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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 27 |
Income from the naval base was the predominant source of income till the 1980s. Since then the economy has diversified. It hasn't been the case for about 30 years. Is it worth mentioning in the lede per discussion tab. Dodds's paper for the BBC History would provide a suitable cite for its past importance and modern irrelevance. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfainuk proposed an edit to deal with POV issues with the current text identified in mediation. There has been no objection that the POV issues existed. Various solutions have been suggested, we have asked you to explain your objections but there have been none.
The edit has gone unchallenged, a new consensus has been established and you cannot simply return and demand after an absence and demand we turn the clock back to your last visit. Explain your objections to Pfainuk's text please.
I do not intend to revert again but I will make a 3RR report if there is another revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a largely Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. [1] [2] [3] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. [4] | ” |
What about a version that includes more of the well-referenced facts that various editors think are of enough ongoing relevance to be included:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo- Dutch force in support of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [5] The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain. [6] The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. [7] [2] [8] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. [4] | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | You state (but do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned". Why, in your view, and based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail?
You state (but again do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History". Again, based on the weight given in individual reliable sources, in what way is this "notable and relevant"? All you've done here is state a position. You've not made any attempt to justify it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you do so. |
” |
UNINDENT
OK:
Now, can we see your arguments against the notability, verifiability, relevance and NPOV of the description of the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque as they are mentioned in the last consensus text?
I also think that the question Richard posts below is very relevant. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Given recent discussion, it is becoming clearer and clearer that there is no policy-based objection to this edit at all. From Imalbornoz's quotes above, the "argument for notability" is not accepted by policy, the "argument for relevance" is not an argument (let alone policy-based) and the "argument for neutrality" is not an argument for the existing text. And we can verify a lot of things, but that has never meant that they have to go into this or any other article. Richard makes no policy-based argument either.
At this stage, therefore, it seems reasonable to say that unless there is a policy-based objection to the proposed text forthcoming within the next twenty-four hours, I intend to restore it. Pfainuk talk 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Noting the outside opinion above, that it is not possible to determine due weight without access to sources and it seems clear that Richard is not going to self-revert I have reluctantly reverted. I don't plan on any further reverts and fervently hope Richard will engage in a constructive talk page discussion.
By this I mean recognising that summarising is not removing and recognising the need for edits to be sourced by editors who have access to sources and able to make a value judgement on due weight. I would hope there is no further comments about "bizarre" behaviour or accusations of censoring or suppressing material, or bad faith attacks labelling editors as "incompetent".
I would welcome outside opinion, please note this was sought before Pfainuk made the edit. Could we start by explaining why you think your edit merits inclusion based upon the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It is becoming clearer and clearer what's going on here and it is pure obstructionism on the part of Richard and Imalbornoz. They repeatedly revert edits - citing WP:BRD - but in every case refuse outright to make any attempt to justify their reverts using policy or even argument, instead making accusations of bad faith against other editors. They repeatedly refuse to answer questions about their objections, something defined by WP:DE as a sign of disruption. The arguments that have been made for the status quo have all been well and truly discredited, and there is not a single policy-based argument - or even attempt at a policy-based argument - against the edit.
If there is an actual policy-based objection to my edit, please tell me what it is. If you are not willing to, please revert back to it. These are the only choices that are available to you, Richard and Imalbornoz, according to policy and guidelines. It is fast approaching the point where I will feel I have no choice but to go to WP:AE and ask administrators to prevent the disruption caused to this article by the continual refusal to explain what the problem with this edit is. Pfainuk talk 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it help to list what we consider reliable sources for the history section? Hoping to head off arguments about who is and who isn't a reliable source, perhaps a list of up to, say, half a dozen comprehensive histories would be acceptable? I hope also that this won't be too difficult to draw up. (If it is, this will be a fairly good sign that any proposed bibliometry is doomed from the start.) We could then all work from the same basic reliable sources. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Up to a point - I just note that "sufficient context" doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing and "seeing it" does not have to imply holding it in paper form. What I'm trying to do is to establish, so that we can get on with our attempts at metrics, a reasonably short list of central references which we should all have access to in some form. Your list of sources follows; could I ask you to indicate which of them are in your opinion up-to-date, authoritative secondary accounts by recognized scholars in the area? If we are all working from the same set of authorities we might even manage to have a constructive discussion. When I have your list (or anyone elses's) I'll also search through "History of Gibraltar" on Amazon Books and see if we've missed anything obvious. And then I'll spend some money (my library isn't very accomodating with long-term loans), not too much I hope on not too many books, and we can have a discussion on really solid foundations. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I either own or have on long term loan from the library the following:
Hills, G. (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale.
Jackson, WGF. (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: A History of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Books.
ISBN
9780948466144
Dodds, K (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: pp 18-21.
Bradford, E.(1971), The history of a fortress, Gibraltar, Rupert Hart-Davis
Francis, AD. (1975), The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713
Garrat, G.T. Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, 1939
Spilsbury, John. A Journal of the Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783.
Sayer, F. (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
Ancell, S. (1784) A Circumstantial Journal of the long and tedious siege of Gibraltar.
Mann, JH. (1873) A History of Gibraltar and its sieges
Field, Dr HM (1890) Gibraltar
Martin, RM (1887) History of the British Possession in the Mediterranean
Drinkwater, Col (1824) A History of the Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783
Acton, J. (2009) The Constitutional Foundations of Gibraltar; the EU and the Law, Triay & Triay, Gibraltar
James, T. (1771) A History of the Herculean Straits.
Ignacio López de Ayala, The History of Gibraltar (I have the 1845 translation into English).
