Jump to content

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Spanish town

Gibraltar is a spanish town where is spoken english very much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.140.163.10 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible additions to the Dispute section

May I suggest that we start by putting possible additions into this table, one line per potential addition? I assume that everyone knows how to add text and extra lines, but it's fairly obvious from the edit screen. It may be particularly useful if you can put in points that you don't personally agree with. I'd also like to suggest keeping the comments brief. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact which might be included One or more references Actual wording in the source The authority of the source, see WP:RS Brief comments supporting inclusion / sufficient notability Brief comments for non-inclusion / insufficient notability
I strongly oppose the use of a table or indeed any other mechanism for inflating any dispute section. Ignoring for the moment the lack of consensus above, what it appears to be aiming to do is diametrically opposed to what is actually appropriate in this case. There's a whole load more to Gibraltar than the dispute, and you risk making the article into a WP:COATRACK - an article on the dispute, not an article on Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Warning

There are discussions repeating the same circles again and the tone of some editors is becoming extremely combative and uncooperative. All of those discussing matters here have been given a warning about discretionary sanctions. Evaluate your comments. If you cannot say 100% that your comments are productive and focused on how to improve the article, you should question whether they are disruptive (or whether myself or another administrator will judge them so).

I will consider disruptive comments anything that disrupts the article improvement and consensus building process. Personal accusations and roadblocking without providing a clear rationale or alternative are two obvious examples. Small side banter and the occasional groan of frustration are not disruptive, as two obvious counterexamples.

Please focus on productive discussion and research. Any incidents of roadblocking or incivility will be rewarded with a topic break under discretionary sanctions. Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All editors active in the past three days notified.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus text on the dispute

O We have, subject of course to anyone else exercising their right to disagree, a consensus text:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that the full edit proposed is:
  • The addition of the three paragraphs above, including references, into the bottom of the Government and Politics section (do we need a title?).
  • The removal of the paragraph beginning "More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none." from the History section.
  • The removal of the paragraph beginning "Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised." from the Government and Politics section.
All of which I believe are generally accepted, I can support this. FWIW, we can use the {{editprotected}} template to put the text in while the article is protected. Pfainuk talk 20:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the idea. A title would probably be good, with pointers to the articles on the dispute. Do you want to do the honours? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I wasn't aware of this discusion, but I was kindly warned in my talk page by Vassyana. I've reading the discussion and what I miss is a mention to the position of Spain with regard to the UN resolutions. Besides what you mention, Spain simply ask for the fulfillment of the UN resolutions on the question of Gibraltar. The issue here is that the UN resolutions support the Spanish position (and therefore Spain wished they to be fulfilled). --Ecemaml (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You know that I agree with Ecemaml's opinion that the position of the GoSpain is not accurately described in this text with regards to the UN decisions and resolutions. Anyway, if Ecemaml and everyone else agrees, we can go by parts (as Jack the Ripper would say): we can include the text that Richard proposed (which is hugely better that the current one) and then start the discussion about the last paragraph. Otherwise, I would propose to ask for Medcom's help. What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not willing to "go by parts". We have a final text. Either it is a consensus position or it is not a consensus position. And by your own repeatedly expressed standards, if it is not a consensus position we should not implement it.
Ecemaml says that we have to include three UN resolutions because they support the Spanish position (he claims - it's a point I would dispute). Never mind that they have no practical effect on the current dispute or to the current government and politics of Gibraltar. Never mind that we miss out plenty of points that could be taken to support the British position. The fact that something might "support the Spanish position" is apparently enough to make it inherently relevant, regardless of context and neutrality.
I've made my position on the resolutions clear repeatedly, but I will do so again. There is no way that I am ever going to accept that three over-forty-year-old UN resolutions are inherently relevant to the modern politics of Gibraltar, or indeed to the modern dispute, unless someone is willing and able to make a compelling argument that they meet the strict standards of relevance that the rest of this text has gone through. Nor will I accept a Medcab or Medcom case if no such argument has been made. If they are as relevant as you claim, there is no reason why you should not be able to do this.
I appreciate the effort that has been made by multiple editors on this point and I am disappointed to have a perfectly good consensus wrecked in this way. But if my position this means that this means that my original proposal of a new section to discuss this point is not possible, so be it. Better that than a WP:COATRACK article. Pfainuk talk 18:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The proposal to make the edit now sounds very sensible to me. It is, after all, agreed to be a great improvement, and this is Wikipedia. There is no final text. Thanks to all those who have made significant compromises in order to achieve this. It just needs its citations.
I have the feeling that we should have a slightly formal process on any possible additions, please see the new section at the bottom of this page. Perhaps I could suggest that if you want to make changes, it would be wise to start by listing the points you want made, with whatever makes them notable. I'm already aware of a number of points on both sides. Even if we can put them all into an agreed order of importance, we then have to draw a line separating those worthy of inclusion from the rest. The line can only be a matter of opinion, and I suspect we may have to get outside help to actually decide. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that there's no final-final text. But that doesn't mean that I should be willing to accept a text on the basis that part of it does not have consensus and will have to be immediately renegotiated, which is what you and Imalbornoz now seem to be arguing.
All I seek to do is apply the same standards that have been repeatedly been demanded by others regarding other texts on this talk page: that if there is not consensus for a proposal discussed on talk then it does not go into the article. It is clear to me, from what Imalbornoz and Ecemaml have said, that there is not consensus for this proposal. Therefore by the standards that others demand, it does not go into the article. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
We do have consensus that this is an improvement. I think that's all that can reasonably be demanded. I personally hope that if we have a fairly orderly set of suggestions we can negotiate successfully. Who knows, we might well decide that the present text really is the best available. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear? Based on the demands others put on other texts, and in the absence of an unconditional consensus for this text, I oppose inclusion. Pfainuk talk 20:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, but do you think that the proposed text is better than the current text? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, do you think that we should be adding things to the article when we have failed to reach consensus for them? That particular street has to run both ways. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

May I appeal for calm at this time. I am disappointed by this and I sense Richard is too; we've both worked hard to build a consensus text here. This has been positive and I would like it to continue. However, reluctantly I would have to add my voice to User:Pfainuk at this time and now register my opposition to incorporation of this text.

I would suggest everyone takes a break for 24 hrs. I am going to go away and work on a response and seek advice before I post again. A point to note, this is what I hope to be a temporary withdrawal of support not a statement of intransigence. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, WMC, 3 things:
  1. Speak for yourselves, please: don't you think this text is an improvement? If so, why block an improvement to the text available to WP readers?
  2. If you now think it's not an improvement, why?
  3. If you say that an edit has to have full consensus to be included, would you agree to restore the part about the capture to the status pre WMC's revert and then discuss it?
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry WMC, Richard, I agree with Pfain on this. If this is, rather than a genuine consensus position simply a 'thin end of a wedge' edit designed to open up a can of worms, then it seriously impacts on the virtue of the edit. I would rather consider whatever edit Imalbornoz plans in full so I can examine its merits. Given recent events, the level of faith remaining is low and this was a bloody foolish thing to bring up IMO. Especially when it has been round the houses so many times before. There is no point in making this edit if the second it is made we have a new conversation on changing the exact same text. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggested statement “The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” seems factually incorrect to me; at least, I am not aware of any such ‘willingness’. In my opinion, the current phrasing “it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” is quite adequate. Apcbg (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point Apcbg. What about:


On whether to include now, I'll keep quiet as suggested for a bit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I rather like the Yankee principle “If it ain't broke, don't fix it,” and all this discussion seems to me as a lot of time and effort spent on attempting to fix what's not broke in the first place. Best, Apcbg (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(Warning: long text with sources, please read with patience)
Apcbg, I have to say that Richard Keatinge's text was correct: "The UK has negotiated on this request". Your statement "it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar" is factually wrong, as you would have found out with just a quick research even only in the BBC: we have news about negotiations in the 1980s and 2000s and even against the GoG's wishes:
  • "UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has told parliament that Britain and Spain are in 'broad agreement' about the principles of "sharing sovereignty" over Gibraltar, but it is a long way from being an agreement in practice."
  • "British officials say they expect a pause in the negotiations on Gibraltar following the unexpected replacement of the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Pique."
  • "Meanwhile, in the House of Lords former Conservative Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, who began the talks process in the 1980s, also urged Mr Caruana to join the negotiations."
  • "But he [Peter Caruana] accused Britain of "booby-trapping" his chair at the negotiating table and said the Gibraltan government would reject and condemn any deal drawn up between the UK and Spain."
Actually, the request does not originate in Spain (although Spain supports it), but from the UN almost every year since 1964, for example in 1964[8], 1965[9], 1966[10], 1968[11],... 1974[12], ... 2007[13]. In fact, it seems that the UN's POV (however controversial as it may seem), as stated in all those resolutions and decisions, is that the only way to "delist" Gibraltar is that Spain and the UK reach an agreement (taking into account Gibraltarians' interests, but not their wishes expressed in any referendum). Spain's POV is that the UK should comply with the UN resolutions and decisions.
On the other hand, the UK Government has repeated (you can find it in many UK official papers) a sentence with similar (but signficantly not the same) wording to the one that Apcbg just expressed. The key words are "negotiations" vs. "sovereignty arrangements": "it would never enter into sovereignty arrangements under which they would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their wishes."[14](par.56), [15](par.26).
My conclusion:
  • Richard's proposal was OK, except that:
  • it could change "although willing to consider this request" to "although open to negotiate this request", and "will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar" to "will never enter into sovereignty arragenments against the wishes of Gibraltarians".
  • it should include the UN resolutions that according to Spain's POV and the UN's POV are very relevant (but if you want, we can talk about it later like I have said over and over since November 30th[16][17][18][ -I can't conceive that it was a surprise the last time I said it).
  • Finally, let me insist that in order to be consistent with previous and current comments about consensus and new editions, Pfainuk and WCM should agree to restore the text regarding the capture of Gibraltar previous to WMC's controversial edits. This agreement would surely be a sign of consistency and good faith.
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The point of a consensus text is one all parties may notbe 100% happy with but one they can live with, the best compromise between the POVs. You are indicating you do not believe this is the case. If we are to have this UN debate, I'd rather it was done up front rather than having /another/ debate in a month's time with yet more dodgy tactics and bullying. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree.
On the substance of this edit, Imal, you provide a large number of BBC sources from 2002. Sources from 2002 do not imply fact in 2010. Apcbg is right that this is a fault with the text: I do not believe that it would be possible to source that the current UK government is "willing to consider this request", or indeed that it is "open to negotiate this request". I believe that going into any detail about 2002 (as Richard proposes) is too much detail. 2010 is not 2002.
You provide a series of UN links. Those of them that can be accessed are all more than forty years old. Sources from the 1960s do not imply the POV of the modern UN. The fact that you keep saying they do does not make it so. Sources from the C24 do not imply the POV of the UN. The fact that you keep saying they do does not make it so. You argue that they have to be included because they are relevant according to the Spanish POV. There are plenty of other facts that are relevant to the British POV that you do not propose we include. You effectively propose that we bias the article in favour of the Spanish POV by arguing Spain's case without also arguing Britain's case.
A week ago, I said that I thought consensus on this point was impossible. For a while, I thought I was wrong. But based on the last 36 hours, it has become abundantly clear that I was right. There comes a time when the best idea is to quit banging our heads against brick walls. We reached that point a while ago. Pfainuk talk 23:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Point by point:
  • OK, if you'd rather have consensus over all the text before we make any edit, I guess the remaining editors will have to go along...
  • In order to be consistent, we should restore the text pre WMC's controversial edits about the capture episode and then discuss it. Or this policy only works one way?
  • The UN stated its doctrine regarding Gibraltar in a series of docs and since then it has only mentioned them. If the doctrine had changed, we would have seen some new resolution correcting its position. E.g. Has the UN ever mentioned that Gib should decide its future in a referndum, or -rather- has it consistently said that Spain and the UK should keep bilateral negotiations in order to end the current colonial situation (ignoring or critisizing any referendum)?
  • The UK has negotiated on sovereignty in several instances in the last 50 years against the wishes of Gibraltarians. It is factually wrong to say that "it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar" if -for example- this year it just happens to not be negotiating. Diplomacy in this kind of issues is usually a matter of decades. Besides, I must say I am pretty tired to be the one bringing sources to support my position or to say someone else's is inaccurate. Do yo or Apcbg have any source saying that the UK government will not engage sovereignty "negotiations" against Gibraltarians' wishes, or is it "arrangements" like I said?
  • Narson, talking about "dodgy tactics and bullying" does not strike me as the best thing in the current situation. Please, reconsider.
Thank you, please do not ignore my second point. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am still reconsidering my position and remain disappointed that consensus appears to have unravelled. I do however support the position that this cannot be the starting point for yet another debate in a months time about including yet more detail about the sovereignty dispute. WP:COATRACK is an instructive essay on the matter, this would unbalance the article which is intended to be an overview on Gibraltar. I believed the consensus text we were working on was to fulfill the role of that overview. Gibraltar has a fascinating history, it is a complex and vibrant modern city; an overview article should reflect this, not be a platform to state competing claims. Hence, I remained opposed to the suggestion that we include text that supports one national position, whether it is the British, Gibraltar or Spanish position.

Per the arbcom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds., I do not believe we should go down the route of expanding the article in this manner. I would urge those pushing for this to reconsider.

