This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
1. We've never vetoed any mention of San Roque, far from it. You do not help your case by making a falsehood.
2. It is patronising in the extreme and utterly wrong to try and "explain" our objections. I've explained myself repeatedly, this just demonstrates more than anything else, that the above editor does not approach the discussions in good faith.
3. Whatever other authors feel the need to express in an extensive tome on Gibraltar does not dictate that we mention it here. This is a summary for an encyclopedia not an academic reference work.
4. I don't accept your proposal, if you wish to try and derail mediation that is your prerogative. We already had a proposal on the table that we were already discussing. If you wish to walk away from mediation that doesn't mean the rest of us can't work together to try and sort this out.
Justin
talk
00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[UNINDENT]
Hi all. Justin, I'll comment on your comments:
1. You'll notice that I've used quotation when talking about "veto". The fact is that you and Gibnews does not accept any mention to San Roque here. That's not a falsehood. Otherwise, we'd not be here in this everlasting discussion.
2. I'm trying to figure out which is the reason not to include any mention to the destiny of most of the Gibraltar inhabitants as I haven't seen any sensible argument yet. Wondering about the rationale of editions does not mean that bad faith is assumed, far from it. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.
3. On the contrary, what reputable secondary sources mention is something that is mandatory as basis of an encyclopaedic article. I remind you that the mentions to San Roque has been dismissed as not relevant to this article. Its mention in whatever secondary source just means that is relevant. You haven't provided yet an argumentation about why it cannot be mentioned provided that this article deals with Gibraltar as a whole.
4. This mediation has been the first effort by the Wikipedia "system" to help us to make this article neutral. I cannot see any reason to make it derail. I just remember that it's you the one that has talked about "finishing the mediation". On the other hand, we did agree on the Atama's proposal some days ago. Some parties (me among them) disagreed on not adding a mention to San Roque to finish the paragraph. So a partial consensus was clear and the San Roque issue may be agreed on in the future, if you wish. I've provided my arguments above and, just as an aside what Cremallera has said ("all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign relevance values to that information") is a short of
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to wipe something that sources clearly state you must have very, very good arguments. And I haven't seen them. --
Ecemaml (
talk)
23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see.
1. We have never vetoed its mention, point of fact, we suggest mentioning it on [[History of Gibraltar]. Your comment does not reflect the discussion. Misrepresenting what people say is unhelpful.
2. The compromise I've offered does mention something.
3. Sorry but I did provide an appropriate example. You're actually misrepresenting what people say yet again. We say that mention belongs in a detailed article but its inappropriate for an overview.
4. Sorry but I have provided a decent cogent argument, ignore it all you like, it isn't going to go away.
The point you keep making is a logical fallacy, you say we have to use what other authors consider relevant as the benchmark. The logical extension of that is we must include everything that those authors highlight in their work. This is clearly impractical as no article could be shorter than the reference used.
And I'm not wiping out what sources say, I merely suggest that certain details don't have to be in an overview. Further when the previous mediator used the wikipedia "system" you referred to, funnily enough the current article was picked as the most neutral.
There is a compromise that was under discussion, please don't derail it.
Yet again the arguments are misrepresented, the actions of other editors maligned. Do you think this is helpful? Please address the points made for once. Justin talk 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.
UNINDENT
Well, that's something. I already agreed with that text some days ago, and I still do. As you all know, I think that the description of the capture is incomplete without stating the fate of the villagers. I acknowledge your positions as well. Cheers. Cremallera ( talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
So the compromise is including a misleading statement that suggests that the Gibraltar population spread more or less anarchically, randomly and equally-sized throughout the Campo (that's not true). I can't see how such a "compromise" complies with Wikipedia principles. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. | ” |
“ | Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque. | ” |
Trying to raise this as tactfully as I can but I am concerned that the extensive quotes here and on User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar are in danger of being classified as a breach of copyright. I have sought advice before raising this and that indicates that this could well be the case. I know copyright is a mine field and I don't pretend to understand it but it would seem that storing extensive amounts of copyrighted material in user space could be exposing the project to legal implications. I haven't raised it as a copyright violation yet it might be an idea for Ecemaml to nominate his user space for deletion and we should redact some of the extensive quotes here. Regards, Justin talk 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Next time, instead of raising an issue with regard to my subpages in an inappropriate place like this, try to leave me a message. It's simpler, faster, and less prone to misleading statements about me " ignoring" your comments. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Justin, you'd better stop misusing this talk page. If you have an issue about my user pages, this is obviously not the place to discuss it. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"... is over". Please -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
How long has this article been unprotected? Shortly thereafter Ececaml decides to get provocative again. [2] And this while we're awaiting settling any outstanding issue. Justin talk 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And who apart from Ececaml objects to archiving a cluttered talk page, now that disucssion is over? Justin talk 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please, with the POV tag issue already adressed, this talk section lacks a purpose. So I'd suggest to stop posting here. Are you fine with that? Thanks.
