Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

George Hills

I see that Ecmaml is back removing the reference to Hills being a close friend of Franco - close enough to have writen his biography. Hills was also half Spanish, however his obituary seems to have vanished, so before describing his credentials we need a reference for that. --Gibnews (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a secondary source stating that a biographer of even a dictator is a close friend of him? The source you're looking for only states that he did a biography. Your personal interpretation is just that, an interpretation. —Ecemaml (talk)

For Hills obituary see [1], copied from the way back machine. Don't know if it supports the assertion he was a close friend of Franco but certainly he had priveliged access. Justin talk 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better know biographer of Franco than Hills? Curious why this was removed? Justin talk 20:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[Rethoric question]. Yes, Paul Preston. —Ecemaml (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But Hills is also well known is he not? So again the question is why was that comment removed? Justin talk 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, his work has not been influential in the Spanish (or Hispanist) literature on the field. Preston's Franco. A biography quotes him just four times. It does not seem to be a big influence. Possibly, according to Thomas book on the Spanish Civil War, the most interesting contribution by Hills is what Franco said about different issues, something useful in itself as the dictator was the main character of the biography (even if he lied). --Ecemaml (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about this. I only know Hills work for his biography of Franco, in which he appears to absolve Franco of responsibility for Guernica. In the English language, this being the English wikipedia, he is well known for his biography of Franco and frankly not generally known for his work on Gibraltar outside of the narrow field of Gibraltar history. It seems a relevant and appropriate comment, one sourced easily. Now knowing how you like to respect sources, I again ask why it was removed? Justin talk 11:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Franco considered him a friend and as such he got unique access, I expect his book is sympathetic. Haven't bothered to read it though. However on the subject of Gibraltar he is not neutral or a truely British source. He did maintain an interest vin the subject as I attended a FCO meeting at which he was a guest, he died shortly afterwards. --Gibnews (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Franco considered him a friend" Any source? Or just telepathy? —Ecemaml (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a website that said exactly that, however it seems that the material online on Hills has been removed. Maybe its in Area51. Are you disputing he was half Spanish and wrote an authorised biography of Franco? --Gibnews (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To sum up, you don't have any proof to say that Hills and Franco were friends or even that the biography was "authorized" (just the usual "I read it somewhere"). Just gratuitous defamation. Interesting. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) PS: being half-Spanish is a synonymous of being friend of a fascist dictator? Even more interesting.

I agree. Gibnews has been trying to tar Hills as a Francoist for years, using this apparently unsourced claim to deprecate Hills' history of Gibraltar. The fact is that Hills' book on Gibraltar, Rock of Contention, has a very high number of citations from other reliable sources - I've found over 180 books referencing it. Graham J. Shields describes it in Gibraltar (1987, p. 22) as "one of the best general surveys of the history and international status of Gibraltar." Philip Dennis says in Gibraltar and its people (1990, p. 65) that the book "gave further weight to the Spanish case. It was based on a detailed historical study going back to Moorish times, but the recent history placed the accent on the UN demand for decolonisation. It was a valuable work in that it put forward the Spanish case in a weigh that it had never been done in Britain. The book did not give much weight to the main British point that the Gibraltarians are a people with a right to self-determination." A book that is clearly well-regarded and widely cited is exactly the kind of source that we should be citing. There's no indication that Hills' alleged friendship with Franco is in any way a disqualifying factor. I note that Gibnews has never raised the subject of Hills on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets be clear, I am not saying Hills was unreliable what I am saying is that he does not represent the British position on Gibraltar, as some editors like to claim he does. He looks at things sympathetically to Spain and ignores the Gibraltarians. Most of the stuff about him on the net which refers to him as 'a friend of Franco' seems to have vanished. But he was certainly no friend of Gibraltar. I don't think defamation of the dead is actionable, and in any event telling the truth is a pretty good defence. --Gibnews (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Capture of Gibraltar

The correct name is Ha B sburg, not Hapsburg. Habsburg. I strongly support the use of original names, not some adapted form which suits some language. Original is original.

I have added some details about the capture that were accepted as sufficiently sourced in the Gibraltar talk page. There was agreement to include the details in this article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there was a suggestion this was the appropriate place to include such details, the text you added did not have consensus. The suggestion was to achieve a consensus before adding text and we also agreed not to introduce contentious material during mediation. I have respected that promise and I expect you to do the same. Justin talk 11:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already proposed a text which is sourced, and gives due coverage -not according to my criteria but the criteria of reputed historians. Please say what you would improve in that text. I guess we cannot be too far away, since most of the facts have already been agreed upon. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already made suggestions on Talk:Gibraltar. But then if you post in numerous threads you break up the narrative. Justin talk 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I thought that each article had its own talk page for some reason; also, some editors (e.g. Gibnews) proposed this talk page to talk about this specific article. That kind of makes sense. We can talk about the summary in the Gibraltar main article, if you agree. My proposed text was:

“ 1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of British and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, atrocities were perpetrated by the troops. Homes and institutions were sacked (among them, the looting of many temples and of the women and children who had taken refuge in the Chapel of Our Lady of Europe with their homes' most valuable goods); there were cases of raped village women; some Catholic temples were profanated; and all except one of the churches were desecrated and used as stores or for other military uses. The townspeople took reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen and throwing their corpses to wells and cesspits. When discipline was restored, and in spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, most villagers decided to go in exile. ”

I haven't been able to find your specific proposals for the History of Gibraltar main article. Could you please post them here? That way we can can discuss about the article in the right talk page, and it will be easier to know when someone is proposing something specifically for the History article or for the Gibraltar summary article. I think it will be better for everybody to not mix discussions (the criteria, as you've repeatedly stated, are different: one article accepts more details than the other). --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats probably because I was referring to Ecemaml's anti-British tirade. Per WP:PEACOCK, the language needs cleaning up. Atrocities is an emotive word, profanated isn't a word and would fall foul of peacock anyway. Desecrated is an emotive word as well, and simply using them for stores is not desecration. Tidy up the language and it should be fine to go in, I can have a go if you prefer. I only ask because you always seem to object any time I touch text you suggest. Justin talk 08:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by WP:PEACOCK. According to WP: "In Wikipedia articles, forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main", or "among the greatest" in their field, without explaining why. When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded." I don't know how this applies to words with a very specific meaning and used by most sources. Anyway, let's see what we can do.