I have a number of other works on Gibraltar but they are rather specialist in nature and not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Of the above I would concentrate on Hills, Jackson, Francis and Bradford if you're going to purchase sources Richard. I've finally tracked down a copy of Andrews and will let you know if it is any good. Garratt was a free download from archive.org, though I'm not sure it still is.
Ayala I wouldn't rely on too much, modern historians (and I would emphasis both British and Spanish before I am accused of racism or suppression of facts) tend to discredit his account of the seizure. It was based on Romero's account written 20 yrs after the event and which misrepresents certain aspects of the events. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
WCM and Pfainuk, you want to remove (at least from the overview article) the episode about the widespread rapes, looting and desecrations by the occupying forces during the capture & the later exodus of the largest part of Gibraltarians to San Roque, and you justify it with the WP:DUE policy. What WP:DUE says is:
“ | Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief. | ” |
If we only look at this policy, the key questions are: 1. Are these events only in a minority view (like Flat Earth, for example)? If they are, then we should decrease their weight. Otherwise, I can find no rationale to remove them mentioning this policy (maybe some other policy, but not this one). 2. Are there different viewpoints about these facts (e.g. does any mainstream source say that they did not happen, or that the rapes/desecrations/lootings/exodus did not happen the way they are described)? If there are, then we should mention them giving due weight to each one in proportion to their prominence. If the current text reflects the overwhelmingly mainstream view, then we should not remove them (at least according to the DUE policy).
To make things clearer:
3. Can you please cite the part of WP:DUE on which you base the removal of these events?
4. Pfainuk & Wee Curry, have you found a majority view that denies these events? Have you found alternative theories?
Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | To the citizen of the 20th Century, accustomed or the civilian casualties in war, and dulled to the annihilation of whole cities (or even nations), the horrified reaction of Gibraltar's garrison to the shelling of the town and its inhabitants may seem a trifle naive. But it must be remembered that in those days there was still a code of conduct in warfare, and some elementary humanity in those who waged it. | ” |
“ | An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. | ” |
Well, it covers what's wrong with bibliometry as a device for deciding on due weight. To give a different illustration, I pick up a reliable source, Esmonde Cleary on "The Ending of Roman Britain", which has about one third of a page on the actual record of the ejection of Roman officials, in over 200 pages of detailed discussion. To take another page at random, it's a ground plan of Water Newton, and a random text page discusses the minimal archaeological evidence for possible overlap between Saxon and Romano-British populations. Our article Roman_Britain has about the same amount on the ejection, and very little of anything else - editors have correctly identified the due weight to be given to the central issue. The reasons why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went, are similarly central to our topic. Who's for an RfC? Admittedly the last one brought me, but I can't see us agreeing any time soon. Failing that, an admin prepared to issue a firm ruling? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances. These aims were frustrated when commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [9] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
Shorter versions have been suggested and indeed one is in the article as I write - the one above included extra details suggested by yourself and Pfainuk. The current version is:
“ | The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [10] [2] [11] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Your version was:
“ | ...but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
I don't see the outside opinions you describe, perhaps you could give diffs? Shall I start an RfC or does anyone have a better idea? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It is proposed that the following text be added to this article, to replace the paragraph currently directly underneath the "undue weight" banner:
“ | During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [5] The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain, [6] but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
The objection to the existing text is that it gives undue weight, per WP:WEIGHT and per WP:CHERRY, to the detail of the violence, thereby biasing the article in favour of Spain's POV in the modern dispute that the inhabitants were driven out. The weight given to these points in the current text is very significantly greater than the weight that they are given by the reliable sources cited both in the current text and in this proposal. The proposed text summarises the detail of the violence that occurred, giving it a weight that more accurately reflects the weight given to the point by reliable sources. It also adds appropriate historical context to the capture of Gibraltar.
Those who have opposed argue that raw counts of hits from a Google Books search, or books that reference these events, should be used in place of the weight given to the points by reliable sources as a means judging the appropriate weight given to points in this article (this is presented as “ingenious” bibliometry). It should be noted that they do not have access to sources, rather they are relying upon searches in Google Books, where the principal sources are only available in Snippet view or selected quotes from third parties; they do not have access to sources themselves. They argue that the detail of the violence caused the townspeople to leave, whereas reliable sources suggest a variety of reasons, including the violence in general (but not necessarily each of the details noted), and also the townspeople's loyalty to Philip (as noted by the proposed text), as well as the expectation of an imminent counter attack to retake Gibraltar. It should be noted that there exists a letter writtten by the townspeople that cites their loyalty as the reason for leaving. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I will go out on a limb and claim, as a correct reading of policy, that 1) an editor may not cite sources that he has not seen, and 2) notability is not determined by Google hits. If that is not sufficiently clear and authoritative perhaps more senior editors might be requested to comment.
I would also point out that two distinct issues have been raised here, and care should be taken to not confuse them. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that 'the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .' The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books. | ” |
G. T. Garratt (1939).
Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[2]
|title=
Easy there, everyone, this is starting to get just a little heated. As there is a closely related discussion at WP:NPOV#Due_weight_and_numbers_of_sources how about everyone backing off from discussion here of counts of sources and such. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue (stripped of its many tangential issues, see above and archives) is whether to include certain details relating to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704. It is, I think, undisputed that the surrender agreement was promptly breached by a three-day drunken riot in which the invaders committed rape, pillage, and desecration of churches, and townsfolk killed in reprisal. After that, the existing population decided to leave, citing their loyalty to the existing king of Spain, and they trudged out of the city. Many settled in San Roque, Cádiz, where in due course a town was founded, describing itself as the town of Gibraltar resident in its countryside. It's amply referenced to RS (a convenience link, most of which I have verified from the original sources, is conveniently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar).