Another element of the arbcom decision is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#Fact versus opinion. In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. I would invite those who assert the UN supports the Spanish position to consider the relevance of this in line with their comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It can be policy and ignored (Tuition fees anyone?), though this is a semantic issue. The wording is clumsy, I think I understand what it is trying to say (That final stage negotiations that would establish the timetable, methods etc for sovereignty exchange are predicated on Gibraltarian acceptance).
  • The UN 'doctrine' (Really the wrong word here) would likly go back to it's charter, which introduces bias (though this is an aside). Resolutions passed indicate te wil f the voters present on that day, bearing in mind they represent sovereign bodies and are not simply legislators. It is also of note that all of these resolutions are non-binding, some open to interpretation. It would be fair to say that Spain claims the support of the UN....but the only body of the UN that can actually pass a binding resolution never will, so it will never be the active policy of the UN - So I am not sure we can say it /has/ the support of the UN. I also think listing a bunch of UN resolutions is like listing the cakes available at a WI bakesale both have equal practical effect - With the exception that you can eat the cake. This is a general article, going into which specific bit of paper is not important, no more than I'd cover Churchill's article with references to specifics sections of the CHAR archives ('Oh yes, as we can se from CHAR 13/6B/864-867....' anyone want to read that in a general article?)
  • On the issue of tactics and bullying, I was explaining why this move by you and Ecemaml to derail this (Though unintentional it may be) was not virtuous, and why constant discussions of this type are bad. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Gib is a very vibrant and modern place, and I must add that it probably is a very democratic territory. The whole article reflects this, and I think it is very good that it is so.
But it also is a town with a long history, much of it with a Spanish population whose destiny should be reflected in the article if only briefly in the History section. It is also a place with a territorial conflict with two or three sides. The key points in the position of those sides should also be shown in the subsection about the territorial conflict. One of the key points of -at least- the Spanish position (according to the official summary of the GoSpain) is the UN "doctrine" about the conflict, and it should be briefly explained in that subsection.
It is hard enough to be one of the few Spaniards asking for the Spanish POV (true: only an opinion) to be fairly shown in this en:WP article and using sources in English, please don't make it harder. Also, please, don't forget my second point above and please use references to support your views of the UK Gvt POV when you try to explain its official position. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
So you are in fact arguing that we should argue the Spanish side but not the British side, in violation of WP:NPOV?
On the British government POV, I'm afraid it's you who are calling for us to say that the current UK government (as opposed to the UK government of 2002) is willing to negotiate sovereignty - which means that per WP:V, the burden of evidence is with you to demonstrate that point through reliable sources.
Are you seriously suggesting that if the UN hadn't called on Britain and Spain to negotiate in the 1960's, Spain wouldn't be asking Britain to give her Gibraltar in 2010? I can't accept that, certainly. It is plainly false - indeed, absurd - to suggest that the UN is a part of the Spanish position on a level with the principle of territorial integrity. But you just claimed that. The UN resolutions have in fact had almost no impact on just about anything in Gibraltar.
The whole point of this text is to state the most basic facts of the dispute and leave it at that. There are plenty of points we could make in support of the British side - points that are key to the positions of the British and Gibraltar governments - but don't. And this brings me back to where I started. What you are proposing violates WP:NPOV because it puts points in support of the Spanish side without putting points in support of the British side. Because this is an article on Gibraltar, and not on the dispute, we are far better off putting neither side than lengthening and lengthening this section until it takes over the article, which appears to me to be essentially what you're asking for. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course that the text should show the UK Gvt POV (do you have any diffs that I've said the opposite? Of course not!) I am saying that the text does not show some fundamental points in the Spanish POV. If you feel the GoUK POV is not sufficiently covered, please tell us what points are missing (with references, please). This is the first time that you say anything of the like, but I'll be willing to help you improve the coverage of the GoUK POV. Honestly.
On the other hand, I have made the effort to bring several links to the GoUK official docs stating its position. None of them show any negative to negotiate with Spain against Gibraltarians' wishes (if you have any, please cite them). I have cited several references that show the GoUK negotiating with Spain against the wishes of at least Gib's Chief Minister. Maybe you didn't read correctly one sentence in the UK's official position that mentions it will no reach any ARRANGEMENTS against the wishes of the Gibraltarians. You can cite this sentence if you want cos it's properly referenced, but -unless you have some cite- don't say that the UK policy is not to negotiate against Gib's wishes. Please.
Regarding the GoSpain's position, what I'm saying is that it is not sufficiently covered, so I'm asking for help to include maybe a dozen key words about its view of the UN decisions and resolutions. I don't want the text to be non-NPOV because of the lack of a dozen words about the UN.
Finally, please, if you are so strict about all editors disagreeing with you to compromise to not propose further discussion of a consensus text, I hope you will agree that WMC's very controversial edit in the History section should be reverted (as per BRD) and then we should discuss it. Please, do not keep ignoring this point. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat that the purpose of this text is to provide a simple overview summary of the sovereignty dispute. It states the facts of the dispute and no more and in a manner appropriate for an overview. I believe there was a concensus for this approach.

What you're proposing would be the classic example of a WP:COATRACK, whereby an overview becomes transmorphed into an article on the sovereignty dispute. A simple neutral statement of the facts of the matter will suffice. That I believe we had achieved. I would oppose including additional details going in depth into various positions, as it is inappropriate for an overview.

May I once again draw attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts, the discussion is deteriorating into nationalist lines again. I do not believe this is healthy. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bit dissapointed in the editors here, you were trying to come to consensus on what is a summary and were nearly at that point, probably within a few hours of getting an agreement. Then it was decided to go back into the detail and you all started disagreeing again. Sigh, I suspect that consensus will never be reached on this talk page with the approach being taken. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of argument happening here?

Just kidding - obviously there is, but I cannot easily determine what it is. Can someone direct me to a summary of the dispute and proposed resolutions? I know nothing about Gibraltar. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

...You can bet there is one! We want to include a subsection (in the Politics and Government section) about the sovereignty and territorial dispute between Spain and the UK regarding Gibraltar. Some editors want to mention the UN POV about the dispute (which is usually interpreted as supporting Spain's position, as you can see in the collection of sources) but some editors don't want to include the UN POV because they say that it is too much detail for an overview. You can take a look at some threads here. I suggest that you begin at the bottom of that page (when we almost reached consensus) and go upwards.
The current approach is to find a few reliable sources, see how they summarize the issue, and then discuss how to make a summary in the WP article ourselves. I have seen that you've got some experience in making book summaries, so I'm sure you could very much help us out. If all this blabber has not dissuaded you, you can look at a bit more detail in the Disputed status of Gibraltar article.
[There are some additional issues that are under discussion and have caused several edit wars and usually cause some comments here and there, like the episode about the capture of San Roque in the History section and the subsequent exodus of the (Spanish) population to the nearby San Roque, but right now we're focused in the sovereignty dispute]
That's all. I hope you can make some comment. Thank you very much for your interest. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I would dispute the neutrality of sections of the above description.
Basically, a couple of months ago, I suggested that we perhaps ought to put a brief outline of the dispute - maybe as much as 3-4 short (2-sentence) paragraphs - into the Politics section of this article, to replace the last paragraph of the history section. This evolved into 2-3 paragraphs that would put very briefly the basic points of the dispute, leaving out (by most editors' reckoning) anything remotely detailed.
The previous consensus process got close, but ultimately failed. Vassanya suggested we collect sources that attempt to summarise the dispute to determine what the most common points are. That's what we're currently doing. Finding such sources isn't easy, and not all of the sources quoted are appropriate, but we're continuing with this.
(I don't know if this was deliberately timed to get rid of some of the acrimony over the Christmas period, or whether this was just a happy coincidence - but I'm not complaining either way.)
The exodus part - well, that was the subject of the edit war that indirectly led to the current proceedings. I would suggest that we leave it to one side completely until this particular discussion is over, and then attempt to reach some conclusion on it. Pfainuk talk 10:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the above quote neatly encapsulates why consensus dissolved. More accurately one editor demanded we insert text that the UN supports Spain's POV. This is of course incorrect, the UN does not take sides, rather Spain claims the UN support's Spain POV - i.e. presenting opinion as fact. The same editor would accept text we'd nearly agreed on but only as the basis for further negotiation on how we inserted text that the "UN supports Spain". This is an overview not an opus on Spain's sovereignty claim.
As regards the exodus some editors feel the need to tell the world a list of in their words "atrocities" that drove out the population. They do not feel it necessary to mention that a Spanish counter attack was considered imminent, that the crimes perpetuated against the population were punished or that the exodus was counter to the geo-politicial aims of the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies and ultimately counter productive - i.e. it was exactly what they didn't want. The same editors also wish to state that the people went to a town founded two years later by the refugees but skip over the details that it didn't actually exist at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Refocus

Things are riding the same groove again. I will try to help you break out of that pattern. Let's completely refocus the discussion.

Subtopic:

  • The national status of Gibraltar and views of it.

Policy notes:

  • Editors should take the neutral point of view when presenting information about the subject. The main "test" of this neutrality is whether or not the article reflects the body of available reliable sources.
  • Do not interpret primary sources. Please only use primary sources if they are discussed in a reliable secondary source.
  • We should not be discussing the views of editors, but the views of editors about the available sources.

Let's start by compiling some quotes from secondary sources that summarize the issue. Focus on university level textbooks, overviews from reliable secondary sources, and similar references that are likely provide a good overview of the general consensus view. Outside sources such as French, American, or German scholars and textbooks would be ideal. Please leave out any discussion of how the section should be written. Stay focused on finding and discussing the reliable sources and what they say. Vassyana (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be periodically "archiving" and sorting the sources provided. See the sources links below. Vassyana (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Please include brief (one to two paragraph) quotations below, including citation information. Please cite reputable, independent sources that provide a good summary overview of the matter.

Archived Sources

Most recent archive: 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

New Source 3

  • Author: Thomas D. Musgrave
  • Title: Self-determination and national minorities
  • Publication Number: ISBN 9780198298984
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press
  • Year: 2000


These paragraphs have been extracted from a text that deals with several cases regarding self-determination and soverignty disputes. It deals with the cases of Falklands and Gibraltar (as an exception in UN policy to the principle of self-determination) for about 10 pages. I have cited paragraphs from the introduction and the conclusion to those two cases. Unfortunately, the 3 pages specifically regarding Gibraltar are not viewable in Google Books. I have asked my local public library for a copy of these pages (but I don't know how long it will take). If someone has access to those pages, could they please share them and/or tell me? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is more in this source, this would cast doubt on Spain's claim rather than support it as the selective quote above implies. What is the process for including additional quotes. Do I just add them or create a separate entry? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I would quote it directly below this discussion - if it's the same part of the same source, it's probably useful to keep them together. Pfainuk talk 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, Wee, quote what you think is a better summary or any additional important points that you think I may have left out. In my opinion, it would bcvlae clearer if you post your cite it in a different quote so that it is clear what comes from each editor and let Vassyana decide how to organize it. IMHO, you can do this in this same entry (below my quote, but inside different quotemarks) or in a different entry (although maybe Vassyana has some different suggestion). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Could I request that the source of the material highlighted be clarified in bold. I cannot find this text in the book quoted. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, please follow these links:[19][20][21]. Google Books itself highlights in yellow the beginning of each piece of text you are asking for. Regarding your sources and comments, I will discuss them later. I would not want to disrupt the current stage with long discussions. Merry Christmas. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Just checked and none of those links actually work. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
And some page numbers would be nice. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The links work (I just checked). In any case, pgs 250 251. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a quite crucial passage discussing territorial integrity in Musgrave's work:

(p239)


The above quote demonstrates that the interpretation of territorial integrity clauses are not straight forward. Further that the principle used by Spain is not universally accepted and flatly rejected by others. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd deal with Imalbornoz's final paragraph above, and would invite editors to compare the tone and implication of that quote with the tone and implication of the paragraph from which it was drawn:


I would suggest that this makes it clear that the quote is discussing the UNGA, not the Gibraltar dispute. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't know if this is a product of google snippets but the selective quotes from this document give a misleading impression. I'm reminded of a theatre critic's review that described Laurence Olivier's performance as "Not one of Olivier's best performances." The quote on the poster in the theatre stated "...one of Olivier's best performances." Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh and those links don't work. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New Source 7

See WP:RSN#Theoretical Question on Sources - Related to Gibraltar Sovereignty Dispute

Original German-language quote


This source comes from a third country and summarizes the sovereignty dispute. Even though the beginning is not too promising (a bit too literary IMHO), the rest is rather academically proficient. The publisher is quite serious. The approach is a bit chronological, and is dated before the new Constitution. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Its riddled with factual errors, so the claim that it is "academicaly proficient" seems suspect? These are not even matters that Spain would dispute, like the fact the UK has tried to negotiate with Spain. I don't see this as much use at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not discuss this at the current stage, but IMHO you are making some imprudent judgments. I would consider this publisher a bit more academically proficient regarding international disputes than -say- Lonely Planet or some online World Encyclopedia (although I respect and indeed use those sources -especially LP in my offline life). Please check it out.
Regarding what you called "factually incorrect", I would first check if other sources just happen to say the same as this one. The fact is that you can find thousands of primary and secondary sources talking about negotiations between Spain and Britain regarding Gibraltar: [22]. I understand that this is not what you thought happened, but that's what research is for... Sometimes I also find out that my first idea was wrong after I check it... I dont want to sound patronizing, you can do what you want, but then don't complain if someone says you are basing your judgment in WP:OR...
Please, let's talk about the sources later (and in the meantime we can spend some time doing some research before we comment). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
But this source says that there were no negotiations at all prior to 1984. Repeatedly. Disproving that claim is pretty trivial (though outside the scope of this process), and the fact that such a basic error is made calls the rest of the source into question.
FWIW the LP was my source. I find it a useful and generally accurate source - not perfect, and often biased toward the country that the book is primarily about, but a fair bit closer to the sort of discussion we're looking for than a lot of the sources we've seen so far.
By the way, I can't access this source through the link you provide. Could you quote this section of the source in the original German please, ensuring that you have quoted the full paragraphs? I think I might be able to make a bit more sense of it if I can see how it was originally written. Pfainuk talk 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, there you go with the original version (thanks for the template and sorry for the delay, these days it's difficult to find time to get online...)
Regarding the other comments (whether the UK tried to negotiate with Spain before the 1980s), I don't think this is the main point of the text or this antology of sources. Anyway, I thought that Wee was saying that the UK never tried to negotiate with Spain regarding Gibraltar's sovereignty. I am glad we all agree that the UK and Spain have negotiated this issue several times and this is an undisputed fact.
On the other hand, maybe you should check on the publisher as a RS if you want to discard it (at least as a previous step before trying to interpret some secondary point in the text and saying it's false -BTW, the text does not say exactly what you say it says: it says that for the first time the UK openly and publicly admitted its willingness to negotiate its differences over Gib's sovereignty with Spain, i.e. the unprecedented Brussels Declaration).
Finally, please, let's focus in getting more sources and we will come to this later. Please notice that I'm not making yet any comments on other sources brought by you or Wee. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Part of the process of using sources, is to use a little common sense and I've always applied a policy in editing of not using sources that are demonstrably flawed. And a source getting crucial facts wrong, like claiming there were no sovereignty negotiations, has to be top of the list for being discarded. I have asked for outside comment.
I did not respond earlier as I did not appreciate the patronising remarks you made, nor did I appreciate the personal attack contained therein either. Please do not repeat either. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT Well, I hope that the answers to Wee's post at the RSN[23] settle the issue and we can consider this as an "acedamically proficient" source and move on. Just in case, please check the following:

  • Timeline of the history of Gibraltar (an article you guys have intensely edited): "Under the Brussels Agreement[68] (27 November 1984) signed between the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain, the former agreed to enter into discussions with Spain over Gibraltar, including by first time the 'issues' of sovereignty." (this sentence has been sitting there for the last couple of years and nobody has ever disputed it).
  • New York Times: "Under that accord [the Brussels Agreement], Britain for the first time said it would discuss the question of sovereignty with Spain."
  • Panorama (a Gibraltar newspaper): "Former foreign secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe writes an opinion piece in The Times today. It was he who signed the controversial Brussels agreement with Spain in 1984, agreeing to discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar for the first time"
  • RTVE (Spain's public national television): "It [The Brussels Agreement] is the first time that the British part expressly admits that sovereignty issues will be dealt with in this process" "[La declaración de Bruselas] Es la primera vez que la parte británica admite expresamente que se abordarán en este proceso cuestiones de soberanía."
  • Gibraltar Socialist Labor Party (a quite nationalist Gib party): "The 1984 Brussels deal was a climb-down by the British Government because for the first time ever the UK agreed to discuss sovereignty when it had been defending the opposite view until then."

