Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 15 January 2011

	Gibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:V0.5

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gibraltar Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. August 4, 2004, April 30, 2005, April 30, 2006, April 30, 2007, August 4, 2007, September 10, 2007, September 10, 2008, August 4, 2009, September 10, 2009, and August 4, 2010

Archives

2004 – March 2006 March 2006 - June 2006 June 2006 - July 2006 July 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - June 2007 June 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - December 2007 December 2007 - June 2008 July 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - November 2008 November 2008 - July 2009 July 2009 - August 2009 August 2009 - December 2009 December 2009 prior to RFC RFC to January 2010 RFC to February 2010 February – June 2010 May – October 2010 October 2010 – November 2010 November 2010 – December December 2010 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Wot Discussion?

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 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))

• 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:

• George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
• Sepúlveda, Isidro (2004). Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza (Gibraltar. The reason and the force). in Spanish. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. pp. 89-91. ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar).
• Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 32-33. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
• Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. p. 9. ISBN 1-86227-103-8. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
• G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 41. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
• Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 67. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.:

• 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

compare with

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

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"?), 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. 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:

• 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 Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages has around 2,500 mentions of the word "atrocity", of them 2,100 are combined with the word "capture". Misplaced Pages uses "atrocities" in combination with "rape", "plunder" or "sack" more than 2,100 cases. 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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Caliph Al-Walid, Gorham's Cave, the Conversos from Cordoba, "Operation Felix", 1967 referendum, the "British Nationality Act", the "British Forces Broadcasting Service", Héctor Licudi, 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?

• Also about the books: could you please tell me which books in my list are NOT about Gibraltar? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 chaplain 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 "Misplaced Pages 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.

• If we filter out the talk pages (such as this one), we have 1740 pages in wikipedia using the word "atrocities" in combination with "sack", "plunder", "rape" or "desecration". It certainly beats the example in the guidance essay section WP:Other_stuff_exists#Precedent_in_usage: 373 results of "late actor" or "late actress". Doesn't it?

• 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 "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 , and , 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 ). 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:) 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)

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)

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)

Sources

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

Source discussion

• Former good article nominees
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gibraltar articles
• Top-importance Gibraltar articles
• All WikiProject Gibraltar pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Spain articles
• Mid-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2010)