At present in the article the description of these events is:
“ | The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [12] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Are these details worth including in this overview? It's hardly necessary to say how significant they were for the inhabitants of Gibraltar at the time. The misbehaviour specifically of the invaders was also key to local and international reaction at the time and it has ongoing resonance. One flavour of nationalist opinion is happy to give it perhaps-oversimplified weight. [13] Another has passed over it in possibly-embarrassed silence. [14] I am nevertheless assured by another editor (above) that these details are more or less universal in modern English-language overviews.
The proposal is to replace the above text with:
“ | ...but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
This doesn't say who was rioting, or that it was in breach of the surrender terms, and it omits the destination of the previous inhabitants. Both of these points are pivotal to the later history of Gibraltar, in which a new population has developed a political and cultural identity of its own, distinct from Spain and from any claims that San Roque may still maintain.
Many other suggestions have been discussed, and there seems no insuperable problems with adding more information if that seems worthwhile. But I feel strongly that we should include brief, but sufficient detail for a casual reader to know why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went. Perhaps we could have here only brief and pertinent comments, from editors new to the dispute, on whether or not to include in this article:
a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms
b) destination of the refugees
c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?
The editors presently involved might help by continuing in the previous section rather than here.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to repeat the questions at issue, they are whether or not to include in this article, in relation to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704:
a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms
b) destination of the refugees
c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I would say that Richard's list is quite correct. It is undisputed that the invaders of Gibraltar carried out widespread rapes, desecrations and lootings on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture. It is also agreed by all sources that practically all the population of Gibraltar left after the violence and that the largest part of the refugees established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque (which would later become the town of San Roque, Cádiz).
The questions would therefore be:
Thank you very much for your interest. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Letter to Philip V as quoted by Sayer
|
---|
Letter Of The Authorities To King Philip V. 115 Sire, The loyalty with which this city has served all the preceding kings, as well as your Majesty, has ever been notorious to them. In this last event, not less than on other occasions, it has endeavoured to exhibit its fidelity at the price of lives and property, which many of the inhabitants have lost in the combat; and with great honour and pleasure did they sacrifice themselves in defence of your Majesty, who may rest well assured that we who have survived (for our misfortune), had we experienced a similar fate, would have died with glory, and would not now suffer the great grief and distress of seeing your Majesty, our lord and master, dispossessed of so loyal a city. Subjects, but courageous as such, we will submit to no other government than that of your Catholic Majesty, in whose defence and service we shall pass the remainder of our lives; departing from this fortress, where, on account of the superior force of the enemy who attacked it, and the fatal chance of our not having any garrison for its defence, except a few poor and raw peasants, amounting to less than 300, we have not been able to resist the assault, as your Majesty must have already learnt from the governor or others. Our just grief allows us to notice no other fact for the information of your Majesty, but that all the inhabitants, and each singly, fulfilled their duties in their several stations; and our governor and alcalde have worked with the greatest zeal and activity, without allowing the horrors of the incessant cannonading to deter them from their duties, to which they attended personally, encouraging all with great devotion. May Divine Providence guard the royal person of your Majesty, Gibraltar, August 5th (N. S.), 1704. |
So, Andrew suggests that some points should be in: "disorders and brutalities, also religious animosity, also political loyalties" and the restoration of order. And some should be out: "what the commanders wanted or what the population felt"
Folding these in with the existing proposals, I get something like:
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances. However, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [15] On 7 August, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
Does this seem like a way forward? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender on 4 August provided certain assurances. However, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [16] On 5 August, the authorities wrote to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, to declare their loyalty. [4] On 7 August, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out some reprisal killings. [2] [17] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Good point. In the meantime, we still hope for further new comment, and for Pfainuk's ideas, but I propose to remove the Undue template and the present paragraph:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [18] [2] [19] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
And substitute:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [20] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
I appreciate that this is a stopgap, and in any case, for Wikipedia, there is no final version. I personally might have made slightly different editorial choices. But I hope that this will settle a longstanding wrangle. There is much more to be done - and the History of Gibraltar is calling, in which all of the points adduced above may possibly fit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Pfainuk, I had thought of adding the Archduke - if we have one claimant we might as well have the other, though if brevity is an issue I'd suggest removing both. Here's another draft with him included:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [21] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
WCM, I note your opposition. Due weight means conveying the essential points of the narrative, skilled editorial choice, on which Andrew has usefully given us his opinion. His ideas may not exactly coincide with those of any of the four of us, but they are the best bet so far for a consensus. Or would you like further outside comments, not an unreasonable idea if we can get the questions clear? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that the RFC has been derailed with a wall of text - again. I note there has still been no substantial objection to the text offered by Pfainuk. I note you still do no respond to the following: a) Name the sources you're using. b) The feedback from WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN that Google Snippets et al is not a reliable sourcing method. c) The persistent comments about "ingenious" Bibliometry not being a reliable means of establishing due weight. d) The suggestion of a rather larger text, then producing a summary. e) The comments that the current text does not tell the full story.
Noting e) above, this chimes with my consistent comment that the current text does not comply with NPOV policy as it doesn't present all relevant opinions in the literature. I note no response to the comment about equal weight and equal significance.
If the situation persists, then I will conclude there is no substantive objection to the edit, certainly not one sustainable under wikipedia's policies and I will once again restore Pfainuk's edit modified as I suggested. I will wait 24 hrs. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Following Andrew's suggestion I've prepared a rather large text capturing what I believe are salient points, without attempting to summarise for an overview.
“ | Gibraltar was captured during the War of the Spanish Succession by a predominantly Anglo-Dutch force of the Grand Alliance over the period 1-3 August 1704. The original intention had been to capture Cadiz but this was abandoned in favour of an abortive attempt to take Barcelona dependent on exploiting the loyalty of the Catalan dissidients to Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt and the antipathy of the Catalan people to the Spanish crown. In order to win the loyalty of Andalusia, strict orders were issued to respect Catholic freedom of religion and religious institutions.