Guys, you could have researched this yourselves before using expressions such as "demonstrably flawed", "to use a little common sense", "Disproving that claim is pretty trivial (though outside the scope of this process)", "riddled with factual errors"...

Again, I hope this settles the question. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was rather pleased with the feedback on the RS noticeboard, some useful and thoughtful comment that rather backed up my own thoughts. You appear to be using this source to claim there were no negotiations before 1984. Well that is rather obviously incorrect.
wikisource:Lisbon Agreement 1980, the work of a moment to demonstrate that the sources claiming there were no negotiations prior to 1984 to be incorrect. I could go back further, there were negotiations in the 20th Century that seriously considered swapping Ceuta for Gibraltar.
Noting other comments on the RS noticeboard, you are using this source to claim that there were no negotiations before 1984. As demonstrated above this is false and so in light of the comments there, no I wouldn't propose we use this source to back up that claim. It is demonstrably unreliable in that respect. Moving the goal posts later by qualifying your statement to refer only to "sovereignty negotiations" doesn't inspire confidence either
I also note the comments at WP:RSN that it was an opinion piece by two political scientists and should be acknowledged as such. Again this goes back to my earlier point of fact vs opinion. It is being presented as a "neutral summary", an opinion piece reflecting the opinions of the authors is by definition not neutral or entirely suitable for what we're supposedly looking for.
We are supposedly looking for neutral secondary sources. I'd also suggest you quit with the patronising comments as well, they're irritating and needlessly antagonistic. I have already asked once, this is twice, I trust I won't have to do it a 3rd time. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Wee, the source does not say there were no negotiations before. Let's see if we are able to settle this for once. The source says (in German): " A significant progress in December 1984 yielded the agreement reached in Brussels, in which the British government for the first time since the Peace of Utrecht declared willing to clarify through negotiations the existing differences between Britain and Spain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar."
The key words are:
  • Declared
  • Willing to clarify through negotiations
  • Differences over the sovereignty
The Lisbon Agreement is:
  • a declaration (ok)
  • about the willingness to negotiate (ok)
  • BUT with no mention of sovereignty whatsoever (no ok).
Therefore, it does not disqualify the Brussels agreement as the first time to declare willingness to negotiate sovereignty. Also, we have a wide variety of sources (NYT, Spanish public television, Gib newspapers, Gib polititians...) supporting this (extremely trivial) point. OK?
For goodness sake, come on. This is only a secondary point in the text in our discussion about the dispute summary. Nobody has even proposed to say in the article that "since Utrecht etc." The RSN crowd have said this is a reliable source even if it had some errors -which it doesn't, at least regarding the Brussels agreement. I don't know what do the following sentences mean to you: "I see no problem with classifying this source as reliable", "VS Verlag is a highly-regarded academic publisher", "This looks like it does count as a reliable source", "sources should not be excluded ONLY because they are not good for all things". To me they mean "it is a reliable source". BTW, it isn't a travel guide or self-published like some sources that have been proposed here.
Let's move on. Please.
Finally (but more important): I wish a very Happy New Year to you and everybody else in this discussion. Let's hope it brings consensus and (more important) real happiness in our lives. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The RSN noticeboard also pointed out this is an opinion piece and is not a neutral and objective summary as you claimed. In addition, it is not a reliable source for facts that are demonstrably in error. Semantic arguments don't change the latter and noting the former it should be acknowledged as an opinion piece if it is used at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wee, I must say it is extremely difficult to follow your logic (at least for me). Could you please clearly mention the factual errors in this source? (you say it's "riddled" with them, so it should not be too difficult for you) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


New Source 10

  • Author:
  • Title:
  • Publication Number:
  • Publisher:
  • Year:


Discussion

I think a major point has been missed in the creation of this process. The primary point of disagreement is not so much the facts (though there is some dispute there) but the level of detail that should be included. This article is shorter than it used to be, but it's still overly long.

It's not as though we don't already have two articles on the dispute (Disputed status of Gibraltar and Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain). Some might say that that is already one too many.

As such, it seems to me reasonable to point out that every section of this article is and should be in summary form. A complete overview of the sources is not appropriate here, but that's what this section appears to me to be encouraging. There will be significant points on both sides that will be and should be left out in our summary of the dispute - and I don't see why we should feel that there is anything wrong with that. Pfainuk talk 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The point is to see how existing reliable sources summarize the matter. Then follow their lead. If you let editorial opinion set the way, you're never going to reach consensus. You shouldn't try to summarize all of the sources, especially not all of the primary sources. European relations is a pretty well-studied area and Gibraltar is economically and militarily important. It should not be too difficult to establish a clear mainstream (outside) view and take note of the main, commonly noted peculiarities. Would you disagree? --Vassyana (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
But there's nothing in the text above to say that we should be looking specifically for sources that summarise the issue. And as such it's not entirely surprising that most of the above don't attempt to do so. Rather, they are long discussions of the issue that are being used to vouch for the accuracy of specific points - when the accuracy of those points is generally not in dispute. If we try and establish the commonly noted peculiarities from those sources, we could easily end up diverting the entire article on to the dispute - something that we really have to avoid. Pfainuk talk 10:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you think collecting secondary sources that provide an overview/summary and using them to determine how to present the summary here is a good idea? --Vassyana (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (I've made the point about summary sources more explicit. 16:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
(You'll excuse me for coming in here - it makes the indentation make more sense.)
It can hardly hurt the discussion process that's been going on so far. But it will need to actually find short summaries. Imalbornoz is right that these are not so easy to find as the longer discussion pieces, and I notice that he too has fallen into the trap of citing specific points rather than summaries.
That said, Richard is right that there will be a need for a decision between levels of detail. A process such as this may help in eliminating the spurious, but I'm not convinced it will actually resolve anything. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everybody that we should not overdo the section about the dispute while guaranteeing that the most noteworthy points are reflected. I have been searching for 1) non-local 2) secondary sources with 3) summaries about the dispute, but haven't found too many that comply with the three conditions. The non-local secondary sources I have found (and the ones that other editors have made the effort to bring here) are usually longish documents with a few paragraphs about the dispute, and one has to choose which of them make a good summary (which implies that our POV may inadvertedly have an influence on which paragraphs are chosen). On the other hand, if those articles don't have proper summaries, at least they can show a pattern regarding which points are more noteworthy.
On the other hand, we have found several good summaries from primary sources (UK and Spain governments). They are openly POVed, but I guess that they could neutralize each other if we put them together.
Anyway, I'll keep searching. Thanks Vassyana for your effort. It's helping us all to concentrate on content more than editors (which is no small achievement if we look at our history in the talk page...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Vassyana, I hope that you will help us to reach the long-elusive consensus. I agree however in that it will still be necessary to make an informed, but ultimately personal decision between possibilities for inclusion - unless we go for a formal bibliometric approach. I suspect that in the end we may need to seek external help to decide whether some details are to be included. But if we have a process which can lead to a decision, that's a definite improvement. Thanks again for taking an interest. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a couple of questions?

Is there a reason why the same source has been listed three times? Once by me and subsequently twice by Imalbornoz. See [24]. Would it not be better to group quotes in the same place?

Is it also not important to separate fact from opinion? For example when Spain claims that UN resolutions support its claim, that is an opinion of the Spanish Government. The facts are the resolutions call for negotiations. Nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a summary of the dispute either - nor does it pretend to be. It's a small section taken from the middle of a long document that is intended to give the opinion of one side of the dispute. Such sources has far less value to a discussion such as this than the third-country summaries that are being asked for. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Like Pfainuk has noticed, I have referenced what I thought were the best two summaries in the doc: one about sovereignty and one about territorial limits. I suppose that Justin followed some similar criteria with different results, but I would rather discuss about this later.
I agree that it's very important to separate fact from opinion. I would add that at this stage it's also important to separate the opinions according to the interests of their authors (Gvts, academia, local newspapers...) like Vassyana is doing.
Regarding the example: I guess that UN resolutions can interpreted differently depending on the interests amd the education/knowhow of the interpreter. I suppose that our role here is to find and then decide the facts and opinions that are noteworthy enough to go in this overview. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
My question was why have 3 quotes from the same source in three different places. Its confusing IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
They aren't summaries of the dispute as a whole though. The point is to see how other sources on the subject of Gibraltar summarise the dispute, not to see how sources on the subject of the dispute summarise the details of that dispute. That way we can best summarise the dispute in the way that others do it.
And your first isn't even a summary of Spain's view of the sovereignty issue, as you appear to claim. It's specifically a summary of Spain's view of the UN's position - a very different matter. Pfainuk talk 22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Wee, OK I understand. I guess it's a matter of organizing the sources in the archive. Right now regarding this source (Spain' official position about the dispute): 1 quote (from you) is in the archive, and 2 from me are here (temporarily, I suppose); I have made two separate quotes in order to make it easier to classify them: one is about the territorial limits and one is about the decolonization/sovereignty dispute. As I said, it's just a matter of organizing them in the archive (I think Vassyana is dealing with that, in order to guarantee neutrality -that's my understanding at least).
Pfainuk, I agree that it would be ideal to have overviews of Gibraltar of the same scope as this WP article, written by academics from third countries, and see what they say about the dispute. But I'm afraid they will not be easy to find so we'll have to make do with less than optimum approaches: summaries from articles about the dispute from academics -hopefully from third countries- (in fact, I think this is what Vassyana proposed), books about Gibraltar with some chapter about the dispute...
Finally, Pfainuk, you are right: the first one is a summary of the UN process of decolonization of Gibraltar from the POV of the Government of Spain (which is very much related with Spain's position about Gib's sovereignty, that's why I said it was about sovereignty -maybe making it too short and confusing). In the last version where we almost reached consensus there was a paragraph explaining the fact that Gib remains in the UN list of non self-governing territories and the view from UK, Gibraltar and Spain. I thought this summary would be relevant if we were to include Spain's view of that list and that process. At this stage, I have not commented on the relevancy/interpretation of other sources brought by other users, so that we all can concentrate in just bringing quotes. Can leave that (more complex) discussion for later? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, we did include text that summarises Spain's view on decolonisation. In a manner appropriate for an overview. 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing some sources to the table and for working with this approach. Let's get some more sources on the table, then we'll start talking about the sources before us. Sound good? --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to quote sources, can we please use complete paragraphs and not cherry pick? It gives the appearance of selective quoting to misrepresent and it is academically bankrupt. While we are on the subject, there are plenty of good sources, lets please not use Lonely Planet. We are not so short we need to shove a small child into the barrel to get the dregs. --Narson ~ Talk • 03:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

MEDCOM

Per WP:BOLD I have made a bold edit and removed all details from the article that are disputed per WP:NPOV, in doing so I have also removed the NPOV tag I placed earlier. If there is a serious intention to take this to MEDCOM, I believe this to be a sensible compromise. It means that no one has ownership of the current text in the article. I have to say though, the article is no poorer for its passing.

If this is maintained I will agree to take the case to MEDCOM, where hopefully there can be agreement reached. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you're finally agreeing to MEDCOM. As soon as Pfainuk agrees, we should open the request. On the other hand, I must say that you have just removed again the mentions of the atrocities committed during the capture and the exodus of the population to San Roque. This is disruptive. Please, self-revert. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I support Imalbornoz's comment; please self-revert. On MEDCOM, I appreciate the point above that getting a ruling is likely to take time. But it will take less time than we have already wasted on this issue. Unless Vassyana or other admins can produce a better process, I'd suggest that the regulars observe a voluntary moratorium here as soon as the reversion is done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have offered a compromise to remove disputed text, which doesn't actually affect the article at all. That is being rejected for an insistence on the status quo. Very well, I have reverted. My conduct was not disruptive and I ask that accusation is withdrawn. I also withdraw my consent to agree to MEDCOM. I am not prepared to enter into any form of mediation where there are preconditions attached. I do not agree to a moratorium on editing to maintain a preferred text that I consider at odds with NPOV. I will be considering my options and formulating a response to the criticism of my proposed edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-reversion, it's appreciated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wot Discussion?

[25] This does not represent consensus, the last time there was any consensus over this passge was as the result of mediation led by User:Atama. The text you have reverted was not and still is not a consensus text. It was imposed over and above serious objections as to its neutrality and its cherry picking of facts to creat a misleading impression. It was imposed by weight of numbers not weight of argument. This wasn't even a revert, pointedly the {{POV}} tag was not restored. And where pray is the discussion following the revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you added the POV tag if you do not agree with the current text. Let's discuss it here and then edit the article. I agree that outside comments are a good way to see things in perspective. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The question arises are you prepared to compromise on your insistence that there must be a long list of what you term 'atrocities? It does nothing for the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct me with diffs if I'm wrong, but the present text did achieve consensus after a very long discussion. We do have access to a process which may change it, a process in which outside editors would be very useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of WP:BRD is that the discussion on the subject of the edit actually takes place, not that we instead discuss other things (as happened last time BRD was invoked on this particular topic). I do not see that it is unreasonable to suggest that the ed should be restored as a new consensus if no substantial objection is raised (the position we are currently in).