Cremallera (
talk)
14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
1. We've never vetoed any mention of San Roque, far from it. You do not help your case by making a falsehood.
2. It is patronising in the extreme and utterly wrong to try and "explain" our objections. I've explained myself repeatedly, this just demonstrates more than anything else, that the above editor does not approach the discussions in good faith.
3. Whatever other authors feel the need to express in an extensive tome on Gibraltar does not dictate that we mention it here. This is a summary for an encyclopedia not an academic reference work.
4. I don't accept your proposal, if you wish to try and derail mediation that is your prerogative. We already had a proposal on the table that we were already discussing. If you wish to walk away from mediation that doesn't mean the rest of us can't work together to try and sort this out.
Justin
talk
00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[UNINDENT]
Hi all. Justin, I'll comment on your comments:
1. You'll notice that I've used quotation when talking about "veto". The fact is that you and Gibnews does not accept any mention to San Roque here. That's not a falsehood. Otherwise, we'd not be here in this everlasting discussion.
2. I'm trying to figure out which is the reason not to include any mention to the destiny of most of the Gibraltar inhabitants as I haven't seen any sensible argument yet. Wondering about the rationale of editions does not mean that bad faith is assumed, far from it. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.
3. On the contrary, what reputable secondary sources mention is something that is mandatory as basis of an encyclopaedic article. I remind you that the mentions to San Roque has been dismissed as not relevant to this article. Its mention in whatever secondary source just means that is relevant. You haven't provided yet an argumentation about why it cannot be mentioned provided that this article deals with Gibraltar as a whole.
4. This mediation has been the first effort by the Wikipedia "system" to help us to make this article neutral. I cannot see any reason to make it derail. I just remember that it's you the one that has talked about "finishing the mediation". On the other hand, we did agree on the Atama's proposal some days ago. Some parties (me among them) disagreed on not adding a mention to San Roque to finish the paragraph. So a partial consensus was clear and the San Roque issue may be agreed on in the future, if you wish. I've provided my arguments above and, just as an aside what Cremallera has said ("all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign relevance values to that information") is a short of
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to wipe something that sources clearly state you must have very, very good arguments. And I haven't seen them. --
Ecemaml (
talk)
23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see.
1. We have never vetoed its mention, point of fact, we suggest mentioning it on [[History of Gibraltar]. Your comment does not reflect the discussion. Misrepresenting what people say is unhelpful.
2. The compromise I've offered does mention something.
3. Sorry but I did provide an appropriate example. You're actually misrepresenting what people say yet again. We say that mention belongs in a detailed article but its inappropriate for an overview.
4. Sorry but I have provided a decent cogent argument, ignore it all you like, it isn't going to go away.
The point you keep making is a logical fallacy, you say we have to use what other authors consider relevant as the benchmark. The logical extension of that is we must include everything that those authors highlight in their work. This is clearly impractical as no article could be shorter than the reference used.
And I'm not wiping out what sources say, I merely suggest that certain details don't have to be in an overview. Further when the previous mediator used the wikipedia "system" you referred to, funnily enough the current article was picked as the most neutral.
There is a compromise that was under discussion, please don't derail it.
Yet again the arguments are misrepresented, the actions of other editors maligned. Do you think this is helpful? Please address the points made for once. Justin talk 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.
UNINDENT
Well, that's something. I already agreed with that text some days ago, and I still do. As you all know, I think that the description of the capture is incomplete without stating the fate of the villagers. I acknowledge your positions as well. Cheers. Cremallera ( talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
So the compromise is including a misleading statement that suggests that the Gibraltar population spread more or less anarchically, randomly and equally-sized throughout the Campo (that's not true). I can't see how such a "compromise" complies with Wikipedia principles. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. | ” |
“ | Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque. | ” |
Trying to raise this as tactfully as I can but I am concerned that the extensive quotes here and on User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar are in danger of being classified as a breach of copyright. I have sought advice before raising this and that indicates that this could well be the case. I know copyright is a mine field and I don't pretend to understand it but it would seem that storing extensive amounts of copyrighted material in user space could be exposing the project to legal implications. I haven't raised it as a copyright violation yet it might be an idea for Ecemaml to nominate his user space for deletion and we should redact some of the extensive quotes here. Regards, Justin talk 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Next time, instead of raising an issue with regard to my subpages in an inappropriate place like this, try to leave me a message. It's simpler, faster, and less prone to misleading statements about me " ignoring" your comments. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Justin, you'd better stop misusing this talk page. If you have an issue about my user pages, this is obviously not the place to discuss it. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"... is over". Please -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
How long has this article been unprotected? Shortly thereafter Ececaml decides to get provocative again. [2] And this while we're awaiting settling any outstanding issue. Justin talk 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And who apart from Ececaml objects to archiving a cluttered talk page, now that disucssion is over? Justin talk 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please, with the POV tag issue already adressed, this talk section lacks a purpose. So I'd suggest to stop posting here. Are you fine with that? Thanks.
Cremallera (
talk)
14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |