote. WCMemail 09:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Dozens of UN General Assembly resolutions on the colonial status of Gibraltar, including one directly condemning the 1967 referendum are not enough for inclusion in the list to be considered "international concern"? You actually need a source which says "Inclusion in C24 is a matter of international concern" (sic.)? Disruptive editing as usual. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you please name the BOT other than Gibraltar that the UK has asked to be removed from the list? Or did you miss the word "other?" The source for it being a matter of international concern is the statement by Samir Bennis, a political adviser to the UN. He states it more clearly in an article: "Presently, while the question of Gibraltar is always discussed during the deliberations of the Fourth Committee held in October of each year, the question of Ceuta and Melilla remains a strictly bilateral issue between Morocco and Spain."[8] You may think it is original research to conclude that if Gibraltar is not a strictly bilateral issue and is always discussed by a UN Committee, then it must be a multilateral issue. I will leave it to other editors to determine. TFD (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, Bermuda for one example. There has been two independence referenda in Bermuda inspired by the C24, Bermuda has twice voted to retain the current status quo. As a result the UK asked for Bermuda to be removed. Similarly Montserrat. Both are self-governing multi-party parliamentary democracies reliant on the UK only for foreign relations and to a lesser extent defence (Bermuda maintains its only military). So as I said your statement was incorrect. Aside from BOT, the Kiwis have a similar issue with the C24 over Tokelau, where the inhabitants have also rejected C24 inspired referenda on independence. There is an unwillingness in the C24 to actually listen to what the people they are trusted to represent actually want. WCMemail 08:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you have further details on the requests? I have not found any and there is a 2009 request from Montserrat to remain on the list (p.4)[9] TFD (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Not at hand, I'm working away at the moment. The book I'm thinking of is:

Ángel Israel Rivera Ortiz; Aarón Gamaliel Ramos (2001). Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean. Ian Randle Publishers. ISBN 978-976-637-040-4.

See also United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Criticism. WCMemail 09:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability

See Wikipedia:Notability (people)

[10] I don't believe the individual in this edit meets our notability guidelines. Instead of edit warring, why don't you demonstrate notability or perhaps actually contribute a new article to wikipedia. This reflex edit warring just has to stop. WCMemail 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, aside from getting plenty of press coverage, an academic journal article devoted to his work in relation to Gibraltar has been added as cource. Yborra Aznar, José Juan. "Espejos y espejismos: la poesía de Trino Cruz". Eúphoros (2002). Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia: 23. ISSN 1575-0205. What notability guidelines does this user believe a piece of content added to an article need to comply and can he provide the policy?.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC) PD: An excerpt of the abstract in English language: "Trino Cruz in undoubtedly one of the most important authors of the Spanish literary production in Gibraltar. This work analyses the bases of his aesthetics."
Do you have enough material to write an article on this person? If so why don't you do that instead of edit warring about it. The two newspaper reports don't establish notability and the faux outrage at being reverted is not helpful. It gives the appearance that you're creating a controversy over this to make a WP:POINT. WCMemail 09:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes I think there might be enough material. No I do not think I need to create an article. Again: What notability guidelines does this user "believe" a piece of content added to an article need to comply and can he provide the policy? It gives the appeareance the user above is blocking the improvement of an article to make a WP:POINT of it. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Where and how does the user above think he can determine that a pretty neutral comment is an example of "faux outrage"?
I was referring to your anatagonistic message on my talk page. It's the sort of thing that makes me very disinclined to engage with you. I looked at your sources and I don't believe they establish notability per guidelines. I've also directed you to policy of relevance. I am open to being persuaded but haranguing me isn't the way to do it. The fact you aren't prepared to create an article isn't persuasive. WCMemail 09:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you actually think this is a case of "faux outrage"? Live to see... Well, let me spoil it for you: Neither I was outraged neither I was posturing as outraged. And now, can you carefully look at the sources again? Not to judge if the sources establish notability for an standalone article —which they do— but to value the insertion of the contested content in that section of this article (which is a different thing and the point here). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC) PD: I am perfectly prepared to start an article. Why do you think otherwise?
I think the key question here is: Is there any contemporary Gibraltarian poet who is more famous than Trino Cruz? I think the answer is no, unless anyone can provide evidence to the contrary. For a territory of 30,000 people, being featured in 2 national newspapers of a major European country (El Pais and ABC), several English-language academic papers and the Instituto Cervantes seems to pass notability test. Also to remind that WP:Notability does not apply to article content. What could possibly be the reason for wanting him out of the culture section? Removing poetry from Gibraltar's contribution to the world is a disservice to the territory.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take before there the innuendo started, what are you presuming? I've already stated it's because they don't meet notability requirements nothing more nothing less. WCMemail 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WCM I'm sorry I do not follow, let's keep it civil please. Please find below sources on Trino Cruz's Poetry:

And the list goes on...Asilah1981 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WCM Thank you for your self-revert. I see you have noticed that the version of the article which included the contentious sentence was the consensus version, prior to sentence being deleted a few days ago. Regards, Elie. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: There's no rule against adding names that don't have an own article in an appropriate section in the body of an article as long as it's properly sourced, but it is frowned upon by many if not most experienced editors here, since it is very often used to plug non-notable, or barely notable, people, often on multiple articles, i.e. added only to promote the person who's name is added, and create notability. So to avoid discussion and reverts it's always best to write an article about the subject first, to get the notability established. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W That is a fair observation, but this guy seems pretty notable by Gibraltarian standards - been looking at his stuff and its quite impressive. Btw, I don´t think this is the same guy. http://gibraltarphilanthropyforum.com/th_gallery/trino-cruz/ Somehow doesn´t strike me as a poet banker. Oddly, the poet´s second surname is Sephardic Jewish although his name is a typical hispanic rendition of "Joseph Trinity" which is not Jewish at all. I personally did not know about him but will read up on his stuff, very linked to Morocco and specifically Tangiers.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: There are ~700 Moroccan Jews (including Sephardic Jews) living in Gibraltar, including a number of old and locally very prominent families. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I guess he is just Moroccan Jewish in origin on his mother´s side then..."Serruya" can only be Sephardic from Morocco or Algeria I believe. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W This is off topic and you might not interested but here is the answer found by an anonymous genealogist based in Rabat. http://dafina.net/forums/read.php?51,109871 Trino Cruz Herrera (I presume a Gibraltarian Catholic) married Maria Paloma Serruya Amores (born in Tangiers in 1902). The marriage was held in Gibraltar. These must be the grand parents of our subject, the grandmother connection explains why so much of his poetry is about Tangiers. It also explains why he has two surnames: It is not following the Spanish custom of using both paternal and maternal surnames but is a double-barrelled surname passed on from his grandparents. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that nothing in any policy standard gives special privilege to people from small countries or territories. There is no "notable by Gibraltarian standards", there is notable and not notable - though of course, we are likely to apply a higher standard for inclusion when dealing with articles on large places than on small places. While there is no policy that says we can only mention people who meet our notability standards, it is a common and reasonable standard, and I see no reason not to apply it.
I fail to see any evidence that this text is a standing consensus as claimed. It appears to have been first added on 6 January, removed 10 minutes later, and then readded by Asilah on 8 January. The standing consensus would thus not include any mention of this individual. Kahastok talk 18:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Kahastok Yes you are right, my mistake. I only saw the removal so I assumed it had been there for a while. Then, as usual, it can only be added through agreement of all parties or, eventually following the usual RfC, Conflict Resolution processes. Doesn´t look like something worth fighting over though... None of us usual suspects knew about Trino Cruz until this editor Bagofrust (?) added the sentence. :-) Asilah1981 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've asked you numerous times not to ping me from talk pages, @Irondome:, its irritating and you don't seem to take the hint to stop. It wasn't a consensus and your comment was needlessly patronising. I was about to point out my revert was because I thought some notability was established by the evidence you provided, which was all that was required. This thread is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with your editing, a simple calm discussion could have resolved it, yet instead you and Asqueladd treat it like a battle you have to win at all costs. Once again there is a pointless revert war and in talk pages the innuendos you made antagonised the situation. The edit itself wasn't particularly brilliant and I've copy edited it to better reflect the source and the work this man does. I'm still not 100% convinced he meets wikipedia's notability standards and to be honest whether that stays will largely depend on whether he is sufficiently notable to be worth an article. WCMemail 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
OK WCM. Im sorry for accidentally pinging you and Im sorry for appearing patronizing, it was not my intention. I was just being thankful by trying to acknowledge your co-operative behavior. We have had some recent confrontations so I understand you interpret me in the worst light possible. But I have not been involved in this particular revert war, as you know, even though I somehow initiated it by recovering and sourcing Bagofrust´s edit. Best. Elie.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Lastly, WCM, before I leave (I´m not going to edit on the talk pages before my mentoring period starts in a few days) could you point us to the source of your latest edit? It seems odd describing him as "a bilingual poet who used to write in English but now writes mainly in Spanish" rather than (as per sources) "One of Gibraltar´s greatest contributions to Spanish-language literature"." Is there any source which describes him in such an odd and dismissive way? I look forward to hearing your response when Im back! Best, Elie.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I created the entry (Trino Cruz) as suggested by Wee Curry Monster. I argue the the creation of the entry is totally unrelated to the discussion about the inclusion of the contested content, though. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously not "totally unrelated". Why should I not point out a person on the street in Gibraltar and insist that we mention them? Because they don't meet a reasonable standard of relevance, notability, in the context of the article in question. If the question of notability is "totally unrelated" to the question of whether we mention them here, then there's no reason not to mention the randomer on the street.
Wikipedia gets all sorts of self-publicists who want their name in this article or that article, and we need to be sceptical when references to people are added. (It's not actually a very good method for self-publicity as there is little control of the information that goes on to Wikipedia and WP:NPOV means that sourceable controversies will invariably come up - but that's beside the point). We could pick many standards, but WP:N is generally a pretty low standard all in all and it is unwise to go below it in most circumstances.
Note that the standard being asked is not has their own article but notable enough to have their own article. There doesn't have to be an actual article because Wikipedia is not finished, but by far most convincing way to demonstrate the standard of notable enough to have their own article is to actually write that article.
There is another standard of course, that also applies across the board: WP:WEIGHT. We can't give people more weight than they get in reliable sources on the topic at hand (in this case, "Gibraltar"). We should give more weight to the most prominent, less weight to the less prominent, and sometimes no weight even to people who meet notability requirements. Kahastok talk 19:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
And what about this case? The article is there. If it goes to WP:AFD at any stage - and I have no plans to nominate it - then clearly we'll have either a clear answer on notability, or no consensus (default to keep). I have no plans to nominate it because I tend to accept that this individual does actually meet the standard. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, there's a section in a book on Gibraltar literature. It's not definitive. As always, if someone comes up with better evidence, I'll listen. But for now I am inclined to accept that the standard is met. Kahastok talk 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It is actually unrelated. The issue is (1) if the sources stablish the subject as notable in the scope of Gibraltarian literature (they do: they put him one of the most [rather the most] prominent Spanish-language poets in Gibraltar) not (2) if they establish notability for an standalone article. The subject may comply with (1) and not with (2) and vice versa (the subject complying with (2) but not with (1)). In this case the subject meets (1) and (2), but the only issue should have been discussing (1). Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdated? With the impending Brexit negotiations

It looks like the article stops with «the House of Lords has produced a report entitled "Brexit: Gibraltar». It might be rather outdated. I assume that newer declaration might be cited in this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

History of British migration to Gibraltar?

What is the history of Brits moving there? Did the British government ever provide incentives, or is it mainly ex-military personnel and their descendants, or wealthy tax-dodging Brits? Historian932 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not the place for such a discussion.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the non-Gibraltarian British population of Gibraltar currently hovers around 12%. Economic incentives and business plays a part in attracting British residents but there was never a purposeful attempt to permanently settle Gibraltar with Britons as can be inferred from the low percentage of British surnames. Asilah1981 (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Gibraltarians were already British subjects, so until recently they have had exactly the same status as anyone else from mainland Britain. In other word, 'Brits' didn't need to move there, they already lived there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.115 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually they were colonial subjects, so the question is pertinent.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Kahastok talk 07:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

ONU´s resolution.

This article doesn´t even mention the resolution of 1946 that talks about "Non-Self-Governing Territories", so I think it shoud be mentioned. http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

"Gibraltar was nominated to be included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946[47] and has been listed ever since.[48] The government of Gibraltar has actively worked to have Gibraltar removed from the list,[49] and in 2008 the British government declared Gibraltar's continued presence on the list an anachronism.[50]"

Incorrect, the article does. WCMemail 14:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Average daily temperatures

One or more anonymous editors recently put some effort into changing all the monthly daily mean temperatures, and I have changed them back. The edit summary seems to say the editor calculated the daily mean temperature for a month as the mean of the highest and lowest temperature in the month, which is not what daily mean temperature for a month means. It is the mean over the entire month. One has to measure the temperature every hour of the month and divide by the number of hours in the month. A bigger problem is that we don't normally synthesize facts in Wikipedia - we just report what other documents say. The source for these numbers is given as http://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/beratung/ak/ak_084950_kt.pdf . Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's happened a few more times, most recently it was only for only three months, for some reason. The edit summary suggests the source is incorrect, but there is no better source given - just the editor's own incorrect calculation. Other edit summaries make it clear the editor didn't check the talk page in August as requested in my edit summary then, and didn't understand why some of us prefer the original numbers. I have changed the numbers back to match the source and referred again to this talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Monthly high and low temperatures

As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,

In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)

The source, https://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/gibraltar/gibraltar.php, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.

Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.

So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?

As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change to use the single numbers from the same source as the chart.
Note that another editor has switched that source since I wrote above. Given the history of mistakes in this section, I did a quick sampling of the source and confirmed it matches the current article text. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Change in the lead section regarding governance

The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This sort of veiled threat helps nobody, just raises the temperature. You should know that by now.
Could you perhaps cite the precise discussion supporting this specific text? I cannot find it. So far as I can see, your own argument leads to there being no text here at all. I have implemented such a change and given your arguments above and in your edit summaries I have no doubt you will support it. Kahastok talk 20:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't support Wee Curry Monster's edit because it was very confusing regarding a very controversial expression (self-governing) which generated a very long discussion several years ago:
1) it said that Gibraltar is "self-governing", which is a term with several meanings, and one of them is in direct contradiction with the fact that Gibraltar is in the UN's list of "non self-governing" territories; therefore, if you say it is self-governing it would be necessary to clarify that it is not "self-governing" in the sense that is used in the UN's list of "non self-governing territories" (a bit of a mess).
2) on top of that, he used the expression Gibraltar is "[ [ Self-governing colony|self-governing ] ]", which has several problems: a) the chosen format hides the word "colony" (giving a very partial impression) and b) the expression "self-governing colony" is not accurate since self-governing and Crown colonies were renamed "British Dependent Territories" by Britain in 1981 and British Overseas Territories in 2002.
I think the previous expression was very neutral and it was able to survive untouched for 8-9 years: "Under the Gibraltar constitution of 2006, Gibraltar governs its own affairs, though some powers, such as defence and foreign relations, remain the responsibility of the British government" describes the real situation of governance in Gibraltar without mentioning the confusing words "self-governing" or the UN's list of "non self-governing territories". Personally, I would prefer to mention the UN's list in the lede, but I understand that it might be very controversial, so I won't insist on that.
I can accept to have no reference to Gibraltar's governance in the lede if the alternative is to have a very long and tiring discussion, given that there is a whole section with the details, although I think it is not the best option. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. WCMemail 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [11], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.

Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? WCMemail 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am so glad you don't think the phrase self-governing is controversial and, futhermore, that ideological reasons should be immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. I will agree with your edit, then, if (in order to keep it neutral) you do not hide the word colony in the link (even though, for the sake of historical accuracy, I would add the fact that the official name for self-governing colonies is now British Overseas Territories) and include the fact that Gibraltar is in the United Nations' list of non self-governing territories. If you are looking for sources, you can see Gibraltar in the UN's list of non-self governing territories here and you can illustrate about self-governing colonies and British Overseas Territories here and here
I think it would also be a good alternative to restore the phrase that lasted for 8 years in the lead before you and Roger 8 Roger edited it. It was very neutral.
If, on the other hand, for any reason (ideological or whatever), you are only ready to stick to your original edit (hiding the word colony in the link you included and not mentioning the UN's list), then let's save ourselves a long and tiring discussion and keep governance altogether unmentioned in the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You know all the objections to everything above, it's not like you're some new editor who wasn't heavily involved in those discussions back in the day.
The real question is, if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, WCM said that the phrase "self-governing" is not controversial, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. It surprised me after his intense involvement in the discussion some years ago, so I wanted to know whether he really meant it (call me an optimist). I understand that you think that it is controversial, and maybe he does too. OK, so do I. I think we have consensus here. Let's keep governance out of the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
And there you go again. If you are happy with the status quo with no text, all you had to do at this point was to say nothing at all, or "I accept the version of the text with no mention in it". Given your previous involvement, everything else you've said since that point appears to be an attempt at provocation.
So I ask again: if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So I answer again (see my answers above): I have said (3 times) that, even though it's not the best option, no text is better than a long discussion. I have also offered three options for you and WCMonster to choose from. I have said that you and I seem to have a consensus here. So no, I don't want to provoke.
Your position is clear. On the other hand, WCMonster is the one who does not offer a clear answer. (a) Does he really mean what he says (that self-governing is not a controversial term, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia is not censored) and is eager to mention Gibraltar as a self-governing colony (now called British Overseas Territory) and part of the UN list of non-self governing territories? (b) Does he prefer the phrase that was in the lead for 8-9 years? or (c) Does he prefer no text at all? Just information. Question and answer. No long discussion or provocation. Thanks. -Imalbornoz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And once again, you claim not to want a long discussion in one paragraph, and then immediately try to provoke one in the next.
The answer - to your question as to what WCM thinks, to your presumption as to what I think - is that article talk pages are for improving the article, not for having a hypothetical discussion of other things. We have a clear consensus for a specific text, that we have all accepted. At best, further discussion of this point takes editor time away from more useful pursuits, and risks creating unnecessary and irrelevant conflict that may make consensus harder to reach in any future discussions. Kahastok talk 19:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The term "self-governing" is ambiguous and requires clarification. We don't say that Greater London or pre-independence American colonies were self-governing although they had local assemblies and laws. But in all cases, the U.K. reserves the right to overrule local decisions, which is not how self-governing is normally understood. TFD (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the current text on this in the lede (i.e. no comment at all on the subject)?
The same applies to you as applies to Imalbornoz. We've had long discussions on this before, and we appear to have a consensus on how to resolve it this time. What benefit is there to the reader in our spending the next three months arguing the toss on a pair of texts that we all agree won't go in the article? Kahastok talk 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion in the lead of the expression "self-governing" or the watered down version "governs its own affairs" in the lead. My point was that if these terms were included, they would require qualification, because self governance generally implies a greater degree of autonomy than Gibraltar enjoys. TFD (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So what? The consensus text does not include either of those expressions. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm mystified as to why someone would continue to insist I am responsible for an edit, when it has been clearly shown I am not. Suffice it to say, I support Kahastok's amendment, I feel no need to engage in a philosphical debate on a closed matter. I will close by referring the OP to WP:TALKNO for guidance as to how a talk page is supposed to be used. WCMemail 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, at least we have a consensus. I wouldn't want to repeat the long and tiring discussions of 8-10 years ago.
(NB: Please correct me if I am wrong (in my talk page if you want, I don't want to disturb other editors), but I don't get what WCMonster means when he says it has been clearly shown he is not responsible for the edit. The only edit I can see that says that Gibraltar is self-governing (in the last 8 years) is from him: [12]).
In any case, thanks for avoiding a long discussion. -Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You didn't look hard enough. I already gave you the diff. Please stop trying to raise tensions. WCMemail 12:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical documents of the village of Gibraltar

I made an edit to mention that the population of Gibraltar took the historical documents of the village together with their own belongings when they left it after it was invaded by Rooke's British-Dutch-Spanish forces in 1704. It is well documented fact, mentioned by:

  • William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
  • Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
  • George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. p. 166. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.
  • Isidro Sepúlveda (2004). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza (in Spanish). Madrid: Alianza. pp. 91–92. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.
  • Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 54.
  • Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. p. 117.

Kahastok not only reverted my edit, but deleted as well part of the previous text (which had been there for 8 years, after a long discussion that caused many users to be banned or blocked). I will restore the previous consensus while we discuss the new proposal (per BRD, as Kahastok has always done even when he had a different alias).

The previous consensus was:"The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."

My proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population. The most important settlement was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."

It seems Kahastok's proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population."

Thanks - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD - I suggest you read it. You don't come into a discussion, saying X edit was consensus 8 years ago, I don't like what has been done since so I'm reverting to that - that's not how it works. This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. I would oppose the addition of the extra extraneous information proposed and stick with the article in its current state. Oh and I just wish to check, do you have the sources you're quoting or are you relying solely on google snippets? WCMemail 13:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I have proposed a change (adding content about the historical documents of the village of Gibraltar). You and Kahastok do not agree with it and want to make another change (removing content about the destination of the exodus). I have reverted (my own edit and yours) to the previous consensus (which included the destination but not the documents) and brought it to the talk page.
As Kahastok has repeatedly explained, when someone makes a bold (and controversial) edit to a long standing consensus and someone does not agree, the thing to do, as per WP:BRD (his words) is to return to the previous consensus and discuss in the talk page. Here there are four examples of Kahastok explaining the policy in an area of your interest: [13] [14] [15] [16]
Here there is proof that the previous consensus was "exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar" (for 8 years!!!): November 28 2018[17], December 2017[18], 2016[19], 2015[20], 2014[21], 2013[22], 2012[23], 2011[24]
I have to remind you that you have been banned and blocked from this article several times. One of them the sanction said that should you “return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.”[25]
I also remind you of the procedure included in the sanctions (on Kahastok, you, me and another editor) the last time this issue was taken to ArbCom. Discretionary sanctions were lifted some time later, but I think we should have learned the lesson by now and we shouldn’t need the intervention of ArbCom. The procedure said we should
'”not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit.”'[26]
Removing the reference to the exodus to Campo de Gibraltar (as you want) or adding details (as I want) are both substantial edits.
Let’s talk about the proposed edits here before we make any change. Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, the sorts of threats - and, let's be clear, they are threats - that we see in your above edit make it less likely, not more, that you will persuade other editors to agree with your position, because would suggest that you are trying to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We are supposed to be working together. All of us. You appear to be trying to work against other editors.
I also notice that you have also been trawling through my edits from nearly nine years ago, which seems more than a little creepy.
You are correct that you need consensus before you make your edit, and as such I suggest that you try to get consensus. Reality is that of course you can't expect every editor who edited this article in more than half a decade to have made a proposal on talk and waited 48 hours before making the edit, just in case you came back and objected to it. This is a Wiki, not a bureaucracy. Per WP:BRD you need consensus to make your edit. I suggest you make your case we can all discuss it.
And when you do it, if you genuinely don't want a repeat of what happened before, you won't mention personalities, you'll focus on the issues at hand with a constructive attitude (i.e. not trying to bait people after consensus has been reached as you did above), and you certainly won't bring up anything that happened back in 2010 and 2011. Kahastok talk 18:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reminded all of us (including me) what had happened the last time we discussed this in order to avoid it. It would not make any sense to make a threat including myself in it, would it?
Regarding your comments from years ago, I kind of had a dejá-vu when I saw WCMonster going in a loop about WP:BRD and I remembered that the last time this had happened we were able to solve it recurring not to my own arguments (which unfortunately tend to fire him up more than convince him, no matter what I say) but using your own words (Which seem to be much more persuasive for WCMonster). So I dived to find those diffs I had used 8 years ago... and it seems they worked!
To be honest, 'all' of this is a bit of a dejá-vu... Let's see if we are able to get through without falling into past mistakes. Thanks for trying to de-escalate the tension. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Wait! You just made an edit changing the consensus that has been standing there for 8 years (please see my diffs above). Please, self revert or we will repeat the story. I trust you will revert to the previous consensus according to your own words. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
(In order to avoid a potential conflict due to misunderstanding, I have left a message in Kahastok's talk page explaining why the consensus version mentions the exodus to the surrounding areas of Campo de Gibraltar, before we go back to that version and discuss our proposed changes here. WCMonster, I know you feel uncomfortable receiving messages in your talk page from some editors, so I will please ask you to read my message in Kahastok's talk page. Thanks) - Imalbornoz (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on content or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ad hominem and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref content or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. WCMemail 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding content: please read the introduction of this section.
Regarding WP:BRD, it's NOT something that happened 8 years AGO. The mention of the destination of the exodus has been in the article without interruption DURING 8 years UNTIL you deleted it on November 30 2018. Look here: November 28 2018[27], December 2017[28], 2016[29], 2015[30], 2014[31], 2013[32], 2012[33], 2011[34]
If you want to delete something from a text that has been there for a long time and someone opposes that deletion, you should have patience and try to find a new consensus in the talk page, especially given our history in this article.
I will give you the chance to self-revert the deletion and try to find a new consensus.
Please answer one question: Have you taken the time to click on the links above to check that the destination of the exodus has been there DURING all those years? - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-

The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.

Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history --Rockysantos (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a great number of reliable secondary sources explain that there were 1,200 inhabited houses and their estimation is that this would mean Gibraltar had around 4,000-6,000 inhabitants at the time of the take-over.
Those sources agree on the fact that all the inhabitants except 70 left Gibraltar on 7 August 1704, taking with them their belongings, the city council, banner, and records, and most of them establishing around the nearby Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" and became what is now the city of San Roque (you can take a look at the History section of the article on San Roque).
Several years ago, when the last consensus was achieved, I put together a summary of several sources (both English and Spanish) here [35]. I would recommend that you take a look at those sources and citations to make your own conclusions. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's worth noting for anyone new to this, that the editor known as Imalbornoz did not have previously have access to sources. His approach was to edit, then seek justification via google snippets. This is very dangerous and produced a number of misleading results, so I would be wary of his summary. If you wish to read a neutral and balanced view, with sourcing may I suggest [36],[37] So again, I'm asking Imalbornoz the question does he now have access to the sources he is quoting?
And again Imalbornoz is being asked to respond to the comment on content made above, which he has declined to do so repeatedly. WCMemail 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I will answer your questions:
Regarding content: most relevant sources mention that the main destination of the exodus was nearby Campo de Gibraltar, that they took with them the city council, records, banner, etc. to San Roque, which was called ""My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" by Philip V in 1706.
It's relevant because they were almost all of the existing Gibraltarians at the moment (all of the 4,000-6,000 inhabitants of Gibraltar, except 70 individuals), the historical documents of the city (all of them up to 1704) were moved to a nearby town, and this Gibraltarian historical heritage can still be consulted today in San Roque.
Regarding access to sources: In the last 8 years I have been able to access the sources (some via libraries and some I have purchased). As was expected, there is no text in those sources contradicting the excerpts I used (it would have been a bit absurd to expect that they would say "you know what I just said about those people going to nearby Campo?... well that text was put there just to confuse readers, it was a joke", but I checked anyhow). Those excepts are valid.
Now I have answered your questions (for the nth time). Please answer my one question: Is it or is it not true that the text mentioning that the destination of the exodus was the nearby Campo has been in the article without interruption for the last 8 years (please check the diffs I posted above)? - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No you didn't address the point, please resist the temptation for argumentative walls of text:
The question is not whether it can be sourced, its whether it belongs here. As far as I can see its not germane to an overview, which is intended to provide brief and minimal coverage.
And if you do have Jackson, the source you're quoting, then you'll note the comments I made below are accurate. Are they not? Please confirm you have read Jackson and can confirm. WCMemail 17:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I have answered your questions so far and am willing to answer your new comments. But first, for the sake of engaging in a two way dialogue...
...for the third time, please answer my one question: Is it or is it not true that the text mentioning that the destination of the exodus was the nearby Campo has been in the article without interruption for the last 8 years (please check the diffs I posted above)? - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I was under the misleading impression I had made myself clear, apparently not. To be clear, I am only prepared to discuss content, nothing more. Now if you could address the content issue, it would be appreciated. WCMemail 19:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the text

it I note there are two inaccuracies in the text currently in the article. 1. It states the population left. This is inaccurate according to Jackson, who notes some 70 families remained behind. 2. It states that they left to the Campo de Gibraltar. Jackson notes those who left travelling quite widely as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga.

I also note the current text is perilously close to a copyvio of one of the sources cited. We cannot allow a copyvio to persist.

Noting this an overview article, which should not be cluttered with tangential information, I would suggest we correct this with:


WCMemail 16:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Pro-Hapsburg" would be better, I think, as most of the forces involved weren't actually from Hapsburg territories. Kahastok talk 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


I have made a question 3 times here (and several times to each of you personally) regarding the last consensus of the article. I must say I find it rude your ignoring it. Anyhow, I will answer your comments while I wait an answer from you:
1. No, neither Jackson nor other source that I know of (and I have done an important documentation job) say anything about "70 families" remaining. They do mention other numbers and measures, though (more than 98% did leave). Given the importance you give to having access to sources, I suppose you can look it up. Can you please quote Jackson's text about "70 families" here?
(please don't ignore this question too, or I will have to assume you have a case of "do as I say not as I do").
2. Yes, but. Jackson says that some travelled to other places, but "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."
I don't agree with the sentence. The nearby destination of the people that were displaced by the take-over is important and is cited by many sources. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
To note, I have received guidance that close paraphrasing of the source is a copyvio. See Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. As it is almost a verbatim quote, as a copyvio it should be removed.
To answer the above:
  • You are correct, I made a small error. But Jackson does support 70 people chose to stay, so to say the entire population left is inaccurate. I'm unsure why you are quibbling so much about details but the fact remains the text you wish to see in the article is inaccurate.
  • You acknowledge that to claim the population settled exclusively in the area of the Campo de Gibraltar is incorrect. However, you don't provide a convincing reason why it is so necessary to mention the development of settlements elsewhere after Gibraltar was captured. There are many tangential facts on this topic, eg we could state as a piece of trivial information that during the great siege a number of innovations in firearms and artillery design were made. But we don't because its not germane to providing an overview of the history of Gibraltar. The main topic of this article should be the focus, it is not about San Roque.
So at the moment, you have reverted to restore a copyvio to the article, I am giving you the opportunity to self-revert whilst we discuss content further. WCMemail 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's first dicuss part 1 and then part 2, if you will.
Ok, so we agree that more than 98% of the population of Gibraltar left the city right after the take-over. We also agree that a bit below 2% of the inhabitants did stay. There's no discussion about those two points (thank god, or Jimmmy Wales, or William Jackson or George Hills or whomever).
You say the text is not right because it doesn't mention that some Gibraltarians did stay.
I think that those are details about less than 2% of the population and, therefore, are not germane to providing an overview of the history of the majority of the population of Gibraltar.
Anyhow, if you think that it is important, I am ready to accept a text that goes into details and says that not all of the population of Gibraltar left.
Once we go into details, I would ask you, in return, to accept (in part 2) that the article mentions that those 98% didn't dissapear into thin air or left randomly elsewhere, but that the most important part of them (as per Jackson and others) didn't get too far, but they established in Campo de Gibraltar taking with them their belongings and much of the heritage (documents, banner, etc.) of the city of Gibraltar. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I take it from the rather crude way you attempted to turn my argument against me, you accept the basic premise. Allow me to respond there is a flaw in your logic, we don't have to be inaccurate and the text I proposed already deals with it. Nor does it ignore the fact that the majority of the population left. There is also a flaw in your logic in asserting the Spanish heritage of Gibraltar went with them. Gibraltar has its own heritage and we should only include material germane to modern Gibraltar. If you're saying the Spanish heritage was wiped out, you're undermining yourself as it has become irrelevant. WCMemail 10:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The text you just edited deletes the mention of the destination of the exodus. It avoids a very important episode in the history of Gibraltar, cited by numerous relevant secondary sources. You will have to develop a new consensus before you edit the text, as per WP:BRD.
I see some logic in what you propose about the exceptions of the population that did not leave, but I think that the text has to mention the destination of the exodus and the legacy of Gibraltar in the nearby Campo.
I have taken note of your "citation needed" warnings and have extended the references so that we can now avoid those warnings.
I am returning to the previous consensus text (solving the citation needed problems that worried you). Please do not make unilateral edits for some days while we discuss here.
I haven't been able to find the text that you say violates copyright. Can you please quote here the exact text from the source so that we can compare it to the article? Thanks!
As you see, with some effort we can make progress, but we all need to be more patient and respect consensus. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given you a google books link to text, what is in the article is a close paraphrase of the text in that source. And I have made it plain that what I introduced was a temporary measure. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert but you chose not to. The tags I added were because the text was inaccurate and didn't reflect the sources, you've just added more sources and the text still doesn't reflect what the sources say. Much as I hate to comment on editors rather than content, I don't see your actions as being in good faith. You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. For the record I don't see a convincing need to delineate what happened to people after they left Gibraltar in an article that is intended to be an overview of Gibraltar. You haven't provided a convincing reason otherwise. WCMemail 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

re copyvio: I see three pages in the google books link you provided, but I can't find the phrase that you fear might violate copyright. It would be easier to discuss the copyvio if you quoted the text here.
re editing the article: Precisely, what BRD (and Kahastok) says is that if you make an edit and it is reverted to the last consensus, you should come here and discuss. You have made several edits, all of them deleting the reference to Campo de Gibraltar that was in the last consensus. You shouldn't keep reverting-the-reverts and making different tries of deleting what you don't like as "temporary edits".
This is not a threat to you, but to all of us. You have been blocked or banned in this article at least three times. Myself and Kahastok were banned once. The last time, the discretionary measures insisted that we find consensus here before making edits (temporary or not).
Getting back to constructive discussion, can you please quote here the text from the source that you say is violated by the article? - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Quotes in citations are not intended to be used for adding big (selectively picked) chunks of editorialising text. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Note also that copying in vast quantities of copyrighted text into the article, as per Imalbornoz's edits, is also a clear WP:COPYVIO.
The current text, in this revision, is accurate, suitably sourced and - critically - complies with WP:WEIGHT. None of Imalbornoz's proposals to bloat the article with irrelevant details about matters only tangentially related to Gibraltar achieve this. This text should thus remain in the article. Kahastok talk 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
OK: I have eliminated the extensive quotes that worried Tom and returned to the last consensus to discuss new edits to the text. This text does not seem to violate any copyright. WCMonster, please share which sentence in the sources you find too similar to the text. Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the possible copyvio here. The suggestion from our resident copyright expert is to reword removing the term exodus. I have also noted the excessive citations that have been added.

I still point out the current text is inaccurate and doesn't reflect what sources say. All of the source qualify their statement to identify that most of the population left. It's also inaccurate in that whilst many settled nearby, others settled much further away. It is proposed to change this to:


This I believe addresses the problems in the text and addresses the comments of Moonriddengirl. WCMemail 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support this change because it improves accuracy, but I note that I have no problem in listening to improvements if they reflect the sources. Kahastok talk 22:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There are two parts of the discussion:
  • Moonriddengirl's guidelines (about the word "exodus"): We can discuss about rewording the current phrase, without changing its meaning. I think we are nearer to agreement here.
  • Adding or removing details in the sentence: I think there are important differences between editors here.
I propose to first find agreement about the word exodus and then discuss about the second point.
WCMonster's proposed phrase eliminates all reference to the destination of the pre-takover Gibraltarians, which is relevant and verifiable.
I propose:
Let's find agreement here and then discuss about the other changes (exceptions to the evacuation, destinations of the population, legacy of pre-UK Gibraltar in Campo de Gibraltar, ...) Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Your version fails to deal with the inaccuracies identified, and also appears to give too much WP:WEIGHT to points that are tangential to the history of modern Gibraltar. No, WCM's version is better. Kahastok talk 11:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I was about to ask the same thing, why would anyone seeking to improve this article persist in insisting an inaccurate sstatement must persist? WCMemail 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the text can be improved. Let’s first agree on the issue about the word exodus (which should be easier) and then discuss about weight, etc. Ok? - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the text is inaccurate is not just something that can be brushed under the carpet. And if anything, your text makes the inaccuracy worse. I see no benefit in creating a bizarrely longwinded process whereby we first rewrite the sentence, and then we rewrite it again. Kahastok talk 13:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the text does not reflect the source, I'd be quite within my rights to go ahead and remove it altogether. You can't veto the removal of inaccurate text citing lack of consensus: consensus cannot override verifiability. WCMemail 16:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Before we change anything unilaterally, let’s please go over which points we agree on and which ones we don’t.
So, we agree on changing the word exodus with another one (evacuation, exile, refuge...)
We also agree that actually some 70 out of more than 4,000 Gibraltarinans didn’t leave their homes after the invasion but the rest did leave.
We also agree on the fact that most sources mention that the largest part of those refugees established themselves in the nearby Campo de Gibraltar (more especifically in San Roque) with the city council “in exile”, with the city banner, historical records, etc.
On the other hand, you don’t want any mention of these facts because they are irrelevant to Gibraltar but I think they are relevant and should be mentioned.
Is that right? Imalbornoz (talk)
I think that's a severely biased description of the arguments being made here.
The fact is that the current text is inaccurate and is problematic in terms of WP:WEIGHT. Your proposal makes it even more inaccurate, and retains the skew. That is unacceptable. It is easy to resolve both issues, and WCM's text will do that. As I say, it's not the only text I will accept, but that does not mean I'll accept texts that do not resolve the issues identified. Kahastok talk 18:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that I think that we agree on the facts, and it would should not be difficult to find a way to express most of them in a short sentence. And I propose to go step by step starting from the easier points:
1. We want to change the word exodus with another one, following Moonriddengirl's advice. There are many synonyms that would do the job. I propose "evacuation", "exile", "took refuge", ...
2. We all agree that most sources say that virtually all of the 4,000 Gibraltarians left their town after the invasion, but around 70 individuals stayed. WCMonster and Kahastok think that the sentence should reflect this exception. The article does not follow this criteria (e.g. it says that during WWII "Gibraltar's civilian population was evacuated", even though the fact is that some civilians remained). Anyway, I think it would be possible to reach an agreement.
3. We all agree (I think) that most sources mention that the largest part of those refugees established themselves in the nearby Campo de Gibraltar (more especifically in San Roque) with the city council “in exile”, with the city banner, historical records, etc. You don't want to mention this fact. I think it is very relevant. We can discuss this point.
Can you give your opinion on each of these points so we can move forward? - Imalbornoz (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife? Kahastok talk 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a particularly offensive comment about an editor, not about content. I don’t see how it helps to improve the article or build consensus.
I think it’s good to see on which points we agree and in which ones we disagree. Therefore, I propose that you comment on those points (they are a good faith attempt to structure the discussion and build consensus). I don’t think that discussing edits as a whole will do anything but entrench our positions.
As an alternative, if you don’t agree with the way they are structured, please propose your own points of discussion.
In any case, please assume good faith and try to avoid that type of comments.-Imalbornoz (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so you don't like it when I ask you a leading question - it's a common enough example, explained in detail in the link if you'd bothered to look - but you demand I answer your leading question.
The points at issue here are pretty simple, and I see no reason why we should feel the need to repeatedly rewrite the text over and over in order to resolve them.
But if you insist that I answer your leading question, I will see no reason not to insist that you answer mine. Kahastok talk 22:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that using beaten wives as an example to prove a point is quite insensitive, repulsive and off-topic. If you want to use examples, I am sure you can think of much better ones.

I have made a good faith checklist of agreements/disagreements in the phrase about the Gibraltarians that left their homes after the invasion. That is not a leading question.

You can say your opinion about each of those points and/or propose a new checklist. Or propose a different way of discussing this question. Thanks. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that using the canonical example of a loaded question in response to a loaded question is fairly common. And all this outrage about the subject would then look like a fairly transparent attempt to dodge the question.
I think it would be far better use of our time not to try and deal with your loaded questions but to actually discuss the topic at hand.
WCM's proposal is the best one so far, given that it avoids the word "exodus", accurately describes what happened based on the sources without giving undue weight to any tangential point. It should go in the article. Kahastok talk 12:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, so you don’t want to discuss point by point, but all at the same time. That way it’ll be more difficult to reach consensus. But if you want it that way... I can adapt. So let’s do it:
I agree with Moonriddengirl: the source text is not too closely paraphrased. Changing the word exodus by another word would be enough. The word “exile” is the one that most closely reflects the word exodus in this context. That would be more than enough to deal with any copyright issues.
The article does not mention every exception when it talks about the population of Gibraltar (e.g. see the evacuation of civilians during WWII). I think that the phrase about the exile of virtually all Gibraltarians in 1704 is consistent with this criteria. It does not say “all the population” but “the population”. In any case, for the sake of consensus, I would accept “virtually all the population”.
Deleting the destination of the population of Gibraltar in 1704 goes against wp:weight: All the relevant sources mention this. Only very nationalist sources omit this fact. It’s not NPOV. And is not consistent with the rest of the article.
The same goes about not mentioning that they took with them Gibraltar’s city council, banner, etc. and that San Roque was named in 1706 by King Philip as his “city of Gibraltar in exile resident in its Campo.” Not mentioning these facts goes against wp:weight: all relevant English and Spanish sources mention this fact.
To use a point of comparison, the WWII episode about the civilian population evacuation, which you are not challenging) goes into the detail of their destination, even if their legacy didn’t have as relevant effects as the 1704 exile.
I think WCMonster’s proposal runs the risk of giving wp:undue weight to a POV by ignoring these facts. - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The question of whether "[a]ll the relevant sources mention this" is not significant. This is a section of under 400 words covering 450 years of history, from 1490 to 1940. Chances are, the books you're talking about will devote that many pages for that period. The standard of WP:WEIGHT is far higher than "[a]ll the relevant sources mention this".
On previous experience, you're defining a book as "relevant" based on whether it discusses San Roque. Last time we did this, most of those books weren't even books on the history of Gibraltar. They were books specifically on the history of the Campo and the history of San Roque - which of course will discuss in more detail the history of the Campo and the history of San Roque than would be appropriate in a history of Gibraltar. We can find lots and lots of British and Spanish sources that discuss the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Chances are, if we take British and Spanish sources as a whole, there is many times as much material on the Trump presidency than there is on the foundation of San Roque. Doesn't mean we should have a massive discussion on Trump in this article.
You know all this. We did this is excrutiating detail before. Remember, that discussion you didn't want to restart and so went to every effort to try and restart?
The word "exile" is factually incorrect because it implies that the departure of the townspeople was a deliberate expulsion. The sources make it clear that it was not. That in fact the Alliance forces wanted the townspeople to stay, but they left anyway. We do not improve the article by making it less accurate. Kahastok talk 18:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you should read wp:weight again. It is about giving due weight to each viewpoint, specifically according “to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” In this respect, practically all reliable sources mention the destination of the refugees, as well as their taking with them the city council, documents, etc. and San Roque being called “Gibraltar in exile” by king Phillip.
If you are not talking about what appears in wp:weight but about giving equal weight to all aspects of a subject (in this case, the section about History if Gibraltar) we should compare the different episodes mentioned in the section and see whether all of them are given equal weight (that’s what I talked about when I said “consistency“). For example, the part about the evacuation of civilians in WWII does talk about their (temporary) destination. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You are arguing that this article should be giving more weight to the circumstances of the foundation of a completely separate town (where those circumstances had no significant impact on the later history of Gibraltar) than it gives to the Treaty of Utrecht.
If you really think that's what WP:WEIGHT means, may I suggest that editing Wikipedia may not be an appropriate pursuit for you? Kahastok talk 23:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This article (and more specifically the History section) is not only about what had an impact on Gibraltar, but also what impact Gibraltar had on others (forgive JFK’s rip-off ;o) ). And I cannot think of any other place where Gibraltar had greatest historical impact than San Roque and the Campo de Gibraltar following the exile of Gibraltar’s refugees after 1704 (and viceversa, even in the XX and XXI century).

Regarding the Treaty of Utrech, I think it has an important prominence in the article. Do you think it should be expanded?

Regarding other episodes in the History section, it would be an interesting exercise to rank the relevance of each one of them and compare that with the details provided in the article. E.g.: What do you think is more relevant, the exile to San Roque or the evacuation of civilian population to London and several other places during WWII? Is the support during the siege of Malta during WWII more relevant to Gibraltar than the exile of more than 98% of Gibraltarians to San Roque with all of the city’s historical documents and institutions? These are not rethorical questions, please share your opinion about the relevance and the due weight of each of these episodes.

(Regarding your comment that editing WP is not an appropriate pursuit for me... I think it doesn’t add any value to the discussion. Let’s stick the discussion to content, please.)

Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • This article is about Gibraltar, not other places. If villages/towns in Spain were in any way affected by the British takeover of Gibraltar, then add it to those articles, not this one (just imagine what the article about the United States would look like if we were to add material about how political decisions there had affected other countries, towns or villages, etc, or if we were to add long sections about how villages and towns in the then Spanish Netherlands were affected by Spanish activities there to the article about Spain...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not something tangentially affected by Gibraltar. It was 98% of all the Gibraltarians of 1704 (all of the around 4,000-5,000 inhabitants of the city except 70 individuals) who left their homes one day, taking with them their belongings and the city council and its official documents, and gave historical continuity to the institutions of Gibraltar (which was not ceded to Britain until 9 years later) in San Roque, just a few km from their old homes.
Why should this episode be less relevant than the temporary evacuation of civilians during WWII (which is much more thourougly explained, mentioning that they went "mainly to London, but also to parts of Morocco and Madeira and to Gibraltar Camp in Jamaica.")? - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thomas.W's reasonable and accurate point stands undisputed, I find. Kahastok talk 21:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. How is the episode about the Gibraltar population moving mainly to San Roque in 1704 different from the evacuation mainly to London in WWII? - Imalbornoz (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
How are the circumstances of the foundation of San Roque more important to the later history of Gibraltar than the Treaty of Utrecht? Kahastok talk 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the Treaty of Utrecht and the exodus of Gibraltar's population are very important episodes. Is any of them less important to the history of Gibraltar than the Crimean War, the Suez Canal, the temporary evacuation during WWII, the supply of the island of Malta during WWII, ...? - Imalbornoz (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the destination of an exodus is an important detail of any exodus. Many readers upon reading that 98% of the population left will wonder where they went and if it was largely to one place, did that effect any sort of moving of the culture to that place (like taking the historical archives with them might do). If we maintain a gag rule on providing that information in this article, I don't know how such a reader is going to find the information. The cost of a few words in the body of the article to answer those questions and lead the reader to articles with more information is too small to seriously consider withholding the information from this article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
They did not largely go to one place. It is inaccurate to say that they all went to the Campo de Gibraltar, let alone to San Roque.
It's worth tackling head on the reason why San Roque gets pushed. Modern Spanish ultra-nationalists have a myth that all of the Gibraltar townspeople went to San Roque, and that therefore the modern people of San Roque, three hundred years later, are therefore somehow the "real" Gibraltarians who therefore have a right to determine the modern governance of Gibraltar over the heads of the local population.
This is a WP:FRINGE view that goes far beyond the POV of the Spanish government and of any mainstream literature. But there is a long history of its being pushed on Wikipedia in general and on this talk page in particular. And whether Imalbornoz likes it or not, claiming that the details of the foundation of San Roque should be given more weight than the Peace of Utrecht - and are thus of greater importance to Gibraltar than the Peace of Utrecht - puts him in that camp.
This is supposed to be an article on Gibraltar. No aspect of the later history of the former townspeople has ever had a tangible impact on the later history of Gibraltar. And the WP:WEIGHT given to this point by external WP:RS reflects this. Imalbornoz says, oh, it's mentioned by all these sources. Well great - but this is a 400-word summary, not a a 400-page book. A 400-page book will mention lots of things that the 400-page summary of the same material will properly leave out. WP:WEIGHT does not just not prevent us from leaving some things out, it aboslutely requires it.
The best we can do is get this accurate, in line with the WP:WEIGHT given to each point by external WP:RS, and the version proposed by WCM is the only one so far that achieves this. Kahastok talk 10:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources mentioning the exodus of Gibraltar's population to San Roque after the 1704 takeover

Many sources mention that virtually all of Gibraltar's population fled after the takeover, that they did largeply go to San Roque, and that they kept the official continuity of Gibraltar's city council, its historical documents, etc. in the new settlement:

  • William Jackson (British historian and British Governor of Gibraltar 1978-1982) (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link):
  • Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:
  • George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. p. 176. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.:
  • Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 54.
  • Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire. p. 34.
  • Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. p. 117.


Kahastok has said, replying to Bryan Henderson that "They did not largely go to one place" and that "This is a WP:FRINGE view that goes far beyond the POV of the Spanish government and of any mainstream literature."

Anyone can see that the overwhelming majority of reliable British and Spanish secondary sources say that the largest part of the population settled in San Roque (even though some smaller groups did settle in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, etc.) and gave official continuity to Gibraltar in that new town. This is a verifiable fact. Like Bryan said, this is relevant information and the cost of words is too small. And, I say, other parts of the article do not omit the destination of other evacuations of Gibraltar's population.

With this evidence I think we should all move on and accept as a fact that "the largest part of Gibraltar's population took refuge in San Roque with the city council and historical archives, and that the new municipality was recognized by Royal Patent as the City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

These sources do not back your position. They do not state, imply or otherwise suggest that all of the townspeople went to San Roque, still less that the modern townspeople of San Roque have rights over modern Gibraltar. You cannot use sources for things that they do not say.
Moreover, nothing above demonstrates that San Roque should have more WP:WEIGHT than the Peace of Utrecht.
As WCM pointed out earlier, as the current text fails verification it may be removed by any editor and consensus would be required to re-add or replace it. I have tried quite hard to bring compromise to achieve a changed text that could pass verification - as I say, this would not appear difficult to do with a relatively minor rewording - but your choice to quote me clearly out of context in the above, and your continued insistence on trying to push San Roque into the text irrespective of all other considerations (most notably WP:WEIGHT) demonstrates to me that this effort is as futile now as it was seven years ago.
I am happy to join with other editors to reach a sensible consensus that meets the requirements of WP:WEIGHT, but I see no further value in trying to do a deal with Imalbornoz. Kahastok talk 13:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
My proposal since I opened this discussion on December 13 is NOT that ALL the population went to San Roque.
It has been that:
For goodness’ sake, Kahastok, please read the first comment in the discussion. - Imalbornoz (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Again we could look at pretty much all those sources and they would mention for example that during the Great Siege there were a number of important innovations in firearms design. That's a sourced fact, do we mention it? No we don't, because this is an overview and its not an important or significant fact in the history of Gibraltar. If anyone wishes to know more, we have a hyperlink at the top of the section, which directs us to a more detailed article where such details are appropriate. And to be 100% clear, I am not suggesting we introduce into the article the subject of firearms innovation, its just an example of how facts that could significant in another context are not necessarily relevant in an overview.
To answer Mr Henderson's comment, above we see some very selective quotation from sources. In detail, these will tell you that the fishermen of Gibraltar moved to Algeciras, a number settled around San Roque, with others travelling widely and settling as far away as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga. It's not possible to cover such a wide dispersion of the population in a simple sentence to promote accuracy and since such information is effectively tangential to Gibraltar it's actually better to leave such details to the more detailed article. To make the point rather brutally The Exodus isn't even mentioned in the article on Egypt. Go figure that one.
And to drag matters back to the original topic, we currently have a text that is inaccurate and doesn't reflect what the source say. Not all left, and not all settled in the Campo de Gibraltar. If we're not allowed to have a more accurate text, because one editor insists on filibustering a discussion to have his own way on an unrelated matter, then the best option is going to be to remove it. I would be perfectly within my rights to do so. WCMemail 15:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again. We all agree that there were smaller groups in other places. I hope you also agree that it is a verifiable fact that the most important settlement of the exodus of Spanish Gibraltarians after the invasion, happened in San Roque, where they gave continuity to the city council of Gibraltar (remember Gibraltar was not ceded to Britain until 1714), its archive, etc. If you are not sure, please go check it up in the sources above ("most important settlement", "especially to San Roque", "the largest part", ...).
Then, hopefully, the discussion is not about those facts, but about whether the exodus and its destination are relevant to the article of Gibraltar. I agree with Bryan in that you can't just say that virtually all the population of Gibraltar (several thousand Gibraltarians) went away and not mention that they largely went just a few km away from their homes to San Roque (which is a fact, as you can see above) and that they gave continuity to the city council of Gibraltar in San Roque, its archives, etc.
To answer WCM's first argument, where 98% of Gibraltarians largely went after their town was taken over by a Anglo-Dutch army is more relevant to the history of Gibraltar than, say, the improvements in firearm technology. And also, more relevant than other episodes thouroughly explained in this article's History section (the Suez canal, the supply to Malta during WWII, ...)
To answer WCM's second argument: the article about Egypt doesn't mention The Exodus because... it's a myth!!!! Check it up in the lead section of The Exodus ("No historical basis for the biblical Exodus story exists")... and go figure that one! (thanks for keeping up the good humor, I think this is the most remarkable argument I've seen in this discussion so far...)
On the other hand, the exodus of Gibraltarians in 1704 is a historical fact.
Plase, do answer one question: Do you think that the temporary evacuation of British civilians during WWII is much more relevant than the exodus of Spanish civilians in 1704? Why can't we give the Spanish exodus a similar treatment to the temporary British evacuation? - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

WCM is correct. I don't want this removed, I want this corrected. But if the only way to have an accurate article is to remove the point entirely, then removing it may well be the least worst option.

And as I noted before, if it is removed in these circumstances, then per WP:BURDEN, we will need a consensus for a specific text before we can reinstate any text, including the one currently in the article. Kahastok talk 18:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, we agree then: we will not remove the destination of the refugees, but we will modify the sentence to be more accurate. We could discuss the new text point by point (this is what I was trying to do) or discuss whole proposals.
I propose to base it on Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson's account of the facts. He was a historian, one of the first British officers to engage the enemy in WWII... and the Governor of Gibraltar 1978-1982, where he was "a stalwart advocate for self-determination in the territory" (as the WP article says). As you can see, I have tried to avoid completely any suspicion of promoting a Spanish POV. This proposal would be (check it in all the sources we usually citate, but specially Jackson):


It is more accurate (it considers the exceptions to "the population moved to Campo de Gibraltar") and avoids the word "exodus". It summarizes the end of Spain's cultural influence on Gibraltar, the legacy of the pre-1704 Gibraltarians, and the beginning of British culture on the Rock (a very relevant fact in Gibraltar's history, I would say). - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
You're presenting a straw man argument trying to conflate two superficially similar events as having equal significance, they don't.
The evacuation of Gibraltar during World War 2 is a significant factor in the development of the modern identity of the people who live there. It lead to the formation of the Association for the Advancement of Civil Rights, it lead to democratic rule, it ultimately lead to 2 sovereignty referendums and self-determination becoming a key factor in the future of Gibraltar. The abandonment of Gibraltar by its former occupants doesn't have the same significance; they left and played no further part. It has no bearing on modern Gibraltar but arguably is relevant to San Roque.
I do note however that your comment acknowledges that all of the sources qualify their comments to reflect that the situation is not as simple as the edit you've revert warred to keep and then filibustered to frustrate consensus building. Thus far 3 editors disagree with you and the one editor who has given you some support did so under the mistaken impression we needed to add a single detail.
I see an attempt at humour has only provoked the humourless, no doubt this will be falsely reported as a real argument at some point in the future. Let me also point out a more pertinent example. Canada doesn't mention the deportation of the Acadians but you reach that information via a wikilink from the main article. This is how wikipedia deals with details like that when they're not directly relevant to an overview.
If you're trying to argue that a detailed exposition of where the former inhabitants went after leaving is of equal significance to the role of Gibraltar in defeating one of the most evil regimes to have ever existed, the Treaty of Utrecht or the Great Siege then sadly I have to note your comments are bordering on obsession with minor details.
I find myself in agreement with Kahastok, I would like to see the inaccurate statement in the current article corrected. But if the only way we can have an accurate article is by removing it altogether then I would reluctantly feel compelled to do so.
We keep making the point about WP:WEIGHT, so instead of a few words we now have three bloated sentences dedicated to tangential information instead of the current inaccurate one. This kind of makes the point, to add all the tangential information you demand is utterly, hypercritical, vital information we end up bloatinbg the article - its too low level a detail. I oppose this suggestion for that reason. We need no more than a single sentence of no more than about 14 words. WCMemail 19:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, here we go with another of your examples ;o). If it were about 98% of Canadians being deported (not just the Acadians), then your example would be more relevant. But in that case, I am pretty sure that it would be explained by more than a wikilink.
You want to use what you call an inaccuracy to override the consensus text and delete all mention of the exodus. The text was considered accurate enough after a discussion that took several months and during which you were blocked and banned several times. Not only that, it follows the same criteria as other parts of the article that are just as accurate or inaccurate (saying "the population" instead of "virtually all the population", for example). It is consistent with the rest of the article, but we are discussing how to change it to be more accurate. Are you saying that we should delete all of those "inaccurate" sentences until we reach a new consensus? Come on, that is not constructive.
You say that the 1704 exodus is irrelevant compared to the WWII civilian evacuation or the supply of the island of Malta. Can we discuss a more authoritative source besides your own opinion? - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, again you are misrepresenting what I'm arguing. I don't wish to remove the fact that the population left and the text I proposed includes it. Again we see reference to what happened in the past and it's being used to intimidate other editors. Again we see you trying to raise tensions, straw man arguments and nothing but filibustering to string the discussion out. You keep trying to take this discussion down rabbit holes, when what matters is the current text is inaccurate and doesn't reflect the source. You've admitted as much above. Let me ask you the straight question, where is your red line? Are you insistent that we have to add the information you demand and you will not move unless we agree? WCMemail 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that the destination of the permanent evacuation of 98% of Gibraltarians in 1704 must remain mentioned.
I am eager to accept "virtually all the population" instead of "the population" and "the most important settlement was San Roque" instead of "to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."
I still think other points should be included... but let's agree on changing these two points first if you want. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
So the text would be:
My concerns are, that that doesn't resolve the problem with "exodus", that it isn't accurate (important to what?), that it's ungrammatical, and that I've seen nothing that would resolve my concerns about WP:WEIGHT. Kahastok talk 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
How about "flight" instead?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
”Flight” would be good (thanks IdreamofJeanie!). “Exile” is another alternative (in the sense that they had to leave because they didn’t want to swear allegiance to the Habsburg pretender to the throne and, probably, because they were scared after their churches were desecrated, many homes were plundered and several dozen Gibraltarian women were raped by the Anglo-Dutch marines).
”Important” in the sense that there were several settlements, but one of them was more important (in size, it hosted the city council...) as is used by one of the most cited sources in the article (William Jackson), you can check it.
Grammar: it’s not too difficult to arrange it. For example:
BTW, happy new year to you all! — Imalbornoz (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
San Roque was not and is not a more important settlement than Malaga. The most important settlement we have evidence that they went to is (at least) Malaga.
If some of them went to Madrid, then the most important settlement they went to was Madrid. Because Madrid was and is more important than Malaga.
"Exile" is not correct because they were not forced or required to leave. They were not exiled, they chose to leave of their own accord. "Flight" is not good either.
And I've still not seen anything that would persuade me that the requirements of WP:WEIGHT are even close to being met.
So I remain opposed. Kahastok talk 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we use Kahastok’s (a very respectable Wikipedian but not actually a wp:source) interpretation of “the most important settlement” or William Jackson’s (a cited historian and Gibraltar’s governor for 4 years)? - Imalbornoz (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Easy answer to that is that Jackson does not make the claim you ascribe to him. Of course he doesn't - because it's obvious nonsense.
But even if he had done, all my other objections, most notably on the issue of WP:WEIGHT, stand unchallenged. Kahastok talk 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again. I say that a sentence (“the most important settlement was San Roque”) is supported by a reliable source and you don’t even make the effort to check it. You say that the source doesn’t say so, just based on your own opinion that it would be “obvious nonsense”.
Do you imply that Jackson says “obvious nonsense” and he shouldn’t be considered a reliable source? - Imalbornoz (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope, you are unable to separate WP:FACT and WP:OPINION. It may be Jackson's opinion that San Roque was the most important, that doesn't make it a fact. You'd have to demonstrate a prevailing opinion in the literature (which I don't believe you can) and even then all you can say is that is an opinion held by many historians. You cannot assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is a fact.
And Kahastok makes a point, what is the criteria for deciding which is most important? If we were to select population move, for example, this would be Algeciras. Most of the population were fishermen and that's where most of those went. If it is the most important place in Spain, then that could for example be Madrid. What you're trying to ascribe is an entirely subjective viewpoint.
Flight is not good, it implies urgency, there was none - they left days later along with the garrison. Exile is not appropriate, it implies coercion, whereas the pro-Hapsburg forces were attempting to persuade them to say. The best suggestion so far is abandon, they abandoned Gibraltar for a multitude of reasons.
The only sticking point as I see it is your insistence that we have to delineate where they went. You've not providing a convincing argument per WP:WEIGHT why we must do so. Its a point that remains unchallenged despite weeks of fruitless filibustering discussion. WCMemail 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
WCMonster, you are not a new editor and you know since many years ago that your assertion that "If we were to select population move, for example, this would be Algeciras" is something you cannot pull out of your own brain if you want to avoid WP:OR. Do you have any source supporting that assertion, or were you just writing that comment for fun?
On the other hand I have provided an overwhelming amount of reliable sources (most of them British History books) saying that "the largest part of the population" went to San Roque, or that "the most important settlement" was San Roque, or directly that they went to San Roque... For goodness' sake, you even have tagged that sentence as "excessive citations"!!!!!
This is ridiculous. How many cites can you provide for your theory that the most important population move (not just the fishermen) was to Algeciras or to Malaga or to Madrid? - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You're moving the goalposts. "The most important population move" is - fairly obviously - entirely subjective. It's also very clearly not what your proposal says. Your proposal says "the most important settlement was San Roque" - not the same thing at all. And it is also different from what Jackson says. You selectively quote "the most important settlement" but the rest of the sentence makes it clear that what you say is not what he says. We can all see the quote, remember? You put it at the top of this section.
And you have still not provided anything like a convincing argument per WP:WEIGHT that this should be included at all. You're ignoring this point over and over but the fact is, the whole discussion on the word "important" is a tangent. The central objection is what it has always been - that your text gives too much weight to a relatively minor point, out of proportion with the weight given to that point by reliable sources. And you're not going to get any support from me unless my concerns on that point are resolved. Kahastok talk 21:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank for, inadvertently I presume, making my point for me. What is the "most important" is entirely subjective, whether it is me, Jackson, the Jackson 5, the Pope, Uncle Tom Cobbley and his Aunt; it's an opinion and it is not a fact. And no, you haven't provided overwhelming numbers of sources, you've provided precisely one; the opinion of one author not a fact. And as Kahastok points out above, you've selectively tailored that quote and it doesn't support your edit.

The point I made is very simple, the criteria for deciding what is "most important" is entirely subjective; you can't use an author's opinion based on their subjective criteria. That is all. I won't indulge you by following you down the irrelevant rabbit holes you wish to bolt. WCMemail 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not consistent: the whole article is full with sentences including the word "important", which (I suppose) represent the sources's opinion (important base, strategically important, an important role, ...) but you are only complaining about this one. In fact, I am getting the impression that you're only consistent in your aim to delete Campo de Gibraltar or San Roque. In order to focus in consensus, I am not going to start a discussion about this bias.
Regarding alternatives to the expression "the most important", we can choose from:
- the most important settlement to be set up was San Roque
- the largest part of the population settled in the nearby hermitage of San Roque
- most of them settled around the hill of San Roque
- to San Roque, some miles inside Spain
(We can choose one of them or, also, we can leave the sentence as it has been for the last 8 years. In any case, WCMonster, you have not provided a source supporting your WP:OR that the most important population move was to Algeciras).
If you want, afterwards, we can talk about WP:WEIGHT and decide whether to leave the information as it is, include additional information about the city council "in exile" and the banner, etc. (as I was proposing) or remove any mention of San Roque or Campo de Gibraltar (as you're proposing). But first let's agree on the wording of the current content.
Regarding the word "exile", please (i) read the definition and (ii) check it with the fact that each Gibraltarian was not allowed to stay if they didn't swear allegiance to the Hapsburg faction (there are several other reasons to use the word "exile" on top of that one, but this one suffices to support the word). - Imalbornoz (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, the goalposts are moving again. There are precisely six uses of the word important. None of which are used in the context to say that X was more important than Y. Again we see a strawman argument.
And no, there is no source that states swearing allegiance to the Hapsburg cause was mandatory, in fact the inhabitants chose to leave citing their allegiance to Phillip. Again another strawman and an irrelevant argument.
And we still have a entry unsupported by cites, which you're filibustering to keep in the article. As it fails verification, it should be removed.
I'm just ignoring the accusations of bad faith editing. WCMemail 23:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I have proposed several alternatives to satisfy your concerns about the current text in the article (regarding the term "the population", the wording describing the destination...) and have accepted to pause my proposed inclusion of information about the city council, etc. Could you please kindly answer to three questions so that we all can at least agree about some verified facts?
  1. Do you think that any of the four proposed alternatives to "the most important settlement was San Roque" is a verified fact or do you feel that all four of them are unacceptably wrong?
  2. Is it or isn't it a verified fact that the terms of surrender said that any Spaniard could indeed remain in the town with religion and property guaranteed BUT as long as they took an oath of allegiance to 'Charles III' of Hapsburg as King of Spain?
  3. Is it or isn't it a verified fact that virtually all Gibraltarians (around 98%) didn't take the oath of allegiance and left, and that those that remained (around 70 individuals) took the oath?
Thank you. - Imalbornoz (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am very glad no one disagrees on those facts. We can now fine tune the current sentence to make its information more accurate and change the word exodus as WCM and Kahastok demanded. And then we can discuss WP:WEIGHT to decide whether to include more information about the city council, etc. (like I propose) or remove the detail about San Roque (like WCM and Kahastok propose). - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Absence of a reply is not agreement. Sometimes people have better things to do than argue over minutiae. We've already acknowledged you seem unable to distinguish between individual author's opinions and fact. We've acknowledged that sources mention some facts and some the author's opinion. So personally I didn't see the point in repeating myself. I did not see an edit proposal from you, you've been most insistent that we have to have agreement in talk before editing. In fact, reviewing what you've written there was clearly objection to the weasel wording you are using. So as there is no consensus I have reverted. WCMemail 16:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bleh. I see no reason to suggest that we are significantly closer to doing the basic maintenance that is actually required here, to resolve the inaccuracy in the text as it stands. I see no prospect of getting any closer as every discussion gets railroaded into a discussion on San Roque.
Unless there is significant new evidence, as I see it the choice is to either leave the text there or remove it per WP:BURDEN. In the latter case, consensus will be required before any replacement text (including the existing text) is included in the article. Kahastok talk 17:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw you were editing other instances of Wikipedia, so I thought either you agreed and saw no reason to keep the discussion or that you were just ignoring me (which would be rather unpolite, I must say).
A discussion is based on questions and answers, proposals and counter proposals, with supporting arguments and, in the case of Wikpedia, with sources.
The current text is correct, although it could be more accurate. I have proposed several alternatives to increase accuracy. I will repeat my questions and will expect that you will answer them:
  1. Do you think that any of the four proposed alternatives to "the most important settlement was San Roque" is a verified fact or do you feel that all four of them are unacceptably wrong? On each of the proposals you find not a verified fact, can you give your reasons (with sources)?
  2. Is it or isn't it a verified fact that the terms of surrender said that any Spaniard could indeed remain in the town with religion and property guaranteed BUT as long as they took an oath of allegiance to 'Charles III' of Hapsburg as King of Spain?
  3. Is it or isn't it a verified fact that virtually all Gibraltarians (around 98%) didn't take the oath of allegiance and left, and that those that remained (around 70 individuals) took the oath?
Thank you. - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You demonstrate my point, I find. Kahastok talk 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It was you guys who said that the phrase was inaccurate. If you want to leave it as it is, I can accept it. But do not use it as an excuse to delete anything.
If you don’t want to change it, the phrase is correct enough as it is:
  • I have checked that “exodus” is used by several sources about the episode, so that would solve the copyvion problem mentioned by WCMonster.
  • The whole population did not leave, but several sources talk about the general exodus (in the same terms as the current phrase) and don’t mention the 70 that remained (out of 4-6,000 that left.
  • It is consistent with the rest of the article, which in several instances talks about groups without mentioning the exceptions - e.g. the evacuation of civilian population in WWII.
We can leave the sentence, like Kahastok said, and then discuss WP:WEIGHT if you want to remove it. Deleting it “pre-emptively” would be a no no as per WP:BRD, and, personally, I would consider it tendentious editing.
Regarding the discussion with WCMonster about whether an oath of allegiance was mandatory or not after the takeover in 1704, have you guys been able to check the terms of surrender (Article V, specifically), the WP article about the capture and what all sources say? - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to over the same ground repeatedly, it isn't rude to ignore you when you insist we do so. It is rude, however, to constantly treat other editors like they were idiots.

Your own quotes demonstrate 2 things:

  1. ALL sources qualify their statements to reflect the fact that not ALL of the population left.
  2. ALL sources qualify their statements to reflect the fact that not ALL of the population settled nearby.

The current text does not, it's inaccurate and doesn't reflect the sources. The text fails verification and could be removed at any time. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that we are editing in good faith and trying to reach a consensus solution. The fact that one has not arisen stems from the fact you are obstructing it by filibustering . You are determined that you get your preferred wording, which is not acceptable per WP:NPOV and seeks to introduce WP:WEASEL wording. Instead of discussing the text you seem to determined to personalise matters. I don't think matters are helped by everytime you agree with something you go back on your word. You agreed that the term exodus should be removed and now you're reintroducing it. Above I asked you what your red lines were. That's the first time you ever came out and said it, that you want the mention of San Roque reintroduced. Funny how 10 years later you're still stuck on the same stubborn agenda, which you're not prepared to compromise on under any circumstances. It's your stubborness that is leading to a situation where the text is likely to be removed. WP:BRD doesn't apply here, the text has been challenged, it's failed verification and can be removed at any time. WCMemail 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The current text in the article does not say that ALL of the population left or that ALL of the population settled nearby. Therefore, BRD still applies.
Regarding red lines, what I said is “I think that the destination of the permanent evacuation of 98% of Gibraltarians in 1704 must remain mentioned” (I don’t mention San Roque as a red line, it’s just the most mentioned destination, but the current Campo de Gibraltar is another option).
Regarding good faith editing, I am very glad you are respecting BRD now, but that was after you and Kahastok tried repeatedly to include the term self-governing and delete Campo de Gibraltar against BRD and before any worry from you about accuracy. I repeat: you are applying BRD now and that’s great, but please let’s not start again.
(Can you kindly now answer my question about the mandatory oath of allegiance?) - Imalbornoz (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The current text does in fact say that, which doesn't reflect any source. As I said, it was challenged, failed verification and can be removed at any time. Just to be clear, I'm ignoring your bad faith comments but WP:BRD does not apply when the text has failed verification. I presume your comment about the "oath of allegiance" being compulsory can be sourced? You haven't provided one. WCMemail 08:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the oath of allegiance, you can check:
  • Terms of surrender (in Wikisource, from Wiliam Jackson, who takes it from Frederick Sayer): "ARTICLE V.: To the inhabitants, soldiers, and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar, shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Charles II; the religion and all tribunals shall remain intact and without alteration, it being understood that the oath of fidelity to HM Charles III as legitimate Lord and King, is to be taken.
  • George Hills (historian) in "Rock of Contention" (1974): "If they stayed they were to enjoy the same privileges as under Charles II, provided they swore allegiance to Charles III."
  • Evgeny Vinokurov in "A Theory of Enclaves" (2007): "Only about 70 persons (mostly Genoese fishermen), elected to remain, which was only permitted on the conditions that they swear allegiance to the Archduke Charles as Charles III."
Do you have any source saying that civilians could stay without any mandatory oath?
The current text, I insist does not say "ALL", please check it. It says "the population" (without "all").
When the article says "During the Second World War, Gibraltar's civilian population was evacuated", does it mean that ALL of the civilian population was evacuated?
Both cases are generally correct, but if you want to be more accurate it is easy to simply add "virtually all", instead of wasting time in a very very very long discussion. I will do that unless you oppose it. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As I thought, you are conducting WP:OR and WP:SYN from the terms of surrender. You know this isn't acceptable. Do you have both sources, I would like you to provide more details please? I have seen no evidence that the people who remained did swear an oath of allegiance. It's mentioned in the terms of surrender, yes, do you have any evidence it was ever carried out? Otherwise this is yet another irrelevant rabbit hole and not of relevance to this discussion.
If you wish to offer a suggestion by all means do so, you are most insistent we have to agree text in advance. Please practise what you preach. At the moment the proposal is:
Please note I will take it as a demonstration of bad faith if you continue to persist in language already rejected as POV. WCMemail 13:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, so you accept that "It's mentioned in the terms of surrender." So we agree: according to the terms, if someone wanted to stay, they did have to take an oath. If, surprisingly, the terms of surrender were not applied I am sure many sources would mention it (I haven't found any).
Also, please answer my second question: When the article says "During the Second World War, Gibraltar's civilian population was evacuated", does it mean that ALL of the civilian population was evacuated?
Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If you insist on editing the current text to increase accuracy, I propose to limit the changes to just five words (and therefore, minimise the room for disagreement; otherwise I forecast a long long discussion to reach consensus):
Thanks again. - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
No we don't agree. I'm not going to discuss your rabbit hole any further.
I don't need to answer your question, you were correct, the article was misleading wrt to the evacuation in WW2. I acted upon it and simply added a qualification to the statement. Thanks for pointing it out.
I see you've returned to using a phrase you agreed we would avoid. I don't see at this point how you can expect us to believe you're editing in good faith. This is just filibustering to wear people down into giving in. Fine, if you're not prepared to work with editors to achieve a consensus I see no alternative at this point to removing it. WCMemail 15:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that what is "mentioned in the terms of surrender" was not actually enforced? That is really very interesting. Do you have any proof of that? Even one source?
I said I was ready to change exodus if that was a problem with copyvio, because Moonriddengirl suggested it was the least common of the words used in the phrase. I have seen afterwards that the word "exodus" is very common in many sources that describe the episode of Gibraltarians leaving their town in 1704.
If there is a copyvio problem with the word exodus, of course I will agree to look for an alternative, but that would mean we have to continue the discussion about whether they population could stay freely or they were required to take an oath. I thought it would save all of us a lot of time to stick to the curren wording as much as possible. - Imalbornoz (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I asked you what the source say as to whether it was enforced but then I realised you were raising yet another strawman to spin out discussion even further. My patience is wearing thin, I'm a content editor and I do not appreciate having to waste my time in fruitless discussions over the most minor of points. As I said, if you're not going to work toward a consensus and constantly going back on your word I see no alternative but to remove it. WCMemail 08:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Whooa! Let's all calm down, please. You said many things in your comments ("No we don't agree", "I'm not going to discuss your rabbit hole", "you are conducting WP:OR"), so it seems I didn't understand you were asking for the content in the sources.

I already posted the content of two sources, which are pretty clear: townspeople were only permitted to remain if they made an oath of allegiance to Charles III. I don't see any other interpretation of "Only about 70 persons (...) elected to remain, which was only permitted on the conditions that they swear allegiance to the Archduke Charles as Charles III". That is what the rules of the terms of surrender said. Therefore, it was mandatory.

If you need to know more, here are more details:

  • Frederick Sayer says that "It is worthy of remark that but few inhabitants of the city availed themselves of the provisions of the 5th article of the capitulation." So in fact, yes. He says that the ones that remained complied with the 5th article, which included the oath.
  • William Jackson says that "On 7 August a dejected procession filed out" with authorities, garrison, religious orders and "all the inhabitants who did not wish to take the oath of allegiance to Charles III." So, it's pretty clear too: all the ones who did not wish to take the oath left.

This is really very tiring, honestly. Anyone who reads those sources, or even the WP article about the capture of Gibraltar can see that the oath was mandatory. I just hope that my dedication of time to satisfy your doubts counts as a sign of good faith.

Regarding the accuracy of the term "exodus of the population": let me insist that it does not mean "exodus of ALL the population", just like "evacuation of the population" does not mean "evacuation of ALL the population". Otherwise, the name of the article "Evacuation of the Gibraltarian civilian population during World War II" would be wrong, because not ALL the civilian population was evacuated, as you know. It can be more accurate (thanks for adding the qualifier "most" in the Gibraltar article), but it is not wrong. Would you want to delete the Evacuation article because of lack of accuracy? No way. It is a very interesting article and the name is correct. Then, please be consistent and don't delete the phrase about the exodus.

Regarding my attitude for consensus, I have proposed several alternatives. I even proposed one that does not include the name "San Roque" (which I think is very important), because I thought that was a no no for you. You have only proposed one possible sentence, without any mention of the destination at all. Please, I think you need to see me in a more positive light. - Imalbornoz (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This is irrelevant it's not germane to the matter at hand, I am not going to discuss an irrelevant natter with you.
The article as currently written states the population left, this is not true. If you want to start a semantic argument about the name of another article by all means discuss that on that articles talk page but not here. The difference between you and I is that whilst I have suggested numerous alternatives, I have accepted suggestions from other editors to change the text - I've compromised. You have not, filibustering the discussion to force editors to accept your preferences rather than considering the wiki norms of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. A final suggestion:

Unless I see movement on your part I feel, reluctantly, there is no other option other than to remove the text. WCMemail 13:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It was you who said that "exile" was not appropriate because there was no mandatory oath. So, it is relevant. And, given that the oath was mandatory, "exile" is appropriate.
The rest of your proposal is very vague and inaccurate. I wonder why you would choose to be inaccurate in some instances and repetitive in others if we all have the information to be more precise with almost the same number of words:
  • "Following" does not imply cause-effect relationship between the occupation and the exodus. The sources say that the exodus was a consequence of the occupation. Why would you want to remove that information?
  • "by forces of the Grand Alliance" are six totally unnecessary words. The article already mentions who invaded Gibraltar in the same paragraph.
  • "Most" is inaccurate, it could be 51%, but it was more than 98% of the population who left. The sources tell us the number. It's just a few characters longer but much more precise.
  • "Abandoned" implies "to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in". Which is not only not supported by sources. It is contrary to the content of those sources (just check).
  • "Nearby" is inaccurate. We know they went to Campo de Gibraltar. Why would you want to remove that?
I think it is better to keep the wording of the current consensus or, at the most, qualify it like you did with the evacuation during WWII. - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, you're seeking to impose WP:WEASEL words that are distinctly WP:POV for a specious reason. Another rabbit hole argument I will not indulge. None of the sources you provide use "exile".
Most is accurate, precision at the level you demand has never been something I've demanded that is a strawman, its a qualification the same one I applied to the evacuation.
Changed "abandoned" with the "elected to leave" as used by the source you provided.
The Campo de Gibraltar is nearby, I suggest you consult a map. Rather amusing you claim different when your own sources confirm it is within sight of the rock. I don't see the need to mention a largely Spanish phrase that many English language readers will not identify with. I've suggested removing it to produce a nice compact punchy sentence. Personally I see no need to mention where they went but I have compromised to meet you half way. Reciprocity on your part would go a long way to demonstrating good faith. Unless I see movement on your part I feel, reluctantly, there is no other option other than to remove the text. WCMemail 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources say the townspeople made an election, but only when they explain the choices and that remaining was only permitted if they made an oath of allegiance. Otherwise it looks like they elected to leave "on a whim". It just doesn't make sense the way you put it.
I already met you half way. I accepted not to include "San Roque" in the sentence.
You keep wanting to delete Campo de Gibraltar (three words) from the current consensus text for the sake of brevity, yet you make several proposal that include six redundant words that were already mentioned in the same paragraph. That is just not consistent. Your insistence to delete any specific reference to the destination looks very tendencious, it looks like you just keep giving different arguments with just one objective: to remove the specific destination of those Gibraltarians.
Now you add a new argument: that it is a long "Spanish phrase"? "Campo de" a long Spanish phrase? It is mentioned several times in the article, but we can add a wikilink in the exodus episode if you want to help readers to find out what it is.
Please stop threatening with deleting the sentence. Leave the current consensus text alone or, if you want more accuracy, let's find a qualifier. And please don't insist in removing information ("Campo de Gibraltar") from the current consensus.
I propose to only add a qualifier "98% of" (or "virtually all") and "mainly" to the current phrase. That is accurate and it's minimum intervention on the current text. Will you agree with that? - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
You're being needlessly argumentative, you make a comment, I accept it and modify things accordingly, yet you criticise me for it and accuse me of being inconsistent. What the hell do you want me to do, stop listening to you? And you haven't met me half way, the reference to San Roque was moving the goalposts to a more extreme position - it's no compromise on your part. I used the words from a source you provided, now you disagree saying they're inappropriate. Being kind I might presume your comments reveal a misunderstanding of English (they bear no relation to the way the term is used in English) but I know your language skills are clearly better than that. Your comments about elections are specious nonsense; a rather pathetic strawman. Nearby is actually more accurate than the Campo de Gibraltar, since that covers rather a large area. You ask why I didn't use this phrase, you don't accept my explanation and launch into a personal attack. Again I find myself defending against a bad faith presumption on your part instead of trying to agree on content. As to your comment on wikilinks, right at the top of this section is a link to the history article, which has everything you claim is so important and much more. There is no need for this fixation of yours. You're quibbling over the difference between "most" and "mainly" but is not appropriate to use "mainly" according to English grammar rules. See below (not a proposal).
I'm not threatening anything, I have earnestly tried to get to a consensus position to replace a text that failed verification and should have been removed. I am reluctant to remove any the reference in the article but its your obstructive editing that leads me to sadly conclude it may be the only option. WCMemail 17:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You say you want to change the current text because it is not accurate. The following alternative keeps the wording of the current CONSENSUS text, eliminates redundant information, keeps its length (23 words now and 23 words before) AND is more accurate as you proposed:


I will include this edit unless someone opposes it with a very good explanation. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I oppose it per WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:WEASEL wording. I oppose it as the use of the Spanish term is unnecessary and requires explanation that will further bloat the sentence. I oppose it as being too long in any case. I oppose it because the advice from Wikipedia's copyright expert was not to use exodus. I oppose it as you agreed to not use that term and have reneged on that agreement.
I now propose we simply delete any reference to it, it seems one editor will frustrate any possibility of agreement otherwise. WCMemail 19:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I rather agree with WCM's proposal, the alternative is not an improvement. Apcbg (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
One final variation:

But I'm pretty much done with this. WCMemail 22:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, your alternative is worse than the current text (with qualifiers), because it removes verifiable facts without a great reduction in length: it eliminates the cause and effect between the occupation and the exodus, “most” is less precise than “virtually all” (come on, 98% left), “elected” does not reflect the fact that it was an imposed departure (unless they changed their allegiance), and it eliminates the specific mention of the destination but with more words (a real achievement). - Imalbornoz (talk)
Note to Imalbornoz. Hammering away at the same old line until everyone else is fed up and stops arguing is not consensus building, Last man standing does not win by default. There is clearly no consensus for your suggestions.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


Wee Curry Monster, you have just deleted any mention of the fact that 98% of the population of Gibraltar left their homes (forever, even though they didn't know it at the time) after the British-Dutch takeover. It was a pivotal point in Gibraltar's history. The sentence you deleted was written while you and I (and Kahastok) were banned from Gibraltar related articles. There has been consensus for that sentence for 8 years. There is no consensus for removing the sentence now.

I have proposed to leave the current sentence and, if you want more accuracy, add some qualifiers. I really don't understand the reasons for your wanting to delete the last consensus sentence and your opposition to just add some qualifiers.

In any case, I am not going to edit war with you. I will just remind you of the discretionary sanctions mentioned in your ban and its withdrawal and ask you to revert the deletion and continue the discussion. If you think that discussion here is improductive, then I propose to try mediation or a request for comment. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone could have deleted it at any time, since the sentence failed verification. We have proposed numerous alternatives all rejected by you and its been pointed out for nearly a month this was a possibility. This is a consequence of you hammering away at the same line, trying to deter other editors from commenting. Last man standing does not win by default and anyone reading this page can clearly see A) you have no consensus backing you up and B) you were filibustering. WCMemail 08:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's be clear that this is nobody's first choice. Ultimately, though, text that can't be sourced gets removed.
I still support putting Curry Monster's text into the article. That said, four editors have supported it either here or here, and only one has opposed. I don't think it's that unreasonable to start looking at whether we are at, or approaching, a non-unanimous consensus. Kahastok talk 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
My current suggestions remain:
A)

or

B)
I believe both have a broad consensus with one exception. I am happy with either but to be honest I am not keen on further protracted and ultimately fruitless discussion. I'd also be a lot happier if someone stopped following me to other articles they've never edited. WCMemail 19:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Leaning towards A but happy with either of those.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
IdreamofJeanie, why do you think that it's better for the content of the article to change "As a consequence of" with "Following" when virtually all sources say there was a cause and effect? (I think we would be removing information from the article).
Also, why do you think it is better to eliminate the name "Campo de Gibraltar"? (it is mentioned several times in the article, so I wonder what reason there is to eliminate that expression only in this sentence).
Do you think that the expression "elected to leave" is the best way to reflect the fact that the population "chose" to leave only after there were rapes, plundering desecration of churches... and that they were not allowed to stay in their homes unless they swore allegiance to the faction of the invaders?
Finally, don't you think that this pivotal point in the history of Gibraltar deserves more information for the reader of the article? (From this moment, Gibraltar stopped to be inhabited mainly by Spaniards, to this day).
Thanks for your interest in the discussion. - Imalbornoz (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A wikipedian proposal to meet halfway

A source used by all of the involved editors, Peter Gold ("Gibraltar, British or Spanish?" published by Routledge in 2005) makes a very brief and effective summary of the episode. It is a reliable source, cited in several academic books and articles, and the research was financed by both British (the British council) and Spanish (Ministry of Education) institutions (that is, it is not suspect of having a nationalist POV). We can use it as a guide to develop a consensus text.

The source says:


We can use this source to say:

  • "As a consequence of the takeover, all but 70 of the existing population of 4,000 fled to the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar, many settling in San Roque, which two years later King Philip V of Spain addressed as ‘My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo’" (this would be my preferred option)

or

  • "Following the takeover, all but 70 of the existing population of 4,000 fled to the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar." (shorter text, meeting half-way with WCM's and Kahastok's preferences, doesn't mention neither cause and effect nor San Roque and is more accurate than the current one).

I propose we use this sentence (at least as a stopgap measure). What I think is unacceptable right now is the very unsalomonic solution of removing the information altogether (I really can't see how it benefits Wikipedia). - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Your suggestions have not received support and you seem to have a unique view of "compromise" or meeting people half-way. At the moment we could quite legitimately place into the article one of the sentences that have broad support, citing a non-unanimous consensus. The only reason it hasn't been done so, is the certain knowledge that you would revert it, claiming a "lack of consensus" and no one wishes to indulge you in an edit war. And the current proposal is based on a source YOU provided. I'll remind you:

  • Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:

At the moment, you're scouring sources to fit the exact wording you wish to impose. Whereas, the current suggestion with broad support is based on evaluating sources and coming up with an original text that reflects the range of views. I suppose the current situation will persist, whilst you adopt an approach of frustrating consensus building by claiming "consensus" means you have a veto. No one is happy with the current situation, equally I don't see people happy with continuing to try reasoning with an editor unable or unwilling to accept the broad consensus position. WCMemail 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I do not see that as a serious compromise. And I note that the argument is still that we should give at least as much weight to San Roque as to the Treaty of Utrecht. Kahastok talk 09:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Kahastok, I have never said that. Oh, well I see that this option won't work. - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WCM, if you look at the source, the complete quote first explains that the election was not without conditions: there was a mandatory oath of allegiance if they "elected" to remain.
Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:
In any case, I can see that it's going to be very difficult to reach consensus by ourselves. Let's see if the RfC improves things. - Imalbornoz (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution to move forward

Let's take a step back, please. Honestly, what I see is:

  • Three very involved (maybe I should say obsessed) editors (WCM, Kahastok and myself), who 8 years ago were banned from this article after we discussed this same issue (for one year and a half!), who are now again posting walls of text, thinking that the other "side" does not listen to our comments, and going over the same arguments in a loop. There’s aso Apcbg, who is in WCM's list of "Some of the good guys (IMHO)" (in WCM's user page[38]), who supported WCM's proposal (without any explanation).
  • A few editors who come (and mostly go, probably scared by our walls of text) giving some opinion without really dedicating the minimum time to understand the issue:
  • Bryan Henderson/Giraffedata said that "the destination of an exodus is an important detail of any exodus" and the cost of words is too small to seriously consider witholding it.
  • Rockysantos, who said that if there is proof that there was a sizable movement of population the word exodus would be justified.
  • Thomas W, who made a comment regarding quotes and another comparing the relationship between Gibraltar and its Campo with the one between the US and its foreign policy or between Spain and the then Spanish Netherlands.
  • IdreamofJeanie, who first said "flight" would be a good idea instead of "exodus", then said they preferred WCM's proposal, then didn't answer any questions about why.

I think we should bring some external comments from users who are not as involved as we three are and with a bit more involvement than the editors we have managed to scare away from the discussion. Probably, the best way to do this is to start the RfC that was imposed on us when we were banned (and which we never put in place), with a compromise to minimize (i) our explanation of the possible options and (ii) our responses; we could also ask for the guidance of an administrator.

I am not going to edit war. You can see that in ALL of the articles where there has been a dispute (Gibraltar, Gibraltarians, Campo de Gibraltar, and Capture of Gibraltar) the current edits are always yours (even if there’s no consensus for your changes to the text). I have not pushed for WP:BRD. I would ask you to self-revert to the previous consensus text in those articles while we discuss, but this is not a condition for the RfC.

Would you agree to define a short explanation of options for the RfC request and limit ourselves in our comments? - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Acutally, we already have a consensus, so far as I can see, for the wording:
It's not a unanimous consensus, but that's OK because consensus does not have to be unanimous.
I think we've reached a stage after over six weeks of more heat than light, at which it is appropriate to implement the consensus as the conclusion of this discussion. Further filibustering would not be constructive. Kahastok talk 17:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, as you can see from the summary above, there is no consensus: besides me, Bryan Henderson/Giraffedata and Rockysantos have commented that the term exodus and the destination of the population are relevant enough to be mentioned in the article.
Aren't you (WCM and Kahastok) eager to compromise and go for a RfC to find real consensus? - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
We already have a "real consensus". And your choice to misrepresent the comments of others does not invalidate that consensus.
Would it be better if all of us could have got on board with it? Of course. But we have spent six weeks trying to reach an agreement that all of us can get on board with, and it looks no more likely that we'll reach that point now than it did six weeks ago.
Ultimately, Wikipedia could not function if it allowed a single editor to veto improvement to articles. Eventually, discussion will reach a point where WP:NOTUNANIMITY kicks in, and the concerns of that editor have to be overridden for the good of Wikipedia as a whole. This article and this topic is no exception. Kahastok talk 20:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WCM, Kahastok, if you read what I said above, it's practically you two and I. So, it's true that you two are a majority vs. me (although not too large, I must say). On the other hand, taking into account that we are talking about a piece of text over which the three of us were banned for a year, I think we should bring in some editors ready to discuss the different options (or even new ones). Are you really rejecting the possibility to try dispute resolution? - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I made a suggestion "flight", but others disagreed with me, and I was happy to accept their suggestion - That is what is required to happen in order to build consensus. I did not come back and answer your questions as, as I had said, I was happy with the suggested version.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Imalbornoz: The "dispute" is between you and just about everyone else, with you stubbornly refusing to even listen to what others have to say. Which isn't a normal content dispute, but tendentious editing/POV-pushing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie, I agreed with you and so do several sources who use "flight" or the verb to "flee". But it seems that WCM and Kahastok's refusal (two editors) was enough to discard a suggestion supported by two other editors.

I have accepted to not mention many facts to build consensus. Initially, I proposed to mention a very brief or even an indirect mention of some facts that are included in practically all the sources. In order to reach consensus, I have progressively dicarded them. For example:

  • Soldiers of the invading army commited some very notorious (at the time) incidents of violence and abuse against the civilian population of Gibraltar (rapes, pillage of private homes and desecreation of the Catholic churches; a sample of the sources here)
  • The fact that the townspeople had to leave their homes unless they changed their political allegiance with an oath to Charles III.

You can (i) mention those facts and say that they "elected to leave" or (ii) you can remove the facts (as I have accepted) and say they "fled" or left in "exodus" or "exile".

An example: you cannot say that the Jewish population "elected to leave" Spain in 1492 without mentioning that, in order to remain, it was mandatory to convert to Christianity and that they were persecuted; but if you don't mention those facts, at least you must say that they were "expelled" or left in "exodus".

I have also accepted in my proposal not to mention that the legacy of the city council in exile, its archives, etc. stayed in San Roque which, as William Jackson says "became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar". But you cannot understand Gibraltar today if you don't know that almost all the 4,000 former townspeople stayed in the municipality of Gibraltar (which afterwards was split in two: Gibraltar and its Campo), because their descendants have had a huge influence in the city (for example, even today they represent 33% of the workforce: 9,000 CampodeGibraltarians cross the border everyday to work in Gibraltar).

So, I have accepted to adapt my proposals and remove mention of some facts, but we should take them into account when we describe the episode in one phrase, and all of that fits in a sentence that is only 19 words long. I can not see why anyone would want to remove even an indirect reference of those facts from the article with no significant gain in length of text. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. And, for that matter, see WP:STICK. Both apply here. Kahastok talk 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I was here earlier to give my opinion (which has not changed) that we can't mention an exodus without saying where they went, because there was a difference of opinion on that. Now I see another equally simple point of contention, so would like to contribute my opinion that we can't say people "elected" to leave without also saying the alternative involved swearing allegiance to Charles III. Otherwise, it sounds like a frivolous choice. I would also support leaving out the "elected" along with the reason.
This section is really supposed to be about moving forward with dispute resolution, so maybe this is just to suggest we need more opinions on this; at least I think it's fair to say there's no consensus here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Bryan, just to point out this is a summary, an overview, details are in the wikilinked History of Gibraltar article. If you want to suggest an alternative phrase to "elected to leave" then fine, though it is used by a source. But I fear without making suggestions of your own you're opening us up for more and more discussion about weasel phrases that are inappropriate. WCMemail 17:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
A possible alternative to "elected to leave" would be "left" I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bryan. Given that there is no consensus for the removal of the previous consensus, I would please ask Kahastok and/or WCM to self-revert their changes.
WCM, Bryan is right to say that it doesn't make sense to say "elected to leave" if you don't mention their options. In fact, the source you are using DOES MENTION THE OATH of allegiance, so your sentence is cutting out the part of the source that gives sense to "elected to leave". Look what your source (Maurice Harvey. Gibraltar. A History.) says:
I have adapted my previous proposal. It doesn't mention San Roque (like WCM and Kahastok wanted). It neither uses the "elected to leave" phrase nor mentions the mandatory oath of allegiance. It is more accurate in the sense that it doesn't talk about "the population" in general (which is what WCM and Kahastok complained about when they deleted the previous consensus). It says that most of the population settled in Campo de Gibraltar (which includes San Roque, but also Algeciras, Los Barrios, La Línea, etc., which is something that both Kahastok and WCM mentioned previously). It also doesn't mention cause and consequence (like WCM and Kahastok's proposal). It leaves out many things that I would propose to mention about the episode, but I would be happy if it ends this discussion:
If you click here [39], you can review of what the most relevant sources say. - Imalbornoz (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've followed Bryan and Apcbg's suggestion to simply say they left. I will not be reverting to restore a text that fails verification, please step away from that dead horse. I oppose the above suggestion for once again introducing weasel words and too much detail for an overview. It also ignores consideration of WP:WEIGHT to attach greater emphasis to this event. Details belong elsewhere. I would suggest the current bold edit I made is all that is required. 13:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

PS my alternative suggestion is to simply remove the whole sentence altogether, I think everyone is tired of this silly nonsense. WCMemail 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus for your edit (as I said, and you and Kahastok ignored) and there is no consensus now. You should revert and discuss. Even if you don’t revert, you should discuss. The best way forward is a RfC. Are you ready to try it now? - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: Among other things, I don’t see where Bryan suggested “to simply say they left.” - Imalbornoz (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You of all people are in no position to accuse anyone of putting words in other people's mouths. Kahastok talk 10:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
My point is not to accuse anyone, but to make you guys realize that there is no consensus for WCM’s edit because, among other things, Bryan has not said what WCM says he has.
To move forward, who supports/opposes we try a WP:RfC? - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The way for us to "move forward" would be for you to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Kahastok talk 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You point is not to accuse anyone but them proceed to accuse other editors. Not one word concerning content. Bryan can speak for himself if he feels I've misunderstood what he meant, its not your place to speak for him. You don't like what is currently in the article, fine, I'm cool with that. I'll remove it. But what I'm not going to do is spend another 6 weeks going round in circles over trivia with you. WCMemail 13:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. That’s exactly the point. It’s you who said Bryan suggested some edit. I just said I don’t see Bryan make that suggestion.
I think this is time to seek external opinions (enough blankets of text from the three of us). Please answer just one question:
Do you support or oppose a RfC without interference from us in order to settle this dispute? - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing that we need to "settle" here, when what we have is a consensus for an edit, and just a single editor opposed to it who refuses to drop the stick. Kahastok talk 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_26&oldid=1091452336"