The current text, very clearly, does not currently have consensus. We should be aiming to reach a point where we can get a text that does have consensus.

So let me ask a question that is similar to Curry Monster's. The current text has a long list of what some call "atrocities" (a very POV term). I contend such a list is neither desirable nor useful in an overview of Gibraltar history, and that the article currently strongly overemphasises this point to the exclusion of other relevant points - points that could easily be mentioned in the brief space available, as Curry Monster demonstrates. What compromise is possible to achieve a more balanced text? Pfainuk talk 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

After my WP:BOLD edit, the argument consisted of a series of very angry personal attacks but at no point was there a discussion on content. It has been reverted again, with no discussion on content. As I point out it focuses on a list of "atrocities", so much so that the grammar is poor as a result of the effort to list as many so-called atrocities as possible. I am asking a straight question, whether there is the possibility of compromise on the insistence of including a list of so-called atrocities and whether you're prepared to accept that other details are more significant and appropriate for an overview. For example, the exile was expected to be short and that the people would be able to return when the Spanish retook the town as per sources. Another example that the aims of the Anglo-Dutch force and their Spanish allies was to seek support from the local populace and the conduct frustrated those goals - the exodus was the last thing that was wanted. Rather than gaining support, their actions drove support away. These are significant and important factors that you would never know about reading this text. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Pfainuk and Wee, the current text reflects the last consensus reached after some very long discussions. Even Pfainuk expressly agreed with the text edited by Richard Keatinge (please, see here) after it included Pfainuk's suggestion about the "reprisal killings" (which was not preferred by a majority of the editors, but was accepted for the sake of consensus). The text has been undisputed and stable for months. I very seriously and kindly ask you to respect the current consensus and concentrate in other issues within (or even outside) the article. Life is too short. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So there is no substantial objection to the change?
For the record, my view at the time was that sticking to the status quo - in the midst of mass-shortening - was better than your attempt to claim that the British "sacked" the town and that the townspeople were fully justified in doing what ever they wanted against them. But it remained too much detail on this point - as I said in that diff - and I do find Curry Monster's arguments persuasive here (particularly given the absence of arguments for the status quo). Pfainuk talk 07:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some guidelines from policy I'd like to draw to people's attention, see WP:CON:


Pfainuk raised a number of objections to this text at the time, the fact that he acquiesced finally with the current version of the text should not be taken as a definitive statement that he fully accepted it at the time. It was a less than perfect compromise, from my perspective a flawed compromise in that it gives undues weight to what is repeatedly referred to by editors as "atrocities", so I will again draw attention to policy guidelines WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL and ask editors to refrain from using emotive language in talk page discussions. Given the nature of the discussion in the talk page at the time, Pfainuk's position was entirely understandable. I note that there were several inflammatory comments raised at the time, so letting go on this defused tension. I can of course provide diffs to several offending comments but I don't see that dwelling on the past is either helpful or healthy.


Please note your objection, "this is consensus", without a clear policy based objective is not grounds or reason to reject my proposed edit.


Pfainuk is perfectly entitled to change his mind about the previous edit, a new proposal has been put forward, which I consider a better way of doing things. It appears that he agrees with me. I note also there appears to be no arguments for maintaining the status quo, this being the second "discussion", where no substantive policy based objection has been raised. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course everybody is entitled to change their mind. With my previous comment I only wanted to stress the following:
  • The current text gained consensus months ago, and that consensus included Pfain (who -it's true- wasn't fully satisfied, just like everybody else in the consensus; I guess this is usual with compromises). I am glad Pfain now aknowledges that. It is a good starting point.
  • Now Pfain wants to change that consensus, convinced by Wee's arguments. I just wanted you to know that I would rather not go through it all again (it will consume a lot of time and patience), but if you want, we'll have to do it again. Of course, I know and respect WP's policy about that.
  • I hope you respect the current text as the result of the previous consensus, while we discuss the new proposal. As per BRD.
Answering Pfain's question: Yes, there is objection to the change, because it removes episodes that are very relevant to Gibraltar's history and are very noteworthy in reputed secondary sources. I thought it was clear, but I'm saying it explicitly just for the sake of clarity. The arguments for including the episodes that you guys want removed from the current text of the overview article have been repeated time and again, but I'll make a summary if you give me some time.
Finally, looking forward, just three procedural questions:
  1. Could you quote below the text that you propose? (for the sake of clarity)
  2. I would rather finish the current discussion about the territorial dispute, following the procedure that Vassyana proposed and then deal with the History section. Does anybody reject following Vassyana's proposal and then dealing with Wee's proposed edit?
  3. Given that this has been discussed time and again, I don't know if we can do it ourselves without external help. During the last year and four months we have already tried with MEDCAB, RfC, NPOV Noticeboard, ... I feel very strongly that MEDCOM is needed. Does anybody have any objection to MEDCOM?
Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is generally accepted that the current text is the previous consensus, I see no particular reason why I should feel I have to "respect" that consensus when a proposal is made to change it and no-one voices any objection to it. Either you're invoking WP:BRD, which requires you to actually discuss why you reverted, or else you're not, in which case you have no business in reverting the edit.

You say that it leaves out point "very relevant to Gibraltar's history" - not really. In fact it adds information that is very relevant to Gibraltar's history, without removing very much at all: it gives a more rounded overview of the events surrounding the capture of Gibraltar without running across a POV minefield by going on and on and on about the details of one particular aspect of it. Both are advantages. Pfainuk talk 11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask what precisely was removed, given that is addresses all relevant issues I identified on the NPOV page. Please note this is not an invitation to derail discussion with a wall of text. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We've already had huge amounts of discussion and at least one consensus; the comments in this section leave me quite uncertain how to proceed. May I suggest that we deal with the previous issue, that is, what exactly to write about the dispute? We can then hope for further oversight in using a successful process on this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct me with diffs if I am wrong but where following my bold edit was there any discussion of your objections to it based on policy or content grounds. WP:BRD has been invoked but there has been no discussion whatsoever. Thus far, the arguments were personal attacks directed toward myself, the alternative being this is "consensus" and can't be changed unless a new "consensus" emerges. Please note the quote above from WP:CON how the latter is not grounds on wikipedia for objecting to an edit.
I contend the edit I made improved the article for its coverage of significant events and was written per WP:NPOV. Now I have asked if you're prepared to discuss the edit and are you prepared to consider a compromise. I have tried to use WP:DR but again walls of text deter outside opinion, regarding WP:NPOVN Richard may I ask you opinion as to whether my summary was neutral and listed all relevant facts? Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I prefer the current text vis a vis Wee's edit because the latter removes certain facts that are very relevant to the History of Gibraltar: A) the episodes that happened during the capture and drove away the population of Gibraltar (rapes, plunder and desecrations) and B) the subsequent exile of the largest part of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque

They are very noteworthy therefore they should be briefly included in the article.

A) Regarding the abuses on the population:

  • It's true that they were considered "irrelevant" (or maybe "uncomfortable") from an English POV until the middle of the XX century. Garratt (a very reputed scholar whose works are overwhelmingly cited[26] said in 1939:

(G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)[27])

  • But since the mid twentieth century, these facts are mentioned by a large number of reputed authors (explaining that the fear of mistreatment was the main cause for the exile of the population). For example:
  • Applying common sense, if some facts led to a complete change in the population of Gibraltar it's obvious that an overview of its History should mention them briefly.
  • Mentioning these facts only takes eleven words: "sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches". This is NOT a long list of atrocities.


B) Regarding the exile to San Roque, it is very easy to check that it is noteworthy enough to be overwhelmingly covered by sources.

It is much more mentioned than other episodes that Wee and Pfainuk do not dispute in the article, so it's obvious that -following the standards set by themselves- "San Roque" is noteworthy enough to be mentioned:

  • Number of books with “San Roque” and “1704” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 47 results[29]

compare with

  • Number of books with “Cordoba” (or “Cordova”) and 1474 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title : 4 [30]
  • Number of books with “Trafalgar” and 1805 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 33 [31]
  • Number of books with “Operation Felix” (or “Operación Felix”) in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 22 [32][33]
  • Number of books with “Suez” and “British Empire” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 10 [34]
  • Number of books with “referendum” and “1967” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 30 [35]

I think these are enough reasons to satisfy Wee's and Pfainuk's question (even if they disagree with them). I agree with Richard that, in case anybody still wants to remove any mention of these facts in the overview article, we should discuss it after we get over with Vassyana's procedure regarding the sovereignty and territorial dispute. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I did request that you didn't post a wall of text, your references are in a sub-page anyway so I ask what you hoped to achieve by doing so here?
  • Regarding your first point, I do cover this in the text I put forward. What I don't do is dedicate the text to covering it to the point where other significant factors are suppressed. So rather than not covering it as you allege, it is the amount of coverage that you dispute. It is unhelpful if you cannot clearly articulate your issue with the proposed text. Is it your contention that there needs to be long lists of what you call atrocities' and for what purpose?
  • Regarding the opinion of Garrat that the events are not well covered in British texts, I don't find his opinion to be well founded. Eye witness testimony by Byng covers it in 1704, Drinkwater covers it in his book - both published in the 18th Century shortly after the take over. Half your references are British and do include it. Please don't quote outdated (written in 1939) and dubious opinions like this. Assuming good faith your intentions may well have been to present a relevant opinion but it rather implies you're accusing other editors of what Garrat alleges.
  • I have always been prepared to cover these events, I don't find a list of what you call atrocities to be useful in an article written to NPOV. I feel it is better covered in general details in the article, with the details you want included in an inline citation and also covered in the History of Gibraltar. Are you prepared to compromise on that point?
  • If there is a need to mention long lists of atrocities, per Hill p.65, do I take it we need to mention the rape, pillage and descration of muslim holy places during the Spanish take over?
  • Regarding User:Imalbornoz/Gibraltar, could you please expand your references. I find the very selective quotes here to be useless in helping us decide how to cover theses events. Per WP:CHERRY these have been carefully edited to list only what you call atrocities, so the context of the coverage is lost. We need to be able to consider what the source says in context.
  • Regarding mention of San Roque. I have always indicated I would be prepared to compromise on this point, if it referred to the fact that they went to the hermitage and not the modern town. As written it implies that they went to the modern town and this is just wrong, the town was found in 1706 by the refugees. Your text has the context completely wrong in that the timeline is putting the cart before the horse. This is a perfectly reasonable position, are you prepared to compromise and meet me half way?
  • The term "exile", this is a loaded term. They were not exiled by the British, they chose to leave. Exile can also imply they were expelled, so please let us avoid terms that have double meaning.
  • You're quoting again from detailed historical treatises again. Tell me, were we to restrict this to overviews, how many would cover it. The answer as we saw in the sourcing exercise above was zero, none covered it. Please consider this point and don't just dismiss it. Wee Curry Monster talk
Addendum:
I've been continuing to research this episode and now found 3 reasons cited as factors in the departure:
  1. Hills and Jackson contends it was the events of the take over.
  2. The expectation that they would not have to leave for long due to an expected Spanish counter attack. This in fact happened, there were several attempts to retake Gibraltar.
  3. The population remained loyal to King Philip and refused to swear loyalty to the "Austrian pretender".
Per NPOV and WP:DUE we are required to cover all factors and not focus on a single opinion. I trust this point is not disputed? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Wee, I am ready to solve this issue with you in order to reach consensus. I have been compromising for the last year and four months, accepting the inclusion of events that did not seem to be noteworthy enough in the sources (drunkenness of the troops, retaliation from the townspeople, ...) just to reach consensus. Also, I have been collecting sources in my subpage, repeating my arguments every time that you have asked for them, making benchmarks of notability of these events vs other events... Meanwhile, I have had to put up with edit wars, repeated WP:OR (remember the townspeople leaving "for fear of reprisals"?[36]), personal attacks... Yes I am ready to solve it (of course), but I hope you understand me if I say I am a bit tired of this process.
I will repeat my questions from above:
  1. Could you quote below the text that you propose? (for the sake of clarity)
  2. I would rather finish the current discussion about the territorial dispute, following the procedure that Vassyana proposed and then deal with the History section. Does anybody reject following Vassyana's proposal and then dealing with Wee's proposed edit?
  3. Given that this has been discussed time and again, I don't know if we can do it ourselves without external help. During the last year and four months we have already tried with MEDCAB, RfC, NPOV Noticeboard, ... I feel very strongly that MEDCOM is needed. Does anybody have any objection to MEDCOM?
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please address my response, without resorting to personal attacks or dragging up the past please. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Wee, there are many things wrong in you response, and I am very tired of this discussion and repeating things over and over. I want to do this after Vassyana's procedure (one thing at a time) and with the help of MEDCOM. Could you please answer my questions from 7 January?
  1. Could you quote below the text that you propose? (for the sake of clarity)
  2. I would rather finish the current discussion about the territorial dispute, following the procedure that Vassyana proposed and then deal with the History section. Does anybody reject following Vassyana's proposal and then dealing with Wee's proposed edit?
  3. Given that this has been discussed time and again, I don't know if we can do it ourselves without external help. During the last year and four months we have already tried with MEDCAB, RfC, NPOV Noticeboard, ... I feel very strongly that MEDCOM is needed. Does anybody have any objection to MEDCOM?
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "there are many things wrong in you response", Are you suggesting that I have been uncivil in some way?
  • Again, could you please address my comments, rather than commenting on the editor?
  • Could I ask that you stop referring to me using the pejorative Wee.
  1. [37] is my proposed edit, thank you. Which I am prepared to modify to address your concerns.
  2. No one is rejecting Vassyana's process, I have fully engaged in that, so I really don't see the point you're making.
  3. May I remind you that it was you, Imalbornoz, who invoked WP:BRD. I have attempted in good faith to discuss content with you and follow WP:DR where necessary. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean uncivil. I meant conceptually or factually wrong. And -given that we've been at it for one year and four months- I don't think I am capable of making you internalize why. That's why I propose to move on to a new level of DR.
  • I was addressing your comments. But, again, I think we need help if we are going to have any hope of reaching consensus.
  • "Wee" was not intended to be pejorative: it is the first word in the brand new name you chose less than a month ago. I also use "Richard" (for R. Keatinge), and "Red Hat" (for TRH of Pat Ferrick); something similar to "Pfain"uk or "Imal"bornoz). I have never made fun of your old username, and do not intend to make fun of your new one. I will change to "Curry" or "Monster" if you like.
  1. OK, thank you for saying what your proposed edit is. I confirm that it leaves out many relevant and noteworthy issues (see above).
  2. Given that time is not infinite, could we please concentrate in Vassyana's process and then deal with your proposed edit? It would mean a lot to me, and I promise that I will not forget to deal with it afterwards -and I know you wouldn't let me either ;-).
  3. I am glad we all are following BRD now. I have answered your questions and you have answered mine (for the nth time in more than a year ONLY in this issue). We still disagree. We have tried MEDCAB, RfC, NPOV noticeboard, RS noticeboard... We don't even seem to agree how to approach those noticeboards (see below). Would you reject MEDCOM if we try it? (I would write the request hand in hand with you if you want; e.g. half of the request for you and half for me).
Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of my points would be similar to Curry Monster's. I'm going to repeat them because they are important and we've gone off track.

(Incidentally, I note that no case accepted since last June has actually managed to proceed at Medcom. There are three requests that have been waiting for over three months and another that's nearly at that stage. I see no good reason to push this process back by the months or even years that it would take Medcom to get to it.)

The substance

  • You are citing books on Gibraltar history or on the dispute. We are writing a short overview of Gibraltar history. I would imagine that they use more space to cover these three days than we use to cover 10000 years of history. The fact that they go into these kinds of details does not logically imply that we should - unless you feel that this article should be of equivalent length to a 300-page history book. This applies both to the details of the violence and to San Roque.
  • Nobody is saying that we shouldn't acknowledge the fact that there was violence, only that we shouldn't go into all the little details of it. Your citing of a 70-year-old source that claims that the British POV is that there was none is totally irrelevant.
  • If we have a thousand passages like this that only take eleven words, we have 11000 words. This is not a logical argument for us to go into detail.
  • You claim that the details are "facts led to a complete change in the population of Gibraltar". But as I've pointed out on multiple occasions before, there is no evidence that this claim is accurate. I do not accept your assumption that had the violence been of a different nature (excluding the desecration of churches for example) the townspeople would not have left, because it has no basis in logic or in sources.
  • You continue to use loaded terms such as "atrocities" and "exile". Neutrality would require the use of less loaded terms.
  • You cite numbers of google hits for your point on San Roque, but fail to assess them for quality. I note therefore that several of the results you find are referring to San Roque in totally or largely unrelated context. Several others are either explicitly on the subject of the capture, or deal with the capture from an explicitly San Roque-based perspective (and obviously, a fact that is significant in the history of San Roque is not necessarily significant in the history of Gibraltar). And many of them were written long enough ago that events such as the referendum simply hadn't happened yet. None of those are indicative of importance.

So we now have a series of arguments against this change. None of them would seem to make any particularly good case against it, but they are there. This needs further discussion and I suggest that we start by sticking to the topic at hand: how best to handle these points in our article. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would make the point my questions were not in fact addressed, so for the sake of clarity I will repeat them.
  1. Is it your contention that there needs to be long lists of what you call atrocities' and for what purpose?
  2. If there is a need to mention long lists of atrocities, per Hills p.65, do I take it we need to mention the rape, pillage and descration of muslim holy places during the Spanish take over?#
  3. I feel it is better covered in general details in the article, with the details you want included in an inline citation and also covered in the History of Gibraltar. Are you prepared to compromise on that point?
  4. Your text has the context completely wrong in that the timeline is putting the cart before the horse. This is a perfectly reasonable position, are you prepared to compromise and meet me half way?
  5. You're quoting again from detailed historical treatises again. Tell me, were we to restrict this to overviews, how many would cover it?
Further to clarify a claim you made. I did not wish to have included in the article any mention of the drunkeness of the troops or the reprisals taken by the population. My position has always been that we should not need to include those details here, I urged you repeatedly not to enter into a cycle of what I termed atrocity tennis. I have suggested they are included purely to apply some measure of counter balance to your insistence on including a list of what you called atrocities. As I noted on 15 November:
Now having made this plain, my position is that it is better to not include these details of "atrocities" by either side in an overview. Rather it is better to use more general terms such as "disorder" or some equivalent and leave details for the detailed article. Having made this plain I trust I will not have my position misrepresented again. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There are many comments to address, so it's going to be a long response (not my fault...), and then one final very important question that I would like you guys to answer.
Pfainuk,
  • Regarding MEDCOM, I think it deserves a chance. We have already been discussing this for ONE YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS. Medcom statistics are not fantastic, but they show some opportunity of success. Most requests are rejected in less than a month for lack of agreement to mediate (around 75%), but if they are accepted they stand a 50% chance of being successful:
WP:MEDCOM Statistics
  • In the last months:
  • 15 recent requests have been rejected by MEDCOM for lack of agreement to mediation (I hope this is not our case here) or for being already solved.
  • 4 cases are waiting for a mediator (I can see you are in one of them).
  • 2 are being worked on.
  • 0 are on hold
  • Since April 2008:
  • 16 successful, partially successful or no further need for mediation after it began (since April 2008)
  • 10 stale, or one side retired, or no mediator available
  • 8 some parties rejected mediation
  • 121 rejected by MEDCOM mainly for lack of agreement to mediation
  • Most overviews are much much shorter than this article (or most WP country articles). If we apply the criteria "only things that are in overviews are accepted in this article", then most things in this long article would have to go (including much of history, demography, politics, ...) You and Wee have in fact defended in the article many issues that are not even remotely in an overview, and are much less noteworthy than the atrocities and San Roque. I don't find any consistency in this.
  • Garratt's paragraph is relevant in saying that there used to be a well established tendency to avoid this episode in British histories due to a nationalist POV. The number of sources that mention the episodes are proof that now this nationalist feeling is mostly obsolete among academics and they consider the episode quite relevant. But British non-academics (without the restrain of peer reviews) might still be guided by the traditional view that this episode is not relevant (especially, if they have some strong nationalist feelings...)
  • I don't think I understand the point about the "thousand passages" like this. Do you think there are one "thousand" episodes with similar noteworthiness to this one? (from my research in Google books, it doesn't look like it...)
  • I do not say that "(these) facts led to a complete change in the population of Gibraltar". I say that the sources seem to say that. You seem to disagree. That's why we are discussing. Let's ask for a mediator.
  • "Atrocity" is NOT a loaded term to describe plunder, rape and desecrations. Jackson (a historian who uses the euphemism "outrages" instead of rapes) does describe the incidents in Gibraltar as "atrocities". In fact, "atrocity" is a common in Wikipedia: Wikipedia has around 2,500 mentions of the word "atrocity", of them 2,100 are combined with the word "capture". Wikipedia uses "atrocities" in combination with "rape", "plunder" or "sack" more than 2,100 cases[38]. You probably disagree (and maybe you should be bold and go around those articles changing the word for a less "loaded" one). I disagree with you. Let's ask for a mediator.
  • Given your comment about the hits in Google books, I have made the effort to count the number of books among the hits that are not duplicated or describe things different to what we are discussing: There are at least 37 books about Gibraltar which mention the exodus to San Roque (see below), which are MANY more than -say- the ones mentioning Suez, "Operation Felix", the Conversos from Cordova, or the 1967 referendum. I think this is proof of noteworthiness. You still say that Suez, "Operation Felix" or the Conversos are noteworthy but the the exodus to San Roque is so irrelevant (???) it doesn't deserve mention in this article. Please let's ask for a mediator, outside opinion or whoever can solve this because things like this are making me lose my good faith very rapidly.
Google books with "Gibraltar" in the title, and explicitly mentioning the exodus to San Roque in 1704
  • 'A journey to Gibraltar' (Mrs. Robert Henrey)
  • 'A New New English: language, politics, and identity in Gibraltar' (Anja Kellermann)
  • 'A popular history of Gibraltar, its institutions, and its neighbourhood on both sides of the Straits, and a guide book to their principal places and objects of interest' (Gilbard (George James, Lieut.-Colonel))
  • 'A red book on Gibraltar' (Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs)
  • 'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott)
  • 'Catálogo de la sección "Gibraltar" del Archivo Histórico Diocesano de Cádiz: 1518-1806' (Pablo Antón Solé)
  • 'Community and identity: the making of modern Gibraltar since 1704' (Stephen Constantine)
  • 'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel)
  • 'Documents on Gibraltar: presented to the Spanish Cortes' (Spain. Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores)
  • 'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente)
  • 'English and Spanish in Gibraltar ' (Dr. Johannes Kramer)
  • 'Espías en Gibraltar' (Enrique Arques)
  • 'Gibraltar and its people' (Philip Dennis)
  • 'Gibraltar ante la historia de España: compendio de los principales sucesos acaecidos en dicha ciudad, desde su fundación hasta nuestros días' (Juan del Álamo)
  • 'Gibraltar ante la historia' (Francisco Maria Tubino)
  • 'Gibraltar por la razón o la fuerza' (A. Gonzalo de Malvasía)
  • 'Gibraltar under Moor, Spaniar and Briton' (Edward Ranulph Kenyon)
  • 'Gibraltar y los españoles' (Gil Armangué Ríus)
  • 'Gibraltar y su campo: una economía deprimida' (Juan Velarde Fuertes)
  • 'Gibraltar, identity and empire' (Charles Carrington)
  • 'Gibraltar' (Edward G. Archer)
  • 'Gibraltar, la Roca de Calpe' (Ramón Ledesma Miranda)
  • 'Gibraltar: apuntes para la historia de la pérdida de esta plaza, de los sitios que le pusieron los españoles y de las negociaciones entre España e Inglaterra referentes a su restitución, 1704-1796' (Julián Juderías)
  • 'Gibraltar: British or Spanish?' (Peter Gold)
  • 'Gibraltar: historia de una usurpación' (Servicio Informativo Español)
  • 'Historia de Gibraltar' (Ignacio López de Ayala)
  • 'La España irredenta: Gibraltar' (Blas Piñar)
  • 'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López)
  • 'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico)
  • 'Los republicanos españoles y Gibraltar' (Mariano Granados)
  • 'Razones de España sobre Gibraltar' (Fernando María Castiella)
  • 'Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar' (George Hills)
  • 'Southern Spain: with Gibraltar, Ceuta & Tangier' (Litellus Russell Muirhead)
  • 'The Dispute Over Gibraltar' (Melissa R. Jordine)
  • 'The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar' (Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson – 1987)
  • 'The siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783' (Tom Henderson McGuffie)
  • 'The story of Gibraltar: first outpost of empire' (Henry William Howes)
I will answer Curry's comments and make my question later. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
On mediation. The fact that it's been going on for a long time is an argument to end the discussion more quickly, not an argument to extend it for very much longer, which seems to be the substance of your argument here.
On the fact that books are more detailed than our overview, your argument does not address the point, which is that the fact that a point is mentioned in a 300-page book cannot logically imply that it belongs in a brief overview. The simple answer is that it doesn't.
On your quote: I do hope you're not accusing us of trying to push a nationalist POV. Partly because we're not, partly because that would mean we would have to go to WP:AE again to address what would be an abject failure on your part to assume good faith - something I would like very much to avoid. I would note in passing that your suggestion on that point would seem equally to imply the opposite, that overemphasising the violence that occurred (as you propose) is POV in the opposite direction.
You argued that it should go in because it's only 11 words. Eleven words can be eleven words too many. Or, for that matter, it can be four words too many or nine words too many. The fact that it is "only" eleven words is not a credible argument for inclusion.
The sources do indeed imply that the violence caused the townspeople to leave. What they do not state or imply is that each individual act of violence - each detail that you want to put in - individually (as opposed to collectively) caused the townspeople to leave: that had there not been desecration of churches they would all have stayed. The substance of your argument seems to be that that is so, but it is not backed up by anything at all.
On "atrocities", that's your POV, not neutral fact. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in different contexts and describing different events does not imply that we should bias our article. Regardless, your count includes talk pages, project pages, images, Wiktionary articles, and quite a few articles about or describing things with the word "atrocity" in the title. This number is so inflated as to render it totally meaningless.
On your books. Let us start by going back to where we started. The fact that an event is included in a three-hundred-page book on the history of Gibraltar does not logically imply that we should include it in a 700-word summary of the history of Gibraltar. I note once more that your argument boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would also note that your list includes:
  • Books written in the nineteenth century, that are therefore unlikely to go into too much detail on World War II or the 1967 referendum.
  • Books written explicitly as histories of specific periods of history. A book that deals with a couple of hundred years in a couple of hundred pages is likely to go into more detail than a passage that covers 10000 years in 700 words.
  • Books that are either explicitly histories of San Roque, or else where the reference that you are relying on is a history of San Roque. The fact that something is relevant to the history of San Roque does not make it relevant to the history of Gibraltar.
  • Primary sources, whose existence doesn't really imply anything much.
Given this, as before, I can't accept your number of books as proof of anything much at all. Pfainuk talk 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, I have asked you politely to stop referring to me in that manner. You promised to stop and then did it again.

I can't really add much to Pfainuk's comments but I will ask what do you actually hope to achieve with this wall of text? We're trying to have a meaningful discussion about depth of coverage suitable for an overview. There is no dispute about the events and you flooded the page with a huge wall of text to prove the events happened. This doesn't address the argument about depth of coverage at all.

Again no one disputes that the events of the take over were possibly a factor in the departure. But they weren't the only factor. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires we report all. Your insistence on only the one you favour is at odds with that policy.

You're reporting Garrat's opinion from 1939 as if it remains relevant, that it is irrelevant should be more than apparent from the number of English language texts you've just quoted. All too easily it can be taken to infer an oblique accusation against other editors are motivated by such sentiments. I see that Pfainuk independently identifed the same, that should tell you something.

You invoked WP:BRD, are you prepared to consider a compromise from the current text? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pfainuk, we have not been able to reach consensus in nearly one year and a half. And I don't see any improvement (other than seeing you discard some WP:OR you used to have in the beginning and accumulating evidence on the noteworthiness of these episodes). We are going in old circles. We have tried outside opinion. We don't even seem to be able to agree on the approach to outside opinion. I think we are not capable to reach consensus by ourselves. Let's follow WP:DR and move on to the next step: mediation.
  • On the books and notability: yes, the books cited have many pages. Just as many pages as other books dealing with other episodes, such as the Conversos from Cordoba, Suez, etc. The truth is that THERE ARE MORE BOOKS citing the episode you want to remove than books citing other episodes you want to keep (some of them very old as well). During the last two years, the article has included episodes with a ridiculous number of cites (Sykorsky, Endymion, ...) Curry has even edit warred to keep some of those relatively very non-notable episodes. Still you only want to remove the atrocities and San Roque. I don't find any rational explanation for this. Can you explain it please?
  • Let's say that I don't want to lose my assumption good faith. But (talking about faith) once in a while some "agnosticism" tempts me when I see things that do not apparently seem compatible with it (see above). I'm sure some outside mediator would be a great help to avoid this.
  • Regarding the word "atrocities". I am glad you talked about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It does not look like you've read the article in detail. Please check the part about: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent_in_usage. That's what I had in mind with my previous comment. Wikipedia does not seem to consider the word "atrocities" a loaded word when used in combination with rapes, plunder and desecrations (unsurprisingly): Anyway, if we had a way to ask for a third opinion about this point we would be able to solve it without much further waste of time and patience.
  • Regarding the books, do you propose any alternative measure of noteworthiness? Suppose that I think that the following issues are too much for this overview: Tariq-Ibn-Ziyad[39], Caliph Al-Walid[40], Gorham's Cave[41], the Conversos from Cordoba, "Operation Felix", 1967 referendum, the "British Nationality Act"[42], the "British Forces Broadcasting Service", Héctor Licudi[43], Leopoldo Sanguinetti, Albert Joseph Patron, Alberto Pizzarello, Elio Cruz, Mario Arroyo, Breed 77, Melon Diesel,... (I don't intend to remove them, it's just a mind experiment). How would you defend its remaining in the article?
Curry, I answer your questions below:
  1. Is it your contention that there needs to be long lists of what you call atrocities' and for what purpose? A: Not a long list, only three (summarizing what sources say: "rape", "plunder" and "desecrations") -all the details (attacking and raping the women taking refuge in the Punta Europa Church, etc) do not need to be here. For the purpose of including episodes that are notable in the history of Gibraltar, according to reputed sources. I am ready to accept other descriptions, as long as they are descriptive of what happened (to be clearer: "disorders" is what happened in Greece last summer; we are talking about plunder, rape and desecrations that were notable even at the time)
  2. If there is a need to mention long lists of atrocities, per Hills p.65, do I take it we need to mention the rape, pillage and descration of muslim holy places during the Spanish take over? A: No need to mention a long list of atrocities (see above). What is the notability of that episode according to reputed sources?
  3. I feel it is better covered in general details in the article, with the details you want included in an inline citation and also covered in the History of Gibraltar. Are you prepared to compromise on that point? A: Yes, I am ready to compromise (I already have several times). No, I don't think an inline citation is enough if we compare this episode to other issues explicitly included in the article.
  4. Your text has the context completely wrong in that the timeline is putting the cart before the horse. This is a perfectly reasonable position, are you prepared to compromise and meet me half way? I don't understand this question.
  5. You're quoting again from detailed historical treatises again. Tell me, were we to restrict this to overviews, how many would cover it? A: How would they cover other issues included in the article (see my answer to Pfainuk above).
Sorry about the naming (it's not easy to keep up with your naming preferences, but that's no excuse). I'll try harder. Do you want me to strike through my previous comment? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to conclude from that response that you are not prepared to compromise on any point along the lines I suggested?

Equally when I have added details of equal and in some cases more significance and relevance to balance the text for NPOV, you have rejected those additions. It is fair to conclude that you are not prepared to allow those changes either?

You insist on using the loaded word "atrocity" to describe these events. They weren't atrocities, criminal certainly but not atrocities. An atrocity is an event like the Srebrenica massacre and to use that term here cheapens events like that. Its an adding an unnecessarily emotive aspect to the discussion. I note omitted from your list is the act of murder and there was no deliberate massacres of the population. In the opinion of some authors it was worse than the agreed 18th Century standard for rape and plunder, those are the author's opinions it is not a fact.

Equally you also insist on the word "descration", another loaded term. From the perspective of an 18th Century English protestant, the statue of the Virgin Mary was "pagan idolatory" and of itself a descration of the house of god.

In both cases, these are WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL and have no place in either the article or discussion. This form of language is at odds with wikipedia policies. I would strongly suggest that you stop using them if we are to have a reasonable discussion.

What words would you actually suggest, rather than simply rejecting what has been put forward? And please avoid WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL.

Another point to consider. Reading the article currently, we have no idea of the reasons for seizing Gibraltar, we have no idea of the campaign objectives and equally we have no idea of how events during the take over ultimately frustrated those objectives. But we do know that some women were raped, they smashed a statue and they pinched a few things. Is this educating our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The (British) reputed sources use the terms "atrocities", "rape", "plundering", "sacking" and "desecrations" (among others). Those are words widely used in Wikipedia. I propose to just use the words that the majority of sources use.
This being an article about Gibraltar, I think it is relevant to mention that the town was sacked, with a notable number of Gibraltarian women raped, all Gibraltarian churches except one (even by the standards of the time) notably desecrated and many Gibraltarian homes plundered. I'm not so sure about the military objectives of the southern campaign in the Spanish War of Succession (but, of course, if they are overwhelmingly covered in books about Gibraltar, that would be a different question...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
One more comment about Curry's edit. My main worry about it is the removal of two episodes that are very notable, but I also think it might run into WP:SYNTH and WP:OR:
  • You propose to include the following "Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed" and support it with this cite "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"? I don't see in that text any "attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause". Maybe you meant to cite a different part of the book?
  • You also propose "The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave." The cite does mention that "Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives." But I don't see any connection in the text between this and the decision to leave. The current cite only allows to say that "when they left there was a high probability that they might soon be able to return", not anything about the expectations of the townspeople or their decisions. Were you thinking of a different more complete cite?
I know it is hard work to find the right sources (I've spent quite a long time doing that), but I'm afraid it is necessary. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The second cite clearly supports the text concerning an expected counter attack. I don't use the exact words but the cite supports the text. If we're going down the route of semantic arguments criticising edits by demanding they use exactly the same words as the source again then I'm going to be very disappointed.
The first cite was an attempt to cite that there was disorder, which it does. Please note that the text uses exactly the same words as the cite. Please note the comments in my first point and recognise your text uses different words than the source.
The comment about the campaign objective to win over Andalusia was I thought uncontroversial. Of course a cite can be provided for that if you feel it is necessary. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Your second cite does not mention the counter attack as causing the departure in combination with anything, nor does it mention any expectations in the population. I'm afraid that without sources explicitly mentioning it will be considered WP:OR (sorry, but it would not be the first time). If you want that text to be considered, then you should at least be able to find relevant cites. And then you should be able to prove the notability of the issues (please, compare: I have found 37 cites in books about Gibraltar mentioning all the Gibraltarian population moving to San Roque as the main destination in 1704, and you still want this episode removed...)
Your first claim (about the intentions of the campaign being frustrated by the atrocities): What sources mention it? How many are there? Following your and Pfainuk's previous comments, are they detailed History texts or are they overviews? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I really find it difficult to see how we will achieve general agreement on this point. I came late to this argument, just over a year ago in response to a RfC, but we don't seem to have advanced far since then. I'd like to repeat the suggestion that we leave this issue until we have finished the current discussion about the territorial dispute, following the procedure that Vassyana proposed and then deal with the History section. I agree that we are likely to need external help and would be happy to try MEDCOM. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I go back to my previous points:

  • You've still given no reasonable explanation as to why the fact that a detail is included in one - or indeed many - 300-page books on the history of Gibraltar requires that it we also have to go into that detail.
  • You do not contest the point that overemphasising the violence is Spanish POV.
  • You do not contest the point that a text is "only" eleven words is not a credible argument for inclusion.
  • You do not contest the point that there is no evidence that the acts of violence individually (as opposed to collectively) caused the townspeople to leave.
  • You argue precedence in usage of the word "atrocity", based on a survey that included a significant number of talk pages, project pages, images and articles about or describing things with "atrocity" in the title. This cannot plausibly be described as precedence in usage. You have provided no evidence whatsoever for your contention that "Wikipedia does not seem to consider the word "atrocities" a loaded word when used in combination with rapes, plunder and desecrations". (I note in passing that we can source that murder was committed - just not against the townspeople.)
  • You continue to argue that you have 37 "books about Gibraltar", and continue to make your claim about this being more than anything else, despite it having been pointed out repeatedly that your survey has flaws that are so significant as to make your conclusions meaningless. Such as:
  • The fact that you are claiming histories of San Roque and biographies of historical figures as "books about Gibraltar".
  • The fact that you're relying on primary sources to make a point about inclusion in secondary sources.
  • The fact that your comparison relies on the assumption that books written in the nineteenth century should reference World War II.
And that's aside the fact that there is no explanation forthcoming as to how inclusion of a detail in a long book about short period of history implies that we should include that detail in a short overview of a long period of history.

I note also that you're now citing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because the text doesn't quote the source. The text does not and has never had to quote the source. It's no more a logical argument now than it was the first time you made it.

You ask why we should have change here. We should have change because the current wording is POV. It overemphasises the violence and fails to provide appropriate context. And I for one can't see any particular reason why events that have had no significant impact on any particular aspect of Gibraltar (such as the founding of a town several miles away) belong in an overview history of Gibraltar.

Now, the question I would ask is this. What compromises are you willing to make from the current text to allow us to achieve a consensus? Don't let's try and put it off to the never-never-land of a MEDCOM that might not be opened until June (or indeed much later at the rate it's currently going through cases). We can sort this. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

To which I'd add, if you invoke WP:BRD then you discuss your issues with the text you've reverted. You do not refuse to discuss saying you'll do it "later". If there is a reluctance to discuss then it is appropriate to self-revert and restore my bold edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment. I have already answered that your edit 1) removes notable and relevant facts and 2) is not supported by proper cites. Please find some proper cites and I'll be delighted to keep discussing, my Curry. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


EDIT CONFLICT

Pfainuk, please don't go back to your previous points without paying attention to my arguments (which I repeat below, let's see if I can be clearer this time):
  • Please, correct me with diffs, but I surely haven't said that one detail in a 300 page book should go into this article. I say that the fact that an issue mentioned in at least 37 books (many of them by reputed academics) is objectively more notable than an issue mentioned in 4 books.
  • Nobody has proposed to overemphasize anything. Just to mention things that are well over the average notability of issues in the article.
  • I contest that eleven words, with only three keywords, is not a "long list of atrocities" like you said. That was my point. I hope it's clear this time.
  • Indeed, I agree that we should not only mention "rapes" without mentioning "desecrations" or "plundering". I agree that it's probably the three of them together that caused the exodus. None of them should be silenced or mentioned alone.
  • I have given a minimum number of books about Gibraltar (more specifically, with "Gibraltar" in the title) mentioning the exodus to San Roque in google books: 37. It certainly beats a long list of issues, persons and episodes in the article. Should we remove them for lack of notability? For what reason do you have lower notability standards for the Conversos from Cordoba (who only stayed in Gibraltar for two years), Suez, Trafalgar, or Operation Felix?
Most important: common sense -in my opinion- says that if the whole set of Gibraltarians (except a few families) move massively to a place less than 10 kilometers away from Gibraltar, taking with them the Gibraltar legacy of archives, banners and keep what up to then were Gibraltarian traditions, that deserves a brief mention in a History section of an overview article about Gibraltar. But, just in case, I've tried to make sure that you know that this episode is also overwhelmingly mentioned in British and Spanish sources about the Rock. Much more so than other undisputed episodes in this History section.
You still have not answered my question: Why should we keep "Operation Felix" (which is less notable and didn't even take place), "Trafalgar" (miles away and with less mentions in books about Gibraltar), or the "Conversos from Cordoba" (who only stayed for two years and are much much less notable)? And why haven't you ever worried about these issues being "too much detail" for this overview article?
Finally, I must say I agree with Richard Keatinge about situation and the procedure. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You haven't said, in so many words, "one detail in a 300 page book should go into this article". But this the basis of your argument for inclusion. You cited a half dozen long history books and said these details had to go on because they are included in those books - this was in your post of 23:45, 9 January 2011. And you repeat that argument directly after you claim that it isn't your argument. There isn't any sense to that.
  • You say "[n]obody has proposed to overemphasize anything", well yes they have. You propose that we overemphasise the violence at the expense of the geopolitical situation and other relevant factors.
  • So far as I can tell, you are the only person on this talk page who has used the words "long list of atrocities". But yes, it is OTT to go into the masses of detail that you want to. As I say, eleven words may well be eleven words too long, or indeed four words too long or nine words too long.
  • If you accept that it was the violence that occurred that led to the townspeople's departure, then there seems to be no basis for your argument that the three points you wish to make are individually notable. If it was the violence that led to the townspeople's departure, then we should say that. There is neither need nor benefit in going into the details in what is supposed to be an overview.
  • Your Google search still does not argue for "precedence in usage". For one thing, it still includes project pages, user pages, links to Wikisource, templates and so on. For another, you now have a load of articles where the word "atrocity" is used in one part of the article and one of your other words in a completely different part of the article, and frequently cases where the word is usage on a national scale or to describe mass murder, or genocide. Curry Monster is right: the Srebrenica massacre was an atrocity. The Holocaust was an atrocity. The Rwandan genocide was an atrocity. Using in this case cheapens the word and those events and is needlessly emotive.
  • The fact that a book has "Gibraltar" in the title does not mean that it is a book about Gibraltar, as your list amply demonstrates. And I'm afraid I cannot take this argument seriously while you continue to insist that the fact that some of your books are not books about Gibraltar is not a problem with your survey. While you continue to cite numbers calculated on the basis that sources should have known about World War II decades before it happened. And while you continue to include primary sources in a survey of secondary sources. Even if I accepted the premise behind the figures (and I don't), this is plenty enough to make them totally meaningless.
If you want to remove other details from the article, you are quite welcome to make your case for it on talk. I actually think this article's history section is fairly dreadful. It reads like each paragraph was written by a separate committee, none of which had any knowledge of what the others were writing. From my experience of this talk page, I would suggest that this isn't too far from the truth. But that experience also tells me that there is no realistic prospect of significant improvement with this group of editors. And mediation wouldn't change that. The best we can hope for, it seems to me, is to make the thing as neutral as possible - which is what I'm trying to do now. Pfainuk talk 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And following on from all that, I think it's work re-asking the question that you did not answer before: What compromises are you willing to make from the current text to allow us to achieve a consensus? Pfainuk talk 20:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise, so long as the article mentions the two notable episodes (the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque).
You still have not answered my question: Why should we remove the atrocities committed on Gibraltarian townspeople and churches and the massive exodus of almost all Gibraltarian population to San Roque, and keep "Operation Felix" (which is less notable and didn't even take place), "Trafalgar" (miles away and with fewer mentions in books about Gibraltar), or the "Conversos from Cordoba" (who only stayed for two years and are much much less notable)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

See [44], [45] and [46], nowhere are these events described as atrocities. Show me evidence per WP:V that in the historical perspective these events are described as "atrocities". Your sources do not back up this claim. This is entirely your WP:OR and I find this use of emotive language is inflaming tension and preventing a reasonable discussion. Please stop it.