• "Atrocities" is the word many sources (Jackson among them) use. It is a word with specific meaning in a military context, and it is sourced. I have found it is used in 1.010 articles in WP in combination with the word "siege" [2]. Anyway, we can change it with a more specific "generalised acts of unjustified violence on the civil population of Gibraltar." Or we can be even more specific: "rapings, sackings and desecrations" (that is very specific).
• "Profanated": You are right, it should be "profaned". The sources explicitly use that word and say that the mockery of religious objects was specially shocking (even more in those days, I suppose). The word is used in many articles in WP, and especially in one related to Gibraltar, see here "The church of St.Mary the Crowned was the only Catholic church or institution that was not profaned by the troops that took over the city in 1704." I don't know why we shouldn't use that word if it is used in other articles with that specific meaning.
• "Desecrated" has a very specific meaning (see Desecration): "Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character—or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual." That is exactly what happened to all churches except one. Soldiers came, looted the valuable goods of all churches except one, profaned the religious images (stabbed the images of Virgin Mary and the Child, broke the head of the Child and threw it to the rocks, ...) and then used the buildings for other purposes without any respect to their religious character. Maybe if you think that desecration is a very general term the solution (as WP:PEACOCK suggests) would be to be more specific and list the facts instead of using the word, but I think that could be even more emotional than just the word "desecration". What do you suggest?

Sincerely, I can understand that those terms are negative terms. But we are talking about rapings, sackings,... in the context of war. Of course those terms are negative. Anyway, you don't strike to me like a guy who is a strong supporter of unnecessary "polically correct" language (more like the opposite). So if we see that many sources use those terms and that the events fit specifically with their definitions... I don't know why we must use long roundabouts to say the same thing. Anyway, tell me what you think. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to use the same language as sources, the author will often use terms that reflect personal prejudices and we should always try to use neutral language. We don't therefore have to use words for emotive impact, which all the words you insist on using do. And no I'm not a supporter of politically correct language, equally I'm not a fan of sensationalising material. As far as desecration is concerned its enough to mention that churches were looted and religious artefacts smashed,w ith churches impressed for use as stores. Its more compact. Also rather than using atrocities, it is enough to say the troops were out of control and there were instances of rape and looting. Noticeably you should be able to produce a more compact text, with no need to use "long roundabouts" to say the same thing. By the way the expression you're seeking is "going round the houses". Justin talk 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll work on that and come back with a new proposal. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have eliminated what you interpreted as emotional words and used more factual terms. I don't think we should have any problem now:

“ 1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of English and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, offensive and violent acts were inflicted on the civil population of Gibraltar by the troops. Many homes were plundered (among them, the women and children who had taken refuge in the Chapel of Our Lady of Europe with their homes' most valuable goods); there were cases of raped village women; churches were also sacked, religious images were offended and destroyed, and all except one of the Catholic temples were deprived of their religious character and used as stores or for other military uses. The townspeople took reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen and throwing their corpses to wells and cesspits. When discipline was restored, and in spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, most villagers decided not to run the risk of staying and left in exile. ”

--Imalbornoz (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My attempt to tidy up.

1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of the senior officers to maintain order, the civil population of Gibraltar suffered at the hands of the troops. Homes were plundered, there were cases of rape, churches were ransacked, religious artefacts destroyed, and Catholic churches pressed into service for use as stores or for other military uses.[6][7] The townspeople took reprisals, killing Dutchmen and Englishmen and disposing of the bodies wells and cesspits.[8][9] Discipline was restored, but in spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, most villagers left in exile.[10]

Some of the detail has been trimmed, there are changes for grammar and English use and its generally more compact. Justin talk 11:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see if we agree on this version:

“ 1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of the senior officers to maintain order, the civil population of Gibraltar suffered at the hands of the troops. Homes were plundered, there were cases of rape, churches were ransacked, religious symbols offended and destroyed, and Catholic churches pressed into service for use as stores or for other military uses.[6][7] The townspeople took reprisals, killing Dutchmen and Englishmen and disposing of the bodies down wells and cesspits.[8][9] Discipline was restored, but in spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, almost all villagers decided not to run the risk of staying and left in exile.[10] ”

--Imalbornoz (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd attempt

“ 1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of the senior officers to maintain order, the civil population of Gibraltar suffered at the hands of the troops. Homes were plundered, there were cases of rape, churches were ransacked, religious symbols destroyed, and Catholic churches pressed into service for use as stores or for other military uses.[6][7] The townspeople took reprisals, killing Dutchmen and Englishmen and disposing of the bodies down wells and cesspits.[8][9] Discipline was restored, but in spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, almost all villagers decided not to run the risk of staying and left in exile.[10] ”

The use of offended is not correct English, I would suggest striking through the latter as it calls for speculation as to their motives. Justin talk 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Offended": Well, then tell me what do you call it when someone takes a religous symbol and treats it in an offensive way (so far, the only word I've found in the dictionary is "to profane"). Religious symbols were not only destroyed, but they were profaned. The sources say that this caused a great impression on the Spaniards. Please do not just eliminate it, offer an alternative.

"Risk": All relevant secondary sources mention that Spaniards left because they felt at risk. It's not speculation.

To be honest, I don't understand the objective of all this business of avoiding words and motives that are mentioned by sources and are used all over WP. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you calm down and actually consider for once that my proposal was an attempt to improve your text. Offended is a word that simply is not used in this context, destroyed is a perfectly adequate description of what happened - and its neutral. If it helps as it happens I'm Catholic and wonder if you assumed otherwise.

As to risk which part of "suggest" do you think is a demand? Please consider it in the spirit it was suggested and ask yourself whether its needed. As an aside I find the constant presumption of bad faith motives wearing and I'm very tired of it. Justin talk 09:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not assumed bad faith. If I feel there is bad faith, I will be blunt and say so.--Imalbornoz (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Then allow me to be blunt and say there appeared to be a certain presumption of bad faith in your comments. I made a suggestion not a demand, if you disagree say so. So again destroyed is a perfectly adequate description, the struck through comments are up for discussion. Justin talk 10:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In which case for now I'd be content for the text from my 2nd attempt to go in the article and we can discuss whether we later remove the bit I struck through as that appears to be the only issue. Justin talk 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, we can include this text and keep discussing, if you agree. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there is too much to discuss, personally I wouldn't include that phrase unless it was a secondary source reporting eye witness testimony. Otherwise you're repeating the speculation of the part of the original author. However, since many sources mention it, I'm not overly concerned. Justin talk 09:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