The possibility of taking Gibraltar had previously been considered and a letter was given to Rooke by Charles III (the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne) urging the Governor of Gibraltar to come over to the Grand Alliance. Ultimately the decision to take Gibraltar was taken in a council of war on the basis of three main factors; namely it was poorly garrisoned, it would be of major strategic value to the war effort and its capture would encourage the inhabitants of southern Spain to reject Philip (the Bourbon Claimant to the Spanish throne). The capture began on 1 August when Rooke deployed his naval forces around Gibraltar and Hesse landed a party on the isthmus to cut off the Rock from the mainland. Hesse summoned the Governor of Gibraltar, Don Diego de Salinas, to surrender in the name of Charles III. Don Diego refused, pledging the loyalty of his garrison to Philip and on August 2 sent back a defiant reply. The rest of the day was spent in Rooke manoeuvring his forces for the assault. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town on August 3. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. Senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control and in the days following the capture sailors and marines ran amok. The marines and sailors of Rooke's forces were contemptuous of Spaniards, hated "Popery" and were extremely addicted to alcohol. As noted by one author "One has but to read the books left to us by the sailors to realize the peculiar horror of the life between-decks. Cooped up there, like sardines in a tin, were several hundreds of men, gathered by force and kept together by brutality. A lower-deck was the home of every vice, every baseness and every misery". Once the wine stores were broken into discipline broke down and there was extensive looting, catholic churches were ransacked, religous artefacts destroyed and there were instances of rape. The angry inhabitants took reprisals, killing Englishmen and Dutchmen and throwing the bodies into wells and cesspits. Order was eventually restored with brutal discipline, the sailors returned to their ships, the marines confined to the citadel and several of the drunken rioters hanged as examples to others. Although the terms of surrender guaranteed religious freedoms and property rights, when the garrison left on 7 August almost the entire population chose to join them. A number of factors are cited for the exodus of the population, in a letter to Philip the city fathers cited their continued loyalty to Philip. A counter attack to retake the rock was expected, which would enable the population to quickly return to their homes and rebuild their lives after the violence following the capture. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. The conduct of the allies during the capture aroused great anger in Spain and once again the chance of winning over Andalusians to the cause of the Grand Alliance was lost. Prince George was the first to complain, which was resented by Byng who had led the fighting and who in turn blamed the Prince and his few Spanish or Catalan supporters. Rooke complained in a letter home that the Spaniards were so exasperated against the Allies that ‘they use the prisoners they take as barbarously as the Moors’. The initial intentions of the allies envisaged a Portuguese garrison, allowing the forces used in the capture to be used in the conquest of Spain for the Hapsburg cause. However, Gibraltar was shortly thereafter besieged and attempts to install the Portuguese garrison were foiled by the French blockade. The only forces that succeeded in running the blockade to re-inforced the allied garrison were British. Prince George dedicated himself to organaising the defence of the garrison with the resources at his disposal. In early September a Franco-Spanish army arrived outside Gibraltar and prepared for a siege which they commenced on 9 October. Some seven thousand French and Spanish soldiers, aided by refugees from Gibraltar, were pitted against a force of around 2,500 defenders consisting of English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles. They were aided from late October by a naval squadron under Admiral Sir John Leake. A further 2,200 English and Dutch reinforcements arrived by sea with fresh supplies of food and ammunition in December 1704. With morale falling in the Franco-Spanish camp amid desertions and sickness, Louis XIV despatched Marshal de Tessé to take command in February 1705. A Franco-Spanish assault was beaten back with heavy casualties and on 31 March de Tessé gave up the siege. For the remainder of the war, Gibraltar was somewhat of a backwater playing no signficant role other than supplying the forces of the Grand Alliance. Prince George left Gibraltar to continue fighting on behalf of the Hapsburg cause in Spain, appointing Nugent as the first Hapsburg governor followed later by an englishman, Shrimpton. Gibraltar remained nominally a possession of Charles of Austria but gradually began to be ruled as a British possession held by English troops and at English cost but in the name of Charles III. In 1711, the British Government tired of the expense of the war began secret negotiations with the French and to negotiate the future possession of both Gibraltar and Minorca. Gibraltar was finally ceded in perpetuity with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. |
” |
I await other contributions with interest. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Tangential discussion collapsed to focus on the suggested process
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OK, so what would you put in an overview? Just for comparison, the current text is:
And the current proposal is:
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
|
See [4] and [5]. Congratulations gentlemen, mission achieved? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to follow this process. However, I note that we already have larger texts that deal with relevant issues - our RS are such texts. In every case where we have tried to agree on the facts, we have succeeded. Where we have failed is in coming to a consensus on selection of facts for an overview, specifically in areas where no mechanistic process (or policy) can give us precise directions. With apologies to Andrew and thanks for his substantive contribution here, I really can't see this process as likely to get us any further. Don't let me discourage anyone from trying it! The only thing that I can see as allowing progress is one or more editors who are prepared to make well-informed and sophisticated choices on the selection of facts to appear in this summary, and then to stick to them in the face of endless uncomprehending distractions. Or a single admin, prepared to make choices and then enforce them as gently as possible. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 07:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Andrew has indeed suggested getting together a fuller account elsewhere, and I'd applaud that. In the meantime this may only be, as he says, a stopgap, but it's an improvement on the present text which is:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [25] [2] [26] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
And the current proposal, slightly copyedited by me (I have elided the competing kings to wikilinks) following useful input from Andrew Dalby, Imalbornoz, and Pfainuk is:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [27] On 5 August, the authorities wrote to the Bourbon king, declaring their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
I'll make the change this evening, unless there are any coherent objections? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not easy to keep a cool and structured discussion with this type of behaviour. We have been discussing alternative texts for several days and now comes WCM like an elephant in a glass store changing the text without even saying it here (not even afterwards):
On the other hand, he -for the first time!- does mention San Roque (that's a good sign).
Please, undo the edit and let's discuss this over. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, this does remind me why I've gone to the effort of following my original brief comment for so long. The process has quite often made me giggle, but I haven't had such a good laugh for a long time. WCMonster, I don't think this was quite what Andrew had in mind. Anyway, I have made another bold edit, this time folding together WCMonster's version with the nearly-possible version in the last section. Since most of WCMonster's text is in the footnotes, this gives us a section only somewhat longer than I would personally have judged ideal, and it seems to include everything that anyone has seriously suggested should be included. I hope for a consensus that this is a basis for progress? I'll revert to yesterday's longstanding version if not.
I should say that in doing this edit I haven't checked any references - I'm at work and my books aren't. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a Anglo- Dutch force of the Grand Alliance [28] [29] [30]captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was selected, after abortive attempts elsewhere, for its strategic value, its weak garrison, and as a base to raise Andalucia against the Bourbon king in favour of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [31] Orders were given to respect civilians, [32] and the terms of surrender promised property and religious rights. [33] However, officers lost control [34] and during the following days sailors and marines [35] engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [36] [37] A few of the invading force were hanged as rioters. [38]
On 5 August, the authorities wrote to the Bourbon king, declaring their loyalty to his cause. [4] [4] Two days later, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] Several factors influenced the decision including the expectation of a counter attack [39] and the violence [40] during the capture. These events frustrated the war aim of bringing the Andalucians to the Hapsburg cause. [41] The subsequent siege failed to dislodge the invading forces and the refugees mostly settled in the Campo de Gibraltar. The settlement around the hermitage of San Roque became a town and in 1706 was granted its charter as the Most Loyal town of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. [42]
In 1711, the British and French Governments started secret negotiations to end the war; the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 established English sovereignty over Gibraltar. [43]
Spain attempted to retake Gibraltar in 1727 and most notably in 1779, when it entered the American Revolutionary War on the American side as an ally of France. [44]
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Since we are going into this level of detail, I just wanted to point out that only one rioter was hanged (not a few). Also, if we are going to mention the consequences
Regarding intentions and consequences, I am not too sure that we should go into this level of detail here. In case we want to, then I have a few comments. To start with:
Thank you, Richard, for helping to integrate all of our suggestions. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope that you all will stay cool and calm. Not that I personally care much about this discussion, but if any of you get riled up it is likely to raise the temperature in other discussions, such as on the NPOV noticeboard. I would also urge caution in raising any "counting sources" issues here, as that may entangle the discussion at the noticeboard. Thank you. -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
Consideration was given to what other project might be undertaken by Rooke's powerful fleet of fifty-two English and ten Dutch ships of the line. In the debate, three reasons were given for selecting Gibraltar as the target: the place was indifferently garrisoned; its possession would be of great value during the war; and its capture would encourage the Spaniards in southern Spain to declare in favour of the Hapsburgs.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 27 |
Income from the naval base was the predominant source of income till the 1980s. Since then the economy has diversified. It hasn't been the case for about 30 years. Is it worth mentioning in the lede per discussion tab. Dodds's paper for the BBC History would provide a suitable cite for its past importance and modern irrelevance. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfainuk proposed an edit to deal with POV issues with the current text identified in mediation. There has been no objection that the POV issues existed. Various solutions have been suggested, we have asked you to explain your objections but there have been none.
The edit has gone unchallenged, a new consensus has been established and you cannot simply return and demand after an absence and demand we turn the clock back to your last visit. Explain your objections to Pfainuk's text please.
I do not intend to revert again but I will make a 3RR report if there is another revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a largely Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. [1] [2] [3] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. [4] | ” |
What about a version that includes more of the well-referenced facts that various editors think are of enough ongoing relevance to be included:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo- Dutch force in support of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [5] The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain. [6] The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but commanders lost control and the troops engaged in widespread pillage and other violent acts against Gibraltar's female population and Catholic churches; some soldiers were killed in reprisal by the townspeople. [7] [2] [8] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to the Bourbon claimant in a letter addressed to King Philip V. [4] | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | You state (but do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he rapings, lootings desecrations inflicted on the civil population by the invading troops have to be properly mentioned". Why, in your view, and based on the weight given by individual reliable sources, do they have to be given this level of detail?
You state (but again do not argue) that, in your words, "[t]he exodus of almost all Gibraltarians to San Roque and nearby areas is notable and relevant to Gibraltarians in History". Again, based on the weight given in individual reliable sources, in what way is this "notable and relevant"? All you've done here is state a position. You've not made any attempt to justify it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you do so. |
” |
UNINDENT
OK:
Now, can we see your arguments against the notability, verifiability, relevance and NPOV of the description of the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque as they are mentioned in the last consensus text?
I also think that the question Richard posts below is very relevant. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Given recent discussion, it is becoming clearer and clearer that there is no policy-based objection to this edit at all. From Imalbornoz's quotes above, the "argument for notability" is not accepted by policy, the "argument for relevance" is not an argument (let alone policy-based) and the "argument for neutrality" is not an argument for the existing text. And we can verify a lot of things, but that has never meant that they have to go into this or any other article. Richard makes no policy-based argument either.
At this stage, therefore, it seems reasonable to say that unless there is a policy-based objection to the proposed text forthcoming within the next twenty-four hours, I intend to restore it. Pfainuk talk 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Noting the outside opinion above, that it is not possible to determine due weight without access to sources and it seems clear that Richard is not going to self-revert I have reluctantly reverted. I don't plan on any further reverts and fervently hope Richard will engage in a constructive talk page discussion.
By this I mean recognising that summarising is not removing and recognising the need for edits to be sourced by editors who have access to sources and able to make a value judgement on due weight. I would hope there is no further comments about "bizarre" behaviour or accusations of censoring or suppressing material, or bad faith attacks labelling editors as "incompetent".
I would welcome outside opinion, please note this was sought before Pfainuk made the edit. Could we start by explaining why you think your edit merits inclusion based upon the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It is becoming clearer and clearer what's going on here and it is pure obstructionism on the part of Richard and Imalbornoz. They repeatedly revert edits - citing WP:BRD - but in every case refuse outright to make any attempt to justify their reverts using policy or even argument, instead making accusations of bad faith against other editors. They repeatedly refuse to answer questions about their objections, something defined by WP:DE as a sign of disruption. The arguments that have been made for the status quo have all been well and truly discredited, and there is not a single policy-based argument - or even attempt at a policy-based argument - against the edit.
If there is an actual policy-based objection to my edit, please tell me what it is. If you are not willing to, please revert back to it. These are the only choices that are available to you, Richard and Imalbornoz, according to policy and guidelines. It is fast approaching the point where I will feel I have no choice but to go to WP:AE and ask administrators to prevent the disruption caused to this article by the continual refusal to explain what the problem with this edit is. Pfainuk talk 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it help to list what we consider reliable sources for the history section? Hoping to head off arguments about who is and who isn't a reliable source, perhaps a list of up to, say, half a dozen comprehensive histories would be acceptable? I hope also that this won't be too difficult to draw up. (If it is, this will be a fairly good sign that any proposed bibliometry is doomed from the start.) We could then all work from the same basic reliable sources. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Up to a point - I just note that "sufficient context" doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing and "seeing it" does not have to imply holding it in paper form. What I'm trying to do is to establish, so that we can get on with our attempts at metrics, a reasonably short list of central references which we should all have access to in some form. Your list of sources follows; could I ask you to indicate which of them are in your opinion up-to-date, authoritative secondary accounts by recognized scholars in the area? If we are all working from the same set of authorities we might even manage to have a constructive discussion. When I have your list (or anyone elses's) I'll also search through "History of Gibraltar" on Amazon Books and see if we've missed anything obvious. And then I'll spend some money (my library isn't very accomodating with long-term loans), not too much I hope on not too many books, and we can have a discussion on really solid foundations. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I either own or have on long term loan from the library the following:
Hills, G. (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale.
Jackson, WGF. (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians: A History of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Books.
ISBN
9780948466144
Dodds, K (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: pp 18-21.
Bradford, E.(1971), The history of a fortress, Gibraltar, Rupert Hart-Davis
Francis, AD. (1975), The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713
Garrat, G.T. Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, 1939
Spilsbury, John. A Journal of the Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783.
Sayer, F. (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
Ancell, S. (1784) A Circumstantial Journal of the long and tedious siege of Gibraltar.
Mann, JH. (1873) A History of Gibraltar and its sieges
Field, Dr HM (1890) Gibraltar
Martin, RM (1887) History of the British Possession in the Mediterranean
Drinkwater, Col (1824) A History of the Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783
Acton, J. (2009) The Constitutional Foundations of Gibraltar; the EU and the Law, Triay & Triay, Gibraltar
James, T. (1771) A History of the Herculean Straits.
Ignacio López de Ayala, The History of Gibraltar (I have the 1845 translation into English).
I have a number of other works on Gibraltar but they are rather specialist in nature and not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Of the above I would concentrate on Hills, Jackson, Francis and Bradford if you're going to purchase sources Richard. I've finally tracked down a copy of Andrews and will let you know if it is any good. Garratt was a free download from archive.org, though I'm not sure it still is.
Ayala I wouldn't rely on too much, modern historians (and I would emphasis both British and Spanish before I am accused of racism or suppression of facts) tend to discredit his account of the seizure. It was based on Romero's account written 20 yrs after the event and which misrepresents certain aspects of the events. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
WCM and Pfainuk, you want to remove (at least from the overview article) the episode about the widespread rapes, looting and desecrations by the occupying forces during the capture & the later exodus of the largest part of Gibraltarians to San Roque, and you justify it with the WP:DUE policy. What WP:DUE says is:
“ | Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief. | ” |
If we only look at this policy, the key questions are: 1. Are these events only in a minority view (like Flat Earth, for example)? If they are, then we should decrease their weight. Otherwise, I can find no rationale to remove them mentioning this policy (maybe some other policy, but not this one). 2. Are there different viewpoints about these facts (e.g. does any mainstream source say that they did not happen, or that the rapes/desecrations/lootings/exodus did not happen the way they are described)? If there are, then we should mention them giving due weight to each one in proportion to their prominence. If the current text reflects the overwhelmingly mainstream view, then we should not remove them (at least according to the DUE policy).
To make things clearer:
3. Can you please cite the part of WP:DUE on which you base the removal of these events?
4. Pfainuk & Wee Curry, have you found a majority view that denies these events? Have you found alternative theories?
Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | To the citizen of the 20th Century, accustomed or the civilian casualties in war, and dulled to the annihilation of whole cities (or even nations), the horrified reaction of Gibraltar's garrison to the shelling of the town and its inhabitants may seem a trifle naive. But it must be remembered that in those days there was still a code of conduct in warfare, and some elementary humanity in those who waged it. | ” |
“ | An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. | ” |
Well, it covers what's wrong with bibliometry as a device for deciding on due weight. To give a different illustration, I pick up a reliable source, Esmonde Cleary on "The Ending of Roman Britain", which has about one third of a page on the actual record of the ejection of Roman officials, in over 200 pages of detailed discussion. To take another page at random, it's a ground plan of Water Newton, and a random text page discusses the minimal archaeological evidence for possible overlap between Saxon and Romano-British populations. Our article Roman_Britain has about the same amount on the ejection, and very little of anything else - editors have correctly identified the due weight to be given to the central issue. The reasons why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went, are similarly central to our topic. Who's for an RfC? Admittedly the last one brought me, but I can't see us agreeing any time soon. Failing that, an admin prepared to issue a firm ruling? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances. These aims were frustrated when commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [9] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
Shorter versions have been suggested and indeed one is in the article as I write - the one above included extra details suggested by yourself and Pfainuk. The current version is:
“ | The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [10] [2] [11] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Your version was:
“ | ...but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
I don't see the outside opinions you describe, perhaps you could give diffs? Shall I start an RfC or does anyone have a better idea? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It is proposed that the following text be added to this article, to replace the paragraph currently directly underneath the "undue weight" banner:
“ | During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [5] The intention of the commanders was that the capture of Gibraltar would win Charles the support of the people of southern Spain, [6] but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
The objection to the existing text is that it gives undue weight, per WP:WEIGHT and per WP:CHERRY, to the detail of the violence, thereby biasing the article in favour of Spain's POV in the modern dispute that the inhabitants were driven out. The weight given to these points in the current text is very significantly greater than the weight that they are given by the reliable sources cited both in the current text and in this proposal. The proposed text summarises the detail of the violence that occurred, giving it a weight that more accurately reflects the weight given to the point by reliable sources. It also adds appropriate historical context to the capture of Gibraltar.
Those who have opposed argue that raw counts of hits from a Google Books search, or books that reference these events, should be used in place of the weight given to the points by reliable sources as a means judging the appropriate weight given to points in this article (this is presented as “ingenious” bibliometry). It should be noted that they do not have access to sources, rather they are relying upon searches in Google Books, where the principal sources are only available in Snippet view or selected quotes from third parties; they do not have access to sources themselves. They argue that the detail of the violence caused the townspeople to leave, whereas reliable sources suggest a variety of reasons, including the violence in general (but not necessarily each of the details noted), and also the townspeople's loyalty to Philip (as noted by the proposed text), as well as the expectation of an imminent counter attack to retake Gibraltar. It should be noted that there exists a letter writtten by the townspeople that cites their loyalty as the reason for leaving. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I will go out on a limb and claim, as a correct reading of policy, that 1) an editor may not cite sources that he has not seen, and 2) notability is not determined by Google hits. If that is not sufficiently clear and authoritative perhaps more senior editors might be requested to comment.
I would also point out that two distinct issues have been raised here, and care should be taken to not confuse them. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that 'the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .' The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books. | ” |
G. T. Garratt (1939).
Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[2]
|title=
Easy there, everyone, this is starting to get just a little heated. As there is a closely related discussion at WP:NPOV#Due_weight_and_numbers_of_sources how about everyone backing off from discussion here of counts of sources and such. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue (stripped of its many tangential issues, see above and archives) is whether to include certain details relating to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704. It is, I think, undisputed that the surrender agreement was promptly breached by a three-day drunken riot in which the invaders committed rape, pillage, and desecration of churches, and townsfolk killed in reprisal. After that, the existing population decided to leave, citing their loyalty to the existing king of Spain, and they trudged out of the city. Many settled in San Roque, Cádiz, where in due course a town was founded, describing itself as the town of Gibraltar resident in its countryside. It's amply referenced to RS (a convenience link, most of which I have verified from the original sources, is conveniently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar).
At present in the article the description of these events is:
“ | The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [12] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Are these details worth including in this overview? It's hardly necessary to say how significant they were for the inhabitants of Gibraltar at the time. The misbehaviour specifically of the invaders was also key to local and international reaction at the time and it has ongoing resonance. One flavour of nationalist opinion is happy to give it perhaps-oversimplified weight. [13] Another has passed over it in possibly-embarrassed silence. [14] I am nevertheless assured by another editor (above) that these details are more or less universal in modern English-language overviews.
The proposal is to replace the above text with:
“ | ...but they were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
This doesn't say who was rioting, or that it was in breach of the surrender terms, and it omits the destination of the previous inhabitants. Both of these points are pivotal to the later history of Gibraltar, in which a new population has developed a political and cultural identity of its own, distinct from Spain and from any claims that San Roque may still maintain.
Many other suggestions have been discussed, and there seems no insuperable problems with adding more information if that seems worthwhile. But I feel strongly that we should include brief, but sufficient detail for a casual reader to know why the previous Gibraltarian population left, and where they went. Perhaps we could have here only brief and pertinent comments, from editors new to the dispute, on whether or not to include in this article:
a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms
b) destination of the refugees
c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?
The editors presently involved might help by continuing in the previous section rather than here.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to repeat the questions at issue, they are whether or not to include in this article, in relation to the capture of Gibraltar in 1704:
a) specific misbehaviours of the invaders in breach of surrender terms
b) destination of the refugees
c) that justified fear was a major element (not the only one) in their decision to depart?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I would say that Richard's list is quite correct. It is undisputed that the invaders of Gibraltar carried out widespread rapes, desecrations and lootings on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture. It is also agreed by all sources that practically all the population of Gibraltar left after the violence and that the largest part of the refugees established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque (which would later become the town of San Roque, Cádiz).