Secondly, are you seriously claiming that the Battle of Trafalgar and the threat to Gibraltar in WW2 is less notable than these events? Is that really your argument? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Atrocities" might indeed not be suitable for use in the article, but in talk space it can still be useful shorthand.
And it's hard to think of anything more notable for Gibraltar than the departure under threat of almost its entire population. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
a) Are you seriously suggesting that a discussion like this is facilitated by the use of such emotive language? Please elucidate how you feel it helps.
b) Name a source per WP:V that says the population left because of threats. The population chose to leave, regardless of circumstances they were not compelled to leave and their doing so was counter productive to the war aims of the alies - a significant fact that should be mentioned. There are plenty things more notable but if we are to mention it all, then we should mention all the reasons and opinions put forward by various authors. As I continue to research I've found.
  1. The events of the capture
  2. Expectation of the Spanish retaking the town
  3. Refusal to swear loyalty to Charles III
  4. The urging of local priests
Presenting only one reason and maintaining a text that identifies only one reason is a violation of NPOV.
c) If you look at the history of Gibraltar Richard, three times before 1704 the entire population was expelled. Were those events notable as well?
d) The capture is a notable event, the exodus is a detail of that event, whether notable enough to cover at the level of an overview does not follow. If we look at overviews, few if any mention it.
e) Seriously are you claiming that the exodus is more notable than the Battle of Trafalgar? Is that your argument as well? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV: Proposal for improving outside comments

I think all of us agree that when one of us makes a question in an outside noticeboard, it is very annoying to see other inside editors starting to hijack the discussion with walls of text. On the other hand, I understand that when one of us sees a question posted by someone else who misses some crucial point, the urge to make the question more neutral or complete is irresistible.

Maybe a good solution could be that all of us agree in a brief exposition of our dispute and then post it in the noticeboard with the compromise not to disturb the discussion with our comments. We could give it a try in the current post started by Wee (and collapse the current walls of text there). Otherwise, I'm afraid we will keep dissuading outside editors from commenting (once more).

One simple way to do it could be to agree t summarize the position for and against some edit (e.g. mentioning the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque) in -say- 100 words for and 100 words against (this is open to suggestions). One side of the discussion (say, Wee and Pfain) could take care of the for (or against) part and the other side (me and whoever else agrees with me) could fill the other part. We would first agree on the question and pro/con part here in the talk page and then we would post it in the noticeboard.

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Text should stand on its own merit supported by cites, I'd propose to simply let the community decide on that merit. There is no need to write a "justification" if the text is written according to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The simple solution is of course, you could simply allow community input without any lobbying whatsoever - something I'm prepared and willing to do. There is then no need to have long tracts of text discussing how to get external opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
WCM, I applaud the spirit of your self-denying ordinance, but I do think that proposals need a little explanation. If Vassyana chooses to back any such restriction I'd be happy to go along, but my suggestion would be for limited, relevant comments, perhaps per Imalbornoz's suggestion above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard, why do proposals need explanation, the text should be able to stand on its own merit supported by citations. I have a strong belief in the value of NPOV and I do consider that a well written NPOV text supported by citations does not need to be justified. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Curry, if we don't give a brief explanation then we run the risk that outside editors (who -by definition- do not usually know much about the Gibraltar article) will be discouraged because they won't know what we are talking about. The next worse thing could be that they ask us to develop/expand the question (because they don't understand the problem) and then we start all over again covering the noticeboard with our explanations and corrections (this has happened several times; see the latest examples [47][48][49][50]). I think a very brief -but complete and balanced- explanation is necessary to help prevent those risks. We would be guaranteeing that if we follow some procedure similar to the one explained above... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On every single occasion we have sought outside opinion it has been deterred by walls of text. Consistently anyone who expresses an opinion is immediately lobbied to support a particular position. Secondly, when there have been comments on edits, they have not explained the merits of an individual contribution rather undermined other contributions.

Again I make the point that text should stand on its own, supported by inline citations. I will re-iterate that I'm prepared to allow the community to judge on merit and will accept any outcome from that process. Are you prepared to do the same? A simple yes/no will suffice. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Curry, we have to make life easier for outside editors. Unless they take the time to investigate the sources and the key points of the issue (which is usually not the case), they will make superficial comments, or ask for more info (for example:[51][52][53][54]) or simply not make any comment. When they open the door for explanations, I'm afraid an avalanche of comments from us will flood the noticeboard.
It's better to make a brief introduction for each alternative (making it neutral by discussing it here beforehand) and then compromise not to make any further comments in the noticeboard. Are you ready to collaborate on that? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Again are you prepared to allow for input with a prohibition on lobbying for preferred texts? Yes/No is all the answer that is required. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am ready to not make a comment on any text as long as there is a brief initial neutral summary of the pros and cons. By neutral I mean that it (briefly) explains all our (mostly two) different POVs. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So is it fair to conclude your answer is "NO"? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If citations and text alone were adequate we wouldn't have these problems in the first place. I'd go along with almost any system for keeping comment to the minimum, but zero comment is too little. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The citations are not the problem, its the lobbying that follows any text that is. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So what procedure would you suggest for keeping that under control? A word limit perhaps? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
A prohibition on lobbying, backed up by blocks if it occurs. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's do that: agree on a very brief explanaion of each position and then post on the noticeboard with the prohibition to make forther comments. Do we all agree? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Or, we can let the mediator Curry has requested organize that. BTW, I agree with the MedCab request (I don't fully agree with Curry's explanation of the dispute, but I'll try not to comment there if it's not requested - I can live with it, especially if we manage to get a mediator). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

There's been a far amount of snark and rudeness in my absence. Keep it toned down, please. Continued insults, hostile attitudes, personal insinuations, or any other kind of talk page disruption will be stopped cold.

If you cannot control yourself in this topic area, you have a choice to bow out gracefully or be forced from the topic area in order to remove the disruption. Enough is enough. No more warnings. No more pleas for basic, civil working attitudes. If you disrupt discussions about Gibraltar further, you will be banned from this entire topic area, including discussions. --Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello! A case is now pending before the Mediation Cabal that lists this article as a site of the dispute. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the mediation process which is here. I ask that all named parties and all interested parties indicate their acceptance of mediation below my initial statement on the case page. Until mediation concludes, I invite all editors to take a break from editing of this page, in an effort to cool down. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I support everyone agreeing to the assistance of an informal mediator. My efforts above in no way exclude the help of a volunteer mediator. Indeed, they would be helped by it. --Vassyana (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I ask all involved parties, listed or not on the case page, to post an opening statement on the mediation's talk page. I outlined on the main page what I would like to see in these statements. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The mediation process is now starting. The first phase starts here. -- Lord Roem (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed process

Process:

  1. Discuss the reliability and quality of the collected secondary sources. DO NOT discuss the claims, positions, opinions, or other information provided by those sources.
  2. Resolve any disputes over the reliability and quality of a text using WP:RSN.
  3. Discuss whether the presented quotes are representative of the text cited. Resolve any disputes using WP:RSN and WP:ECN.
  4. Make any corrections to the list of sources and quotations, as may be required by the above.
  5. Organize and classify sources by reliability.
  6. Exclude sources of minor or questionable reliability.
  7. Use the most reliable sources to create a mainstream, if incomplete, overview. Use WP:ECN and WP:NPOVN to resolve any disputes.
  8. Use the remaining sources to fill in blanks, flesh out the summary, and/or report noteworthy minority views (among the sources). Use WP:ECN and WP:NPOVN to resolve any disputes.
  9. Publish end result.

Conditions:

  • Vassyana or another uninvolved editor will post a neutral request for review, if the noticeboards are required as above.
  • Involved editors accept a prohibition on posting to any thread started on content noticeboards as above. Such posting will be considered disruptive.
  • Responses from content noticeboards will be considered a binding, authoritative response that reflect community consensus on the issue in question.
  • All editors agree to treat the end result as community consensus, barring real world changes in the state of the dispute or significant new academic findings.

What do you think of the proposed process? What about the conditions? Let's see out a clear road and clear conditions. --Vassyana (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My immediate thought is exactly the same point that I believe I mentioned before with the source-gathering phase. Most of the sources we have - including those that I have cited - are far longer than would be appropriate here. They are extracts from books on the dispute, as opposed to overviews of the dispute.
But this process appears to have little room for shortening our piece to a length that what would be appropriate for our purposes. There is far more to Gibraltar than just the dispute, but this process would seem likely to end up with a text that would dwarve most other sections of this article. We already have two articles on the dispute. It seems to me that this process would put us well on the way to creating a third out of this one - turning this into a WP:COATRACK - something that I strongly oppose. Pfainuk talk 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Echoing Pfainuk's comments, what is desired is a short, punchy neutral summary. If we end up with text that dwarves the rest of the article, then I am not prepared to support that outcome. IF the aim is for a short summary I support it, particularly the prohibition on lobbying. Could you please elaborate on that before I indicate acceptance. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The intended result is a short summary. --Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In which case you have my unconditional support. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the procedure, it looks very reasonable. Thank you very much, Vassyana. I also agree that the summary of the overview should be short (2-4 paragraphs?) while -I may add- including all the most relevant points (and only the most relevant ones). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
My point above is that I do not feel that this process reflects the fact that this is to be a short summary. It's all very well saying that it is to be a short overview, but if we're tied into a process that's more geared up for a rather longer discussion, then in all likelihood it's the long discussion that we get. It appears to me that this process - given our sources, which are generally not short overviews - is geared up like this. Because of our sources, I find it distinctly unlikely that the overview reached at point 7 can possibly be short enough. Point 8 refers to filling in blanks and fleshing things out. We shouldn't even be thinking about fleshing it out. The opposite: chances are we should be slimming it down. It refers to reporting minority views - but when writing this section we should be calling out WP:UNDUE at any view that reasonably merits the name "minority". So, no, I don't think that I've seen enough here to ease my concerns such that I can support the process.
I'll add a point about Imalbornoz's comment above as well, if I may. The point of going through a process such as this is that "the most relevant points" is not predetermined. When I first read the point, it appeared to me that Imalbornoz was claiming a veto on what points are excluded. I'm not necessarily saying that he is, only that that's how I read it. As such, I would also like to see a clarification on this point: I could not accept this process if such a condition was in place. Pfainuk talk 09:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the number of sources is particularly problematic. Other topics have much greater coverage in relation to the amount of summary text presented. What has made it difficult in this circumstance has been disagreement over source selection and detail emphasis. This process provides a way to focus that discussion and get binding outside opinions for any impasses.
Any resulting discussion will still be short in comparison to the time and walls of text already dedicated to this issue. I understand your concerns, but points 7 and 8 cover them by deferring to the national disputes and NPOV noticeboards.
I read no such claim in Imalbornoz's comment. It seems to me that he indicated that the end result should be a short summary including all of, but also only, the relevant points. He may correct me if I am mistaken. That appears to be a point which all the editors here agree upon.
I read the archives. I know that discussions of reliability and representativeness get dragged down by arguments about subpoints. Please note that the first steps quite explicitly ignores the specific claims of the text. Similarly, the first time the text is examined it is for proper representation of that specific source, not a proper representation of relevant points.
If there is still too much disagreement by 7 and 8, I will ask a couple of outside editors to look at the sources and write drafts for discussion. I have also noted two possible revisions below. I hope this all helps allay your concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To make things clearer (as per Pfainuk's comment), I make no claim regarding any vetoes. It'll be the sources the ones that will determine which issues are notable and which ones are not, not any predetermined veto. I hope this clarification answers his worries.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at this, and I must say I still have reservations about it. Chiefly among them, that even with "approx. 2 to 4 paragraphs" as guidance, outside editors might still get the wrong end of the stick and find we'll end up with something far longer than is desirable, given the length of our sources. It concerns me that process does not appear to allow any means of taming such excesses, of shortening the text that the noticeboards give us, and some people's idea of four paragraphs might be rather longer than is intended. Even based on the rest of the article, the text we were discussing would was only actually one or two paragraphs (6-7 short sentences). I suggest therefore that we specify either "short paragraphs" or "six or seven short sentences" - i.e. the sort of length that we were discussing before - and state that in related discussions on the noticeboards. On that basis, I believe I could accept this.
I should point out, as a matter of correction, that it is not the number of sources but the length of the sources that is my chief concern when I write that "I find it distinctly unlikely that the overview reached at point 7 can possibly be short enough", and that it is not the length of our discussion (though it has been far too long) but the length of the text added to the article that concerns me when I say that "if we're tied into a process that's more geared up for a rather longer discussion, then in all likelihood it's the long discussion that we get."
I have other, more general concerns, with the fact that such a process is felt to be necessary. As I believe I have noted before, much of our coverage on Gibraltar is really quite poor, and I see little prospect of it improving while such a relatively small change requires such a long discussion. I won't go into more detail because this is not the place, but I feel that this is a major problem with Gibraltar articles and one that we need to resolve. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be able to find a reasonable summary, despite the source length. We regularly create few paragraph summaries for sub-topics that have more written about them than the entirety of Gibraltar subjects.