All right, I have included it. I have another concern: there are two paragraphs around the disputed beginning of the English control of Gibraltar. It looks like too much. Would someone be against summarizing it (keeping all relevant facts) and taking the details to another article? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts are that it would difficult to achieve since both sides would insist on facts favouring their side remaining. The English usage could do with some tidying, the grammar edits of some Spanish contributors have remained. Justin talk 09:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[3][4] It seems two editors don't feel the need to share their proposals to change the article unilaterally with anyone. Justin talk 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand anything. Come on, are you trying to say that we have acted in bad faith????????? I have first posted in the article talk page and then asked for more detail at the two paragraph's original editor's talk page. You can post or look in my talk page all that you want, Justin: it's public! Ecemaml's is also public! (like all other WP's talk pages...) Also, I won't complain if you post in other users' talk pages (as you have in many other instances, talking about articles and disputes). I am sure that this must have been a misunderstanding on your side. I even understand it, we are all very much involved in the several discussions going on. Accept my virtual handshake. No bad feelings! We're all just trying to improve these articles! (each one with a different POV, which is what makes WP something great!) :) --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion in one place, or it is fragmented and difficult to follow. Nor should you try and influence an opinion on the user talk page. If you wish to always assume a bad faith motive for any comment, thats your problem not mine. Justin talk 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine! I'm glad you were not implying anybody was acting in bad faith. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Regarding my previous post about the lengthy text about the "English flag incident", I propose to substitute it with the following text:

• 1704 4 August - The Governor Diego de Salinas surrendered the town to Prince George of Hesse, who took it in the name of Charles of Habsburg, as Charles III, King of Spain (therefore keeping it under Spanish sovereignity; a few minority Spanish and British sources, since the 18th century, have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the town in the name of Queen Anne ; this version is considered apocryphal by most modern Spanish and British historians, as it is not supported by any contemporary sources and does not fit with the political situation within the Alliance supporting the Habsburg ).

What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure at all, this being a specific article we can afford to be more verbose. The current version seems more balanced as it includes all the major viewpoints. I really don't understand this, on an overview article where brevity is the key you're proposing unsuitably large tracts of text but on a more detailed article where we can afford to be verbose you're proposing to trim it. Surely you can see that is inconsistent. Justin talk 14:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

English British English British

Whoever wrote this article can't tell British from English. The article keeps alternating between the two in every other paragraph, using British when it should be English and vice versa. It needs sorting out.--English Bobby (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch. It's not a proper encyclopedia article at all; it's merely a list of dates and facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it i think your right, though bare in mind that if you do any changes justin or gibnews will just try and change them back.--English Bobby (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Only when they are wrong. You need to read more about British history.--Gibnews (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't even know when the union was formed or the difference between English or British. Maybe you should read a history book!--English Bobby (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading British people. I think you put too much emphasis on the Act of Union. That simply formalised the political alliance. --Gibnews (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read British people and it supports what i'm saying. the term was rarly used before the act of union which did alot more than " Simply formalise the alliance". As user pfuk said before the English and Scottish parliments passed many laws just prior to the union which cemmented their independance from each other.

But since you say you know so much, tell me the names of the two countries that captured Gibraltar.--English Bobby (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Border

I produced a very reasonable edit, supported by sources that did not lay blame for the problems at the border. I presume there is a lack of comprehension, otherwise please explain your objections here. Justin talk 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported and POV edit on the closure of the fence

For many time, this article has included false information regarding how long the fence was closed from the Spanish side. As any history book clearly explains, the fence was closed on 1969 and reopened for pedestrian visitors on 1982. Fully opening of the fence was accomplished in 1987. Therefore, I removed such "information" (it's not the only false information that this article has included, this one has been in place for three years).

Surprisingly, the following text was added on the grounds that "there were still restrictions till 2006 and there are still problems crossing today":

“ Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006, although there are still ocassionally issues related to the crossing. ”

As it was added immediately after the paragraph reading "1982 15 December (..) Upon the change in the Spanish government, with the Socialist Party in power, the border was partially re-opened (only pedestrians, resident in Gibraltar or Spanish nationals were allowed to cross the border by Spain; only one crossing each way per day was allowed)" it obviously suggests that a) Spain kept on implementing restrictions in the fence until 2006 related to the sovereignty claim; b) there are issues related to crossing that are also related to the sovereignty claim.

I asked for sources for such a weird statements and the following were included (with a curious comment: "extensive quote delineating issues up to 2006"):

• To the "Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006" a piece of news on the Cordoba Agreements (here) by an involved party (see, again, wikipedia policies on reliable secondary sources):

“ On 18 September 2006, the first Trilateral Ministerial meeting was held at the Palacio de Viana in Cordoba (..) At the meeting, a landmark agreement was reached on a range of issues. These included: (..) the improvement of pedestrian and traffic flows at the border crossing between Gibraltar and Spain ”

It meant, obviously, that the crossing between Gibraltar and Spain has been improved. What does it mean? Well, I don't know, but WP:NPOV is pretty clear with regard to "deductions" by editors: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Furthermore, if we go to the very source and read the Cordoba Agreements, it clearly states:

“ More fluid movement of people, vehicles and goods between Gibraltar and the surrounding area will improve the day to day lives of people in Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar. The Spanish Government, through the Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, is already investing close to one and a half million euros in substantial improvement works to its facilities and those of the Guardia Civil. The works will be completed this year, at which time the access will operate on a two lane basis in both directions and the red/green channels system, for both people and for vehicles, will be introduced. The Gibraltar Government has also invested substantial sums of money on the enhancement of its facilities. ”

It seems a simple lack of investment (by the governments of Spain and Gibraltar) not supporting at all the statement.

• To the "there are still problems crossing today" statement, three sources are provided: Gibraltar Crossing the Border, Traffic mayhem at La Linea-Gibraltar border crossing and Border Crossings, Gibraltar. The first two references describes traffic jams to access Gibraltar (the second including also what seem to be a stupid way to fix it). The third one describes that, as long as the access route to Gibraltar crosses the airport strip, they had to wait for a private jet to cross. All of this seems really interesting (possibly for wikitravel) but has no space on an article related to the History of Gibraltar. Even if so, it links two different issues in a way that unfairly suggests they are related.

To sum up, a source that not support the first statement and a second statement that is not related to international affairs but to lack of infrastructures and traffic jams. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct term here is not 'the fence' but the frontier. The former has been introduced in statements of the trilateral process to pander to delusions that it is not an international frontier.

Regrettably movement of people and goods through the frontier remains something which is used as an economic weapon against Gibraltar. Changes at the airport may improve the flow on the Gibraltar side, however large queues still occur, mainly due to work practices on the spanish side, although there allegations its on orders from Madrid. --Gibnews (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Regrettably movement of people and goods through the frontier remains something which is used as an economic weapon against Gibraltar". Can you source it from a third-party source? Is it relevant in the History of Gibraltar?

What Gibnews states is correct, however, I carefully crafted an edit that blamed no-one for the problems at the border, sourced it with a quote that both Governments were trying to rectify the problems and illustrated with sources that described the main issues with the crossing. The only person making a derogatory and POV link is yourself, when you ascribe bad faith intentions to other editors you expose your own pre-conceived notions.

I also notice you have ignored my good faith attempt to gain a consensus and to find out your issues with my edit, instead choosing to post what I can only describe as an ill-tempered diatribe completely unrelated to the edit proposed.

I also note that you added a source in bibliography this morning, which did not appear to have been used in the article and so I politely removed it with an appropriate edit summary. You reverted immediately with an ascerbic comment but again did not justify its inclusion.

You have also inserted erroneous information, changing the date of the start of the second world war.

I honestly cannot see a rational pattern in the behaviour here, it would appear to be tendentious and disruptive. I told you yesterday that I am not prepared to fight with you anymore but equally I will repair such damage to the article.

I've carefully, politely and conscientiously sought to provide an informative edit summary. I have avoided responding to your barbed comments. And I have sought a third party intervention to avoid raising tension unnecessarily.

Now having explained that the edit is nothing like what you assumed, I hope that you will self-revert and restore it. Justin talk 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Justin, but you haven't explained anything. The sources you provide does not talk about "restrictions". It's purely a deduction by yourself, and therefore, it must be removed. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC) PS: are the queues in the access to London everyday a "restriction"?

Why yes they are actually. Please assume good faith. Justin talk 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether its productive to start another discussion on Spanish restrictions on Gibraltar. As a result of the recent Cordoba agreement many of the more recent and ludicrous ones, like telephones, aircraft movements and not allowing vessels that called into Gibraltar to proceed to Spain were removed. To deny that they existed would be rather like Holocaust revisionism. There were seven hour delays to cross the frontier due to 'Spanish practises' and there is spain's illegal objection to Gibraltar joining UEFA. But if anyone really wants to know about restrictions there are plenty of published accounts of the exceedingly petty way Spain persecutes Gibraltarians, apart from cutting off oxygen supplies to the hospital to kill innocent patients, or more recently delaying the entry of a crane to rescue the crew of the 'MV Fedra' at the frontier. --Gibnews (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not productive. You're right. I've asked for references that state that there were restrictions. You've provided something that don't say that. You've also talked about "there are plenty of published accounts of the exceedingly petty way Spain persecutes Gibraltarians". However, I haven't seen any one. Yes, I won't argue any more. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fake" Quote

[5] The in the kingdom of Spain is frequently dropped, in fact the shortened form appears to be in more common use see [6]. The accusations of "faking" are clearly incorrect, yet more evidence of a bad faith presumption. Justin talk 09:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your links are irrelevant for this issue. There was a statement supported by a source. The statement is changed but with the same source. That's a fake and moreover, a vandalism. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Links are irrelevant? You haven't checked them have you. If you had, you'd find both are used, though the previous text is more prevalent in the literature. Justin talk 23:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The English flag incident

Right now we have a few paragraphs explaining the two different versions of Rooke's hoisting the flag in Gibraltar after the capture (one version says that he took Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne and the other says that -no matter what he did with the flag- he took it in the name of Charles of Habsburg) and concluding that the most commonly accepted version amongst modern historians is that Rooke captured the town in the name of Charles of Habsburg. I think that the current text is too long (even for a History of Gibraltar specific article) and gets a bit in the way of the chronological description of events. I have discussed the text with Justin (you can see his opinion above) and Ecememl (in my talk page), and I think that the following text captures the essence of that historiological dispute:

• 1704 4 August - The Governor Diego de Salinas surrendered the town to Prince George of Hesse, who took it in the name of Charles of Habsburg, as Charles III, King of Spain (therefore keeping it under Spanish sovereignity; a few minority Spanish and British sources, since the 18th century, have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the town in the name of Queen Anne ; this version is considered apocryphal by most modern Spanish and British historians, as it is not supported by any contemporary sources and does not fit with the political situation within the Alliance supporting the Habsburg ).

What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous answer, I don't see the need. The current version explains all of the major viewpoints. Justin talk 16:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the consistency here, on one hand we have one article which is too long and is an overview article, you're screaming that we must add more, then here where we have the ability to go into more detail you're trying to expunge details. I really don't understand this. Justin talk 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

About consistency: I think we all agree that there is a right measure for each thing. I also think we all agree that more important issues should in general be allowed more coverage and less important things less coverage (in general). I think the events around the townspeople during the capture had too little coverage (in fact, they had none) in the Gibraltar main article, especially if you compared them to other issues in the same article with less relevance. This History of Gibraltar article gives much more coverage (about 4 paragraphs) to a dispute that has -IMHO- much less importance than other issues with less coverage (and the dispute has a side supported by an overwhelming majority of current day historians). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no "main" article, the other article is an overview, this is the main article on the History of Gibraltar. Secondly we cover all opinions in the mainsteam not to just the ones you happen to like. Otherwise that would be suppressing information would it not? And I know how much you dislike suppressing information. Just to be "consistent". Justin talk 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also guilty of calling Gibraltar the "main" article. My reason for doing this is because this article really is a spin-off of sorts, if this article were only a couple of paragraphs in length and the Gibraltar article were shorter this information would probably be over there instead of at its own article. Maybe both Imalbornoz and myself are incorrect with that terminology, but at least you know what we mean. :) Anyway, I think that Imalbornoz is arguing WP:DUE which says that minority viewpoints should be given minority coverage (and if the viewpoint is in a very small minority it shouldn't be included at all). I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but I'm pointing out that his argument doesn't look like one of censorship, but rather a request to comply what our neutral POV policy. The difficult thing is establishing how much weight to attribute to each viewpoint and I personally don't have the knowledge to give an opinion on that. -- Atama頭 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article currently covers all of the significant viewpoints and explains the controversy over each rather well, so as such conforms to NPOV. Imalbornoz seeks to only portray the majority viewpoint and nothing else. That wouldn't satisfy NPOV, or WP:DUE. Thats why I really don't understand the reason for the proposal. Justin talk 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to only portray the majority viewpoint. I only want to summarise the current four paragraphs, still saying what they currently say (as far as I know) and not changing a bit of its sense: "the flag incident has been used by some Spanish and English sources (sometimes for Spanish propaganda in order to show how "treacherous" the English were, or for English propaganda in order to prove that the town has always been English since 1704), but no modern historian supports it (because it's not supported by any contemporary sources and because it wouldn't have fit with the situation inside the Habsburg Alliance)". That is what the current four paragraphs say, in a nutshell. I only want to say the same thing in a shorter text. IMHO, I don't think that neutrality applies here. Only the goal to make the text more readable (that's my goal) vs. a possible mistake on my part if my proposed summary has not been a good one (maybe that's what you mean). In that case, please tell me where my summary has failed (nobody's perfect) and I will try to come up with a better one.