Do you have an alternative suggestion for ensuring a short summary? For example, Richard suggests below that I be permitted to unilaterally cut things down. Another alternative might be having me invite outside GA/FA editors to do it. You thoughts?

On the general process, I truly believe in the high value of the working experience. Solving long-standing disagreements usually leads to a much better editing environment and working relationships. The value of solving the dispute, in my years of DR experience, is not so much its relation to the broader topic but rather the prominence in conflicts and discussion. While future discussions need not be so restricted or lengthy, it also provides a real working example of going from source collection to summarized article text. Think of it like learning a subject; the initial exposure is always more lengthy and tedious than practicing the discipline going forward. --Vassyana (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My immediate concern with your unilaterally cutting things down would be for your own position as a neutral outsider, because your decision on whether to include or exclude some pieces of information may be taken as evidence of bias. We have some prior experience here: when Richard originally came to this page, he came as an outsider and immediately stated his preference on the point at hand. In doing so he inadvertently gave up his claimed position as a neutral and is now a party to the disputes. If, having considered these points (and I'm sure they will have occurred to you), you are still willing to cut things out, it's not a problem from my perspective.
I also have no major issue in principle with asking FA and GA writers coming along and giving us something, provided that they are given the sources and our views on length and suchlike. The only problem is the precedent it shows. Your third paragraph would demonstrate the problem there: if the only way we can get consensus is by getting others to write it, it doesn't exactly bode well for the improvement of these articles. I did make another suggestion above, a small revision to more clearly state our intentions to the noticeboard. I have noted it again below.
I'd note that we do seem to have resolved one point of previously serious contention already. One in four months is not a good record, but it is better than none. Trouble is, the scale of the changes that are needed to make our coverage half-decent is such that it is difficult to see it as realistic. Pfainuk talk 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisions

  • Specify a length of "approx. 2 to 4 paragraphs" as an explicit short summary size.
  • Specify that relevant points are not predetermined, but to be determined by the sources and community feedback.

Points noted above. Are these acceptable to everyone involved? --Vassyana (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree - but note my agreement presumes the previous comment that no lobbying of community input will be allowed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree - and also agree to Vassyana truncating summaries at discretion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As per my above, I suggest that we instead say something like "2 to 4 short paragraphs" or "six or seven short sentences", to more clearly put our intentions across. Pfainuk talk 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting underway

I am heading out for the morning and afternoon, but I will return later today. I will put up a post to get the ball rolling on sorting out the modern political dispute. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't forget you during my wiki-absence. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

British servicement in Gibraltar

I have a suggestion:

I don't know whether members of the British armed forces in Gibraltar are exlusively men or include servicewomen too. Footnote number three on the Gibraltar page mentions that the population figure quoted does not include British Servicemen and their wives and families. Would it be more correct to say instead that it 'does not include British service men and women or their families' (no need to mention spouses separately as the term 'family' encompasses both spouses and children) Ulysses Elias 31.01.11

I think this could be a good idea. If nobody mentions a strong reason not to, I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and make that edit. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not, that is directly quoted from the source information. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Wee Curry's right and I was wrong. It is a literal transcript from the source, so it could be problematic to change it. Sorry. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Panoramic Photo of airport and environs

All, I have my own panoramic photo of the airport, bay and La Linea uploaded, let me know if you think this would make a nice addition to the article.

Lipatden (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice image. I'd just suggest that, before you make a bold edit, that you check the opinions of the Good Article reviewer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar/GA1, who said: There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article." Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to mediation

I have seen that Wee Curry Monster has returned the article to his preferred version of an episode under discussion (removing the atrocities during the capture and the reference to the exodus to San Roque), without consulting the mediator or other editors. I kindly ask him and others to return to the discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Our mediator, Lord Roem, closed the case as you had not responded or participated for nearly two weeks. I can at any point make a bold edit if I wish, I agreed not to during the mediation case, which I remind you that I initiated. I have kept to that promise, so I would like an apology for the inference that I have breached that agreement. Further, the text is not my preferred text. It was proposed by another editor User:Pfainuk. My preferred text would be of much greater brevity, I chose a text written by another editor that covered the range of opinions in the literature. I object to the accusatorial tone of that comment and request that you apologise for it.
Again you refer to a claim that I have removed "atrocities", again please provide a reference to support the use of that emotive term or apologise and strike it out.
During mediation it was demonstrated that the text is not neutral as it does not provide due coverage of the range of opinions mentioned in the literature. It also omits significant facts as indicated by the range of coverage in the literature. It thus fails WP:NPOV.
It also emerged during mediation, that you do not have access to any sources at all. You rely on the use of google snippets to find fragments of text to support your edits. Your edits are not reliably sourced per WP:RS and WP:V. Pfainuk with access to multiple sources, has proposed an edit that represents the range of opinion in the literature. As such it is an improvement on text that fails to meet NPOV.
May I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". If you cannot elucidate an objection to my edit, other than "no concensus to change", can I ask you to self-revert to a version that meets the policy of WP:NPOV and engage in the discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Several editors have stated their objections for over a year (literally hundreds of times) to removing the rapings, desecrations and plunder during the capture (call them atrocities or whatever you want), and removing the exodus to San Roque. And you know this too well (you have been sanctioned several times during this discussion), so it's a bit surreal that you ask me whether I "cannot elucidate an objection" now.
I stated in the discussion four options in the mediation cabal discussion, which cover all posibilities of a specific detail we were discussion: Not mention A nor B, mention A not B, mention B not A, mention A and B. You have managed to discard all of them (which completely surprised me, I though this was an impossible outcome). I was completely despaired. I was hoping someone else would comment and help us out.
I am afraid you are pushing things quite a lot when you say I "do not have access to any sources at all". (at least, there are many books in my library and many books fully available -not only snippets- in google books...)
I pray someone helps us out, because I don't see how to go on with the discussion. Which, of course, does not mean that you (or I) are justified to remove anything you don't agree with without consensus after months of discussion. Let's engage in discussion and reach consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Imalbornoz. Is there anything that we haven't yet said in this discussion? I too am willing to try again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would ask you both to comment on the edit not the editor.
One thing at a time, just so I understand you, if I were to include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty, then you would have no objection to Pfainuk's edit. Could you please confirm that?
For the record Imalbornoz, by your own admission, you acknowledged during mediation that you didn't have access to any of the sources you were using. Your sole source of access was Google Snippets. May I remind you that precisely the same texts (Jackson, Hills et al) are used to support the current text. If you have many books, then I suggest you bring some supporting cites from them and perhaps share with us the same extended quotations you demand of others. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you give us your suggested text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So the position is, Imalbornoz is not willing to make any compromises to resolve this point and is instead going to insist that we give massively undue weight to one particular point, regardless of the weight it is given by the sources?

We need compromise from you here, Richard and Imalbornoz. If you want to reach a solution, we need to see how you're willing to do it. Don't keep asking us to come up with the suggestions: you know what the objections are, how do you intend to address them. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How many more examples do you want from me Richard? I have already produced many suggestions.
Can I also address a question to you, Richard. Which sources do you have access to and how do you personally decide on due relevance, given you previously admitted to having no domain knowledge of the subject? Do you feel this is the best approach to writing articles?
So again I ask a simple question taking one bite at a time - if I were to include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty, then you would have no objection to Pfainuk's edit. Could you please confirm that? This is a yes/no answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, can we have a suggested text. Past experience suggests that this is the only approach with any chance of getting anywhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I currently have multiple projects on the go. I'm unwilling to take the time to compose an edit where I have to guess as to what precisely your objection is, to which you will then object if I guess wrong. Then demand that I again propose an edit, still not knowing what your objection is.
So could you please address the questions put to you. i.e. what sources are you using Richard and would you object to Pfainuk's edit if I modified it along the lines suggested. Please not the first question has been asked twice now and the latter 3 times. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You want my objections to a hypothetical text? I don't think this will get us anywhere useful. Let's have your proposed version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No I wish you to address the two questions I put to you. Asked 3 and 4 times respectively now. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what I might say in response to a text I can't identify with ill-specified additions, and I don't propose to carry on this conversation any longer. Unless you can draft a proposed version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
What sources are you using Richard, its a pretty simple question - asked 4 times now.
Is your objection that I must include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty? Asked 5 times now.
I do not think it unreasonable that you identify your objections if you demand I must provide a new text for you to consider. How many times do I have to ask for you to actually delineate what your problem is, or identify where it comes from. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard: Curry Monster and I have both made proposals, and you have rejected them - but I for one am not at all clear as to why you in particular rejected them. Could you detail your objection to the texts proposed here - and in particular the text proposed here - please? Note that I would like more than vague references to previous discussions. This discussion has been so long that I would consider it unreasonable to expect any editor to trawl through the archives for objections made texts other than those being proposed.

Also, since we're all working toward a common consensus here, I believe that it would be useful for you to come up with proposals as to how you think we can most easily come to a consensus. The objections to the current wording that need to be addressed are described in some detail here, so there should be no problem in determining the issues that you need to consider. Your providing a text that attempts to address these objections would improve our situation by giving us all a greater understanding as to your view as to what the most appropriate text would be, potentially allowing for progress on our sticking points here.

If no reasoned objections to my proposed edit - as included by Curry Monster per WP:BOLD - are forthcoming, then I will reinstate it on the basis that no objection of substance appears to have been made against it. Simply saying that it needs to be discussed is inadequate unless you are actually willing to engage in discussion - discussion about the specific point. It is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia to revert solely on the basis that you claim no consensus. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, could we have this proposed edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous comment. Pfainuk talk 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You're planning to make an edit but not to discuss it here first? And you'd like my agreement in advance? I don't think this is appropriate. Is it time to ask our mediators for help? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I take it as understood, therefore, that you are thus unwilling to explain what your objection to the proposals referred to in my comment of 19:17 (including the one that triggered this discussion) - nor to raise any counterproposal that would attempt to address objections to the status quo. If this were the case, it would imply a total unwillingness to engage in the consensus-building process in good faith and could reasonably be described as disruptive editing. Pfainuk talk 08:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't prevent you from taking things in any sense you like. But I am not giving prior consent to an edit that you seem willing to make, but not to offer for preview. Nor do I feel inclined to reprise kilobytes, possibly by now megabytes, of discussion in an attempt to identify, then try to find some new comment on, whatever I am to guess your proposal may be. I will say that per WCM above if we were to "include a reference to the fact there were rapes, they ransacked the Catholic Churches and carted off a spot of booty" or some other less-inflammatory agreed text about the misbehaviour, that would probably go a long way towards consensus. As we all know, there is a national narrative that finds these facts embarrassing and would like them consigned to oblivion, and oblivion does not sit easily with NPOV. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you presume my comments were intended to be inflammatory then let me be the first to apologise, they were not intended to be so. But I do find the constant use of emotive language such as references to "atrocities" and the almost theatrical outrage at the events of 300+ years ago to be most inflammatory. Equally the constant accusations of suppressing facts, when we have constanly and consistently indicated a willingness to work on a compromise text to meet your concerns. If we could actually focus on content without the use of inflammatory language or accusations such as the above, which have been a persistent feature of discussions, then perhaps the discussion might not become so heated.
You are mistaken about national narratives Richard. I presume you are referring to Garratt and claiming that the British find these facts embarassing and, please, let us be frank about where you're finger pointing. Those comments may have had a ring of truth in the 1930s but they are not representative of modern British literature or even 18th Century accounts. The problem as I see it, is that you are relying on 3rd party comments, you haven't actually read the literature for yourself and you aren't contributing based on an informed opinion gained from research; by your own admisssion Richard have no domain knowledge of your own. Again the comments and inferred accusation are inflammatory and hardly conducive to a reasonable dicussion.
The elephant in the room is not that British nationalism wishes to suppress these events but that Spanish nationalism promotes them to advance its modern sovereignty claim. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". The article as currently written promotes the Spanish national narrative and it fails WP:NPOV by not addressing the range of opinions in the literature.
At the moment we are at a point, where you offer no counter proposal to what has been suggested to address concerns over the current content but demand that we propose another content suggestions after you have consistently vetoed each and every suggestion put forward. Do you feel this is reasonable Richard? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We might constructively approach this from at least two angles; we could try Vassyana's suggestions at the top of this page and start by listing the point made by RS, or we could try discussing a possible text. Either might end in a consensus text. Endless complaints about other editors are unlikely to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to complain about texts being inflammatory, may I suggest that you should also be objecting to Imalbornoz's consistent use of inflammatory language to describe this subject.
I pointed you to specific proposals in my comment of 19:17 last night, and asked you to detail your objections to them. You have refused. I asked you to detail your objections to the edit that provoked this discussion. You have refused. Neither would have been difficult to find, and I don't think it unreasonable to ask you to tell us why you object to an edit when you try to veto it. I asked you to make a proposal that would attempt to resolve the objections made to the status quo. Again, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, but you have refused to do that as well.
There is little point in either me or Curry Monster blundering about in the dark, offering text after text, if you will continue to reject every one without telling anyone what your objection is.
As I implied this morning, amongst the definitions of a disruptive editor is an editor who "[d]oes not engage in consensus building": who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" or "who repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits". It seems to me that this would pretty well describe your behaviour on this article, and as such I would ask you to cease disrupting this article. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard to imagine how we might proceed constructively. Trying to force in an edit that has been repeatedly rejected probably isn't a good approach. But we could, as Vassyana suggests, start by listing the points that the sources make. Or we could start at the other end, by suggesting a text, preferably one that takes into account suggestions and discussion already available at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18. An idea that begins to look quite attractive is for all four of us to take a year's break from Gibraltar and related articles, so that we can use out talents more constructively elsewhere. Thoughts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard do you have access to any sources? I keep asking the question and you avoid answering.
As we found at Mediation, it would appear Imalbornoz doesn't have access to sources. And as I found at WP:RSN google snippets is not considered a reliable way of sourcing edits.
Pfainuk has earnestly tried to address problems with the text, which didn't accurately reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. Whilst I consider the edit is overkill for an overview it is much better than the text that preceded it.
I will be taking a break for a while but when my current projects are finished I intend to bring this up to FA standard as I have been trying to do for the last 2 years. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_22&oldid=1136764539"