Regarding due coverage: maybe we could conclude that modern day historians supporting that Rooke took Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne are such a tiny minority that we could even avoid mentioning them (as per due: "Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.") That's not what I am proposing, but we can talk about it.

Regarding sources: in case I am (and the current four paragraphs are) wrong, can you list which modern historians support that Rooke hoisted the flag in order to take Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne? If you want, I will make a list of modern historians who don't. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, you "don't intend to portray only the majority viewpoint" but then go on to justify why you should only mention the majority viewpoint. Again to satisfy WP:DUE we cover all the major viewpoints. Senseless hyperbole is not helpful and this in no way relates to the flat earth analogy, nor is ranging "sources" against each other. I will discuss this when you don't seek to turn everything into a WP:BATTLE. Justin talk 09:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, I have a couple of questions. I would thank you very much if you could answer them so that I can better understand you position:

1) It seems to me that you (implicitly) admit, then, that Rooke did not hoist the flag in order to take the city in the name of Queen Anne. Am I wrong?

2) In what sense is my proposed paragraph not mentioning any minority POV?

• 1704 4 August - The Governor Diego de Salinas surrendered the town to Prince George of Hesse, who took it in the name of Charles of Habsburg, as Charles III, King of Spain (therefore keeping it under Spanish sovereignity; a few minority Spanish and British sources, since the 18th century, have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the town in the name of Queen Anne ; this version is considered apocryphal by most modern Spanish and British historians, as it is not supported by any contemporary sources and does not fit with the political situation within the Alliance supporting the Habsburg ).

Thank you very much, Justin, for taking the effort to read and answer my posts (and please, let's keep the discussion without any accusations -even accusations of anyone seeking to turn the discussion into a WP:BATTLE). --User:Imalbornoz (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not talking any position on the matter, I am suggesting that all of the significant views are mentioned. My personal position is immaterial to the article. 2) My position is not one based on POV, my position is the desire to maintain all significant views in the article.

Please respect that position, one that has already been explained at length. If you ask the same question yet again, I'm no longer going to repeat myself. Justin talk 20:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. So you implicitly oppose the proposed text because you think that not all significant views are mentioned (otherwise, I understand you would support it).

I honestly believe that all significant views are mentioned. My reasons for saying so is that there are currently two views: a) Rooke did not take Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne; b) Rooke did take Gib in the name of Queen Anne, and both are explained in the text (even though the later is explained as a minority version "a few minority Spanish and British sources, since the 18th century, have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the town in the name of Queen Anne"). I suppose you respect my position.

I respect your position myself "my position is the desire to maintain all significant views in the article". But it seems I am not able to understand why you think that some view is not mentioned in the proposed text, so it would be very constructive if you could explain it. I have already explained my reasons to say why I think all views are mentioned. On your part: Which significant views -do you think- are not mentioned? Why?

Thanks for answering and helping to gain consensus.--Imalbornoz (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin? Would it be possible that you answered those two questions: "Which significant views -do you think- are not mentioned? Why?" Thank you very much: it is very important to exchange arguments if we are going to solve a summary which you seem to dispute. Or maybe I didn't explain the edition properly before and now you think it is reasonable, in which case I apologise for bugging you with my questions...--Imalbornoz (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin? Thank you for reverting after a silence of... 6 days!!! You guys have a wonderful approach to edit here!! Collaboration is fantastic around here: non-confrontational, always good faith assumptions all around, no need to explain everything time and again, no pre-emptive reversals... No wonder the Gibraltar articles are so incredibly good and balanced!!! Oh, and the discussions are always so short and to the point!! It's just a delight to edit here!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply, I'm no longer in the business of repeatedly explaining myself. A silence of 6 days after you repeated the same question again. Note at no point did I agree with your proposal and explained why - you didn't listen, simply repeating the same question again. Justin talk 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish restrictions

I note ecemaml wants to introduce a POV tag without any supporting discussion, presumably disputing that there remained restrictions from Spain after the opening of the frontier. Since the Cordoba agreement, some of the worst restrictions imposed by Spain on the British overseas territory of Gibraltar and its people have been removed. No longer are our telephones messed around with, or air safety compromised and passengers inconvenienced. No longer are ships which have visited Gibraltar barred from sailing to Spanish ports, and for the present Gibraltarian motorists are not stopped in Spain and fined for having a Gibraltar driving licence. Queues at the frontier still happen for various reasons. But to deny that these things happened is revisionism and unless the above editor has the cheek to attempt to claim that these things never happened, slipping in a POV tag is little more than vandalism. If he does, then the search for references to justify all these evils perpetrated on the people of Gibraltar can be included. Spain still 'throws a wobbly' at Gibraltar entering UEFA or for that matter, the ISSF where despite the latter being an 'individual' sport in which some Gibaltarians are able to compete at a world level. Some restrictions have gone, not all. --Gibnews (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid the emotive language? The point you make, the one that appeals to reason, is a good one. What is Ecemaml trying to tag as POV, it is the wrong tag for a section, by the by, as it is the article tag. Could we have reasons, laid out in a nice concise and clear way and can people then respond in a calm tone to those points if they are forthcoming? All this yelling really isn't cricket. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag is somewhat ironic as the text doesn't actually refer to any bureaucratic restrictions but to the continued problems due to the sheer weight of traffic and the efforts of the Spanish and British Governments to resolve the matter. I avoided any references to the more petty bureaucratic restrictions deliberately to avoid POV accusations. Anyway we don't play namby pamby Southern nancy games in Scotland Narson ;-). Regards, Justin talk 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To dip my toe in nationalism (And I am as Scottish as I am English), remind me what number you were seeded at for the world cup? Oh? You weren't seeded? Oh. Then what group are you in? None of them? Deary deary me. And I do agree Justin, I can't see anything POV in the bit tagged, which is why I think he might mean something else. Either way, best to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I've talked with Ecemaml and asked him to discuss his reasons for placing the POV tag. I did tell him that the tag shouldn't be used unless accompanied by discussion. Gibnews, I'll give you the same warning I gave Justin at another location, do not label good faith edits by other editors as vandalism. Wikipedia has a particular definition of vandalism and calling someone a vandal in a content dispute can itself be considered disruptive; at best uncivil, at worst a personal attack. You know as well as I do that he sincerely thinks that he's trying to improve the article, he's not replacing content with "England sucks" or anything close to that. -- Atama頭 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, the surprising thing here is that the rationale behind my statement is a section above (#Unsupported_and_POV_edit_on_the_closure_of_the_fence) in which Gibnews has taken part. Pretending that there is no reason for my edition is rather weird (I wonder why the discussion does not goes on in that section). Anyway, I'll cut and paste from there:

For many time, this article has included false information regarding how long the fence was closed from the Spanish side. As any history book clearly explains, the fence was closed on 1969 and reopened for pedestrian visitors on 1982. Fully opening of the fence was accomplished in 1987. Therefore, I removed such "information" (it's not the only false information that this article has included, this one has been in place for three years).

Surprisingly, the following text was added on the grounds that "there were still restrictions till 2006 and there are still problems crossing today":

“ Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006, although there are still ocassionally issues related to the crossing. ”

As it was added immediately after the paragraph reading "1982 15 December (..) Upon the change in the Spanish government, with the Socialist Party in power, the border was partially re-opened (only pedestrians, resident in Gibraltar or Spanish nationals were allowed to cross the border by Spain; only one crossing each way per day was allowed)" it obviously suggests that a) Spain kept on implementing restrictions in the fence until 2006 related to the sovereignty claim; b) there are issues related to crossing that are also related to the sovereignty claim.

I asked for sources for such a weird statements and the following were included (with a curious comment: "extensive quote delineating issues up to 2006"):

• To the "Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006" a piece of news on the Cordoba Agreements (here) by an involved party (see, again, wikipedia policies on reliable secondary sources):

“ On 18 September 2006, the first Trilateral Ministerial meeting was held at the Palacio de Viana in Cordoba (..) At the meeting, a landmark agreement was reached on a range of issues. These included: (..) the improvement of pedestrian and traffic flows at the border crossing between Gibraltar and Spain ”

It meant, obviously, that the crossing between Gibraltar and Spain has been improved. What does it mean? Well, I don't know, but WP:NPOV is pretty clear with regard to "deductions" by editors: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Furthermore, if we go to the very source and read the Cordoba Agreements, it clearly states:

“ More fluid movement of people, vehicles and goods between Gibraltar and the surrounding area will improve the day to day lives of people in Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar. The Spanish Government, through the Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, is already investing close to one and a half million euros in substantial improvement works to its facilities and those of the Guardia Civil. The works will be completed this year, at which time the access will operate on a two lane basis in both directions and the red/green channels system, for both people and for vehicles, will be introduced. The Gibraltar Government has also invested substantial sums of money on the enhancement of its facilities. ”

It seems a simple lack of investment (by the governments of Spain and Gibraltar) not supporting at all the statement.

• To the "there are still problems crossing today" statement, three sources are provided: Gibraltar Crossing the Border, Traffic mayhem at La Linea-Gibraltar border crossing and Border Crossings, Gibraltar. The first two references describes traffic jams to access Gibraltar (the second including also what seem to be a stupid way to fix it). The third one describes that, as long as the access route to Gibraltar crosses the airport strip, they had to wait for a private jet to cross. All of this seems really interesting (possibly for wikitravel) but has no space on an article related to the History of Gibraltar. Even if so, it links two different issues in a way that unfairly suggests they are related.

To sum up, a source that not support the first statement and a second statement that is not related to international affairs but to lack of infrastructures and traffic jams. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) PS: interestingly here WP:BRD does not apply here, as the POV edition was introduced by Justin.

The text doesn't actually refer to any bureaucratic restrictions but to the continued problems due to the sheer weight of traffic and the efforts of the Spanish and British Governments to resolve the matter. I add emphasis contrary to WP:TPG purely because the explanation is being ignored. The sources do support that, now this has been explained to you numerous times now, so I am only left with the conclusion that this isn't a language confusion but a bad faith presumption. How traffic problems at the border are a POV issue is beyond my comprehension. Justin talk 22:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, possibly my English is poor So here I go again. If you openly acknowledge that "The text doesn't actually refer to any bureaucratic restrictions but to the continued problems due to the sheer weight of traffic and the efforts of the Spanish and British Governments to resolve the matter" (that's not true since what you're quoting relates to the Gibraltarian and not the British government), why is such information in the same paragraph that talks about "restrictions" (and especifically about the closure of the fence)? On the other hand, and I think I've explained clearly: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". Which reliable secondary source (but you, and you're not a reliable source) states that the improvement in communications agreed on the Cordoba agreements ended "restrictions" ("A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth")? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC) PD: "How traffic problems at the border are a POV issue is beyond my comprehension?" I've also explained, but I'll do it again. Well, better the appropriate policy: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized"

The issue of the frontier is a complicated one. For a start, its only recently that the Spanish want to label it a fence. At the stage where it opened for limited pedestrian access the Spanish referred to it as a frontier officially, and that has been and remains the word in use in Gibraltar. Fences do not usually have customs officers and immigration people on both sides and require the production of travel documents to transit.

The limited access was one movement a day only for Gibraltarians and Spanish nationals only, UK Brits, Irish nationals etc living either side were excluded. It was people only, no shopping etc.

In relation to restrictions there are plenty of references to that in the press, however unless the Spanish Government publish its records, the instructions to the GC to 'go slow' are not available, nevertheless, on occasion they do exactly that and adding a few minutes to each vehicle entering or leaving Gibraltar quickly causes a tailback. In practice although traffic does stop at the runway for aircraft, it is the bottleneck of crossing the frontier which has always been the problem.

At one stage the GoG erected signs in a number of languages urging people to write to the MEP about the queues, and placed Webcams at the frontier so that people on the Internet could see exactly what was going on. That is over, however, the restrictions are not dead. Spain continues to 'have an attitude' about Gibraltar joining international organisations, like UEFA, the International Olympic organisation, the ISSF etc. Although the restrictions on telephones are now of a historical nature, they were real. The GoG is spending 50m on a new airport and another 40m on a road infrastructure to bypass the runway crossing - so far Spain seems reluctant to invest in a second green channel and the GC still stop cars going through the present one excessively when the mood or instructions tell them to.

I will refrain from labelling good faith edits by other editors as vandalism, however in this case the POV tag was being used in a disruptive manner. --Gibnews (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am honestly utterly bewildered as to what exactly your objection is? Does anyone actually understand what the point is here? Is it just me? Justin talk 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that odd to me. The text clearly states that there were, and still are, bureaucratic restrictions on the flow of traffic (one crossing each way per day), rather than standard traffic problems that can happen any place where there is a heavy volume. Ecemaml says there is no source to back that up, and Gib's explanation is that since the Spanish Government won't publish it's records that it can't be verified. Wikipedia is based on verification, not truth, so unless there are sources to back that up it shouldn't be stated in the article. If there are sources, they should be added. -- Atama頭 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But its not Gibnews' edit, its mine and I was careful to avoid the allegations of tit for tat to focus on what was verifiable. The edit talks about restrictions at the border due to the sheer weight of traffic, nothing else. Gibnews and Ecemaml's argument has no relation to the edit. Thats why I'm bewildered. Justin talk 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to get official Spanish sources that say they restrict movement at the frontier to harass Gibraltarians, however there are plenty of media reports that say that. --Gibnews (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain it again, just for the sake of completeness. First of all, I have to highlight (it's obvious, but not worthless to mention) that this is the article on History of Gibraltar. That is, it must include the relevant events in the history of Gibraltar and its inhabitants. This is not the article on Transport in Gibraltar or Disputed status of Gibraltar.

The paragraph describes the end of the closure of the fence (it was its initial content, although there was a mistake with the length of the time it was closed). The closure of the fence, the termination of the Algeciras-Gibraltar ferry, the refusal to recognize the Gibraltar international phone code or the ban to RAF flights over Spanish soil were some of the measures that were imposed by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in 1969 (they weren't fair at all, but the fact is that the dictator didn't treat his own citizens much better). Some of them were in place for long after the death of the dictator. Such measures are usual and commonly named, especially by Gibraltarian media, the "Spanish restrictions". You can see some samples here or here. A better sample is here (this one explicitly referred to 1982). The term "restriction" has a non neutral but, more important, a specific usage in the area of the "Question of Gibraltar" and explicitly referred to the political measures adopted against Gibraltar to twist their hand and make them accept the Spanish sovereignty.

Next, Justin introduces the following text: "Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006, although there are still ocassionally issues related to the crossing". The phrasing is biased. And it's so because of the election of the word "restrictions". In this context, restrictions may only refer to the measures taken by Spain to halt (or hinder) communications. First of all, that's not the case. Secondly, the texts in the Cordoba Agreements only talks about how Spain (and Gibraltar) will enhance the access infrastructure (nobody relations that to "restrictions", as it is the case with the telecommunications issue, where Spain finally recognized the international phone code). So, at the end, if we choose a neutral wording, the sentence should say (according to what the sources say "In 2006, the infrastructures in the land border were enhanced to make more fluid the access, although there are still ocassionally issues related to the crossing". If neutrally (and factually) worded, one begins to wonder "why the hell is this text here?". "Isn't this text supposed to talk about the history of Gibraltar?" (the mentions to the Cordoba Agreements are in the 2006 section). Moreover if you begin to describe how bad is the access to Gibraltar and what a pity is to cross the airstrip (again, "wasn't this article devoted to the history of Gibraltar?").

By the careful election of the word "restrictions" (the only way to link the first sentence of the paragraph to the sencence "Restrictions on the land border continued until 2006, although there are still ocassionally issues related to the crossing"; otherwise there is no relationship, at least not for this article, maybe yes for Transport in Gibraltar), the text suggests that Spain has been deliverately (and for political reasons) holding up the land communication with Gibraltar for 20 additional years (1985-2006). And that's something that, as I've explained, it's not true (or at least, is not supported by any evidence). Therefore, the whole paragraph becomes not neutral as it deliverately tries to mislead the reader.

And finally, and with regard to policies. I'm still wondering why WP:BRD only works in one way. When Justin introduces dubious statements, no problem, the text remains. When it's on the way around, the text must disappear. Double standard, I'm afraid. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, Atama, I don't know where your statement ("one crossing each way per day") comes from. (where did you read it?). The frontier between Spain and Gibraltar is a EU border and therefore there is absolute freedom of movement. Please, read page 60-61 or 68 in this book. It refers to the full opening of the land frontier in 1985.

I see weasel words trying to shift the blame for restrictions on Franco and implying they are historical. No so, until such time as Spain treats Gibraltar in the same way as any other EU territory it is exercising restrictions. In relation to the opening of the frontier in 1982 I did not read the 'one crossing a day' in google books, I crossed. If one happened to come back one night after 12, that counted as a movement for the next day and the Spanish would not let you re-enter Gibraltar until after midnight the subsequent day. They stamped passports with a date to enforce it. AND the word on the stamp was FRONTERAS did that mean fence in Spanish? . --Gibnews (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, the mention to one crossing a day is in the text. I forgot it since since I was talking about events after 1985. Such restrictions ended when Spain joined the EU (possibly before). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR I explained myself long ago, thought it was resolved and then you brought it up again. It isn't a double standard, I took it straight to the talk page to ask what the problem was (which you ignored to indulge in a rant), listened to your usual rant that everything was anti-Spanish POV, explained that I'd carefully crafted the text to offend no-one, after there was no further objection I put it back in the article. Then it was raised again much later with reams of tendentious arguments. Clearly I followed BRD, you never do. Now if you and Gibnews want to argue, count me out. But it has nothing to do with my edit, though I dare say if I put my mind to it I can find plenty to sustain an edit that the Spanish Government has imposed many petty restrictions on the Gibraltar border; it is a BORDER not a FENCE. But for now I've avoided doing so. Now if this is simply your usual attempt to raise tensions by pointing fingers, I'm not biting. If it offends you so much start another RFC or perhaps run off to AN/I and tell everyone those naughty boys on Gibraltar are being mean again. Justin talk 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. However, you have forgotten to ask to my arguments (I find your statement "I can find plenty to sustain an edit that the Spanish Government has imposed many petty restrictions on the Gibraltar border" pointless, since the paragraph does not talk about it, so, what's the point?). On the other hand, you know that the Spanish government does not recognize that the isthmus is British and therefore, although there is a border, in its oppinion (that I share in this specific issue; I don't share most of the remaining), it's not where the actual fence is. That's the reason why, for example, the Cordoba Agreement talks about "fence/border". Unfortunately, you seem not to have read WP:NPOV: "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth". I understand that you think that it's a BORDER. However, your failure to understand that there are other POVs and your insistence in presenting your POV as it were the truth is troublemaker.

To sum up, as I've carefully explained above, you've done cherry-picking and used weasel words (thank you, Gibnews) to link events that otherwise wouldn't have any relation. That's IMHO POV edition. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Have I? Then run along and report me being a "troublemaker" to the NPOV noticeboard, I don't believe you've shopped at that particular forum yet. Justin talk 22:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Justin, it seems that you want to escalate the conflict. Neither do I. Any answer to my arguments? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't but then I'm not the one persisting with the bad faith accusation after already being provided with a reasonable explanation. I didn't call you a "troublemaker". And they're not arguments, they're a series of accusations built upon a bad faith presumption. So I'm not going to be drawn into a slanging match with you and if you really feel this is a POV issue, the NPOV noticeboard is the place to raise it. Thats my last word. Justin talk 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cordoba agreement actually refers to a fence/frontier claiming there not is a border is rather hard. --Gibnews (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

First "Spanish Siege"

Currently, the article calls the twelfth siege the "First Spanish Siege." Actually, it was not a siege by Spain versus a non Spanish side, but a siege by one French-Spanish alliance in a Spanish civil war (supporting one Borbon "King of Spain") versus a Anglo-Dutch-German-Spanish alliance (supporting a Habsburg "King of Spain"). Gibraltar at that moment (1704) was still under Spanish sovereignity (that did change, but at a later moment: in 1713), so it would seem a bit weird to call it a "Spanish" siege if the other side was also "Spanish".

I think it would be more appropriate to call it the "Twelfth Siege" or the "First Borbon Siege". The previous (successful) siege was carried out by the opposite side in the same Spanish civil war, supporting a "Habsburg King of Spain". Probably, the first "purely" Spanish Siege was the "Great Siege" 80 years later (with a properly "Spanish" side versus a non-Spanish "British" side). I swear there is no "hidden Spanish nationalist motives" behind this paragraph (although I will admit that am a bit annoyingly square-minded - I don't think it would support any nationalist side to call any siege the first or the second, and much less in WP). What do other editors think? Do you think that one side in this war was more Spanish than the other? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Logic tells me that if the besiegers were Spanish then its a Spanish siege irrespective of whoever is on the receiving end. But really what matters is what the history books term it rather than what we might think. --Gibnews (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not very important (not more than a mere typo), but:

• I don't mean to annoy you, but to be correct you should say that the besiegers were Spanish and French: according to your criterium, shouldn't it be called "The French-Spanish Siege"?
• If there were Spanish among the defenders (Catalans, for example) as well as among the attackers (something that should not be surprising in a Spanish civil war such as this one), isn't it like saying about a battle of the war of the Roses that the British attacked or the British won or the British lost? (isn't it kind of MontyPython-like?)
• Should the other sieges be called "First Muslim Siege", "First through nth Castilian Sieges" (which were Spanish as well, mind you), "First Habsburg or Anglo-Dutch or Anglo-Dutch-German-Spanish Siege", ...?
• Should all sieges be called by their ordinal (like all other sieges until there were British soldiers inside of Gibraltar) or should we apply your criterium and call them "First thru' nth Muslim" etcetera?
• Shouldn't we try to avoid implying that there is some kind of fixation on "Spain" and apply homogeneous criteria, given that not even one the previous sieges follows the same type of denomination?

I think that unless someone comes with a better option, we should apply the most consistent and simplest option: apply ordinals to all sieges. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not how the English language text books refer to it and this is the English language wikipedia. Justin talk 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case that most academic books call it "the first Spanish siege", then I don't have anything to argue. Would you mind contributing some evidence to prove that it is so? In that case, this discussion won't last for long (and I will be very grateful). --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[7] Can I expect an apology for the insinuation in your question? Justin talk 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will admit that there is one author. Furthermore, I have found one other author talking about the "First Spanish Siege" in 1724[8], but that's all (a third one mentions it, but talking about 1309, unsurprisingly).

On the other hand, 84 books talk about the "Twelfth Siege"[9] (among them: Jackson, Sayer, Mann, Levie, ...). I suppose you will agree that "The First Spanish Siege" is quite an unusual term in "English language text books" related with Gibraltar (maybe because of the reasons I have explained above, maybe for a different set of reasons, I don't know, but those are the facts). I will politely wait for another argument to keep that term. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) PS: Apology? For what insinuation? Please don't feel attacked all the time. We are all trying to make the Gibraltar article more accurate.

BS, you were insinuating I was lying and I'm fed up with it. No. Justin talk 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not insinuating anything (I usually say things openly), come on, I was just asking. . On the other hand, after checking googlebooks I am openly saying that your term is supported by two books versus eighty-two other books that don't. You will admit that "The First Spanish Siege" is a very unusual expression in English language text books about Gibraltar, won't you?. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you were, you are always making snide remarks just like that. You'd get so much further if you didn't. Justin talk 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't assume that you can look into anybody's head. Furthermore, please take a deep breath and think whether you are making too many bad faith assumptions. Regarding the important issue, I suppose you agree that only two books using the expression "the First Spanish Siege" versus eighty-two books that don't makes it a very unusual expression in English text books. Please don't get so emotional and read posts literally (for your own good, honestly). --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Many books also use the phrase 'siege of 1705'. Even more give it no name whats so ever (I'm thinking here of Jeremy Black, who I am sure we will all accept is a pre-eminent military history author?). Now. Lets look at the section it is in. A) Why is it called 'The Gibraltar capture'? Can we please switch that to 'The Capture of Gibraltar' or 'The Fall of Gibratar' or 'The Taking of Gibraltar'. Now, here is another question: Why is there a subheader for the siege? It is like, 4 or 5 bullet points from the whole thing. What I'm saying is this: Why the fuck are you guys piddling around over what to name an unnecessary subsection in a poorly put together hunk of crap timeline? Jesus H. Christ. Want to know why we are talking about such low numbers of hits for any of the names? You two are the first people in the history of man to give a flying fuck over what to call a minor siege in a war full of bloody sieges. Move on guys. Just move on. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck about it, what pisses me of is the snide remarks followed by playing the innocent. Some people obviously think this is a clever negotiating tactic, it just puts me into stubborn mode. Justin talk 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I agree with everything you said, Narson. In fact, I said that this was not more important "than a mere typo". My answers:

A) I wasn't sure (given my non-native English) but it kind of sounded weird, so I vote to change it to "The Capture of Gibraltar"

B) Let's just call it "The 1705 Siege" or (better) scrap the subtitle altogether

C) I don't think I will be able to contribute to clean the crappy timeline if every time I propose something someone feels hurt (see "The English Flag Incident", where 4 paragraphs have been reduced to just half a paragraph while keeping the same weight of POVs, but after a long and painful discussion).

Honestly, Narson, don't you think we are doing something wrong? Do you think my last two proposals ("Flag Incident" and "First Siege") deserved these painful discussions? Did they look like I was trying to "vandalise" or "subvert" the Gibraltar articles? Did my edit in the Demographics section deserve a reversal before anybody even read it? Afterwards, Justin undid the reversal and admited it was a good effort -thanks, Justin-; but the first reversal looks to me like a symptom of a problem we have here. Please trust me a bit more and we will be able to move forward less painfully... --Imalbornoz (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started on RFC on these articles here [10]. Justin talk 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)