The questions would therefore be:
Thank you very much for your interest. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Letter to Philip V as quoted by Sayer
|
---|
Letter Of The Authorities To King Philip V. 115 Sire, The loyalty with which this city has served all the preceding kings, as well as your Majesty, has ever been notorious to them. In this last event, not less than on other occasions, it has endeavoured to exhibit its fidelity at the price of lives and property, which many of the inhabitants have lost in the combat; and with great honour and pleasure did they sacrifice themselves in defence of your Majesty, who may rest well assured that we who have survived (for our misfortune), had we experienced a similar fate, would have died with glory, and would not now suffer the great grief and distress of seeing your Majesty, our lord and master, dispossessed of so loyal a city. Subjects, but courageous as such, we will submit to no other government than that of your Catholic Majesty, in whose defence and service we shall pass the remainder of our lives; departing from this fortress, where, on account of the superior force of the enemy who attacked it, and the fatal chance of our not having any garrison for its defence, except a few poor and raw peasants, amounting to less than 300, we have not been able to resist the assault, as your Majesty must have already learnt from the governor or others. Our just grief allows us to notice no other fact for the information of your Majesty, but that all the inhabitants, and each singly, fulfilled their duties in their several stations; and our governor and alcalde have worked with the greatest zeal and activity, without allowing the horrors of the incessant cannonading to deter them from their duties, to which they attended personally, encouraging all with great devotion. May Divine Providence guard the royal person of your Majesty, Gibraltar, August 5th (N. S.), 1704. |
So, Andrew suggests that some points should be in: "disorders and brutalities, also religious animosity, also political loyalties" and the restoration of order. And some should be out: "what the commanders wanted or what the population felt"
Folding these in with the existing proposals, I get something like:
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances. However, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [15] On 7 August, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, [2] citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. [4] | ” |
Does this seem like a way forward? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender on 4 August provided certain assurances. However, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [16] On 5 August, the authorities wrote to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, to declare their loyalty. [4] On 7 August, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | ...the terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out some reprisal killings. [2] [17] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
Good point. In the meantime, we still hope for further new comment, and for Pfainuk's ideas, but I propose to remove the Undue template and the present paragraph:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [18] [2] [19] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
And substitute:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [20] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
I appreciate that this is a stopgap, and in any case, for Wikipedia, there is no final version. I personally might have made slightly different editorial choices. But I hope that this will settle a longstanding wrangle. There is much more to be done - and the History of Gibraltar is calling, in which all of the points adduced above may possibly fit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Pfainuk, I had thought of adding the Archduke - if we have one claimant we might as well have the other, though if brevity is an issue I'd suggest removing both. Here's another draft with him included:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [21] On 5 August, the authorities declared in a letter to Philip V of Spain, the Bourbon king, their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, when order was restored, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
WCM, I note your opposition. Due weight means conveying the essential points of the narrative, skilled editorial choice, on which Andrew has usefully given us his opinion. His ideas may not exactly coincide with those of any of the four of us, but they are the best bet so far for a consensus. Or would you like further outside comments, not an unreasonable idea if we can get the questions clear? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that the RFC has been derailed with a wall of text - again. I note there has still been no substantial objection to the text offered by Pfainuk. I note you still do no respond to the following: a) Name the sources you're using. b) The feedback from WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN that Google Snippets et al is not a reliable sourcing method. c) The persistent comments about "ingenious" Bibliometry not being a reliable means of establishing due weight. d) The suggestion of a rather larger text, then producing a summary. e) The comments that the current text does not tell the full story.
Noting e) above, this chimes with my consistent comment that the current text does not comply with NPOV policy as it doesn't present all relevant opinions in the literature. I note no response to the comment about equal weight and equal significance.
If the situation persists, then I will conclude there is no substantive objection to the edit, certainly not one sustainable under wikipedia's policies and I will once again restore Pfainuk's edit modified as I suggested. I will wait 24 hrs. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Following Andrew's suggestion I've prepared a rather large text capturing what I believe are salient points, without attempting to summarise for an overview.
“ | Gibraltar was captured during the War of the Spanish Succession by a predominantly Anglo-Dutch force of the Grand Alliance over the period 1-3 August 1704. The original intention had been to capture Cadiz but this was abandoned in favour of an abortive attempt to take Barcelona dependent on exploiting the loyalty of the Catalan dissidients to Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt and the antipathy of the Catalan people to the Spanish crown. In order to win the loyalty of Andalusia, strict orders were issued to respect Catholic freedom of religion and religious institutions.
The possibility of taking Gibraltar had previously been considered and a letter was given to Rooke by Charles III (the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne) urging the Governor of Gibraltar to come over to the Grand Alliance. Ultimately the decision to take Gibraltar was taken in a council of war on the basis of three main factors; namely it was poorly garrisoned, it would be of major strategic value to the war effort and its capture would encourage the inhabitants of southern Spain to reject Philip (the Bourbon Claimant to the Spanish throne). The capture began on 1 August when Rooke deployed his naval forces around Gibraltar and Hesse landed a party on the isthmus to cut off the Rock from the mainland. Hesse summoned the Governor of Gibraltar, Don Diego de Salinas, to surrender in the name of Charles III. Don Diego refused, pledging the loyalty of his garrison to Philip and on August 2 sent back a defiant reply. The rest of the day was spent in Rooke manoeuvring his forces for the assault. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town on August 3. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. Senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control and in the days following the capture sailors and marines ran amok. The marines and sailors of Rooke's forces were contemptuous of Spaniards, hated "Popery" and were extremely addicted to alcohol. As noted by one author "One has but to read the books left to us by the sailors to realize the peculiar horror of the life between-decks. Cooped up there, like sardines in a tin, were several hundreds of men, gathered by force and kept together by brutality. A lower-deck was the home of every vice, every baseness and every misery". Once the wine stores were broken into discipline broke down and there was extensive looting, catholic churches were ransacked, religous artefacts destroyed and there were instances of rape. The angry inhabitants took reprisals, killing Englishmen and Dutchmen and throwing the bodies into wells and cesspits. Order was eventually restored with brutal discipline, the sailors returned to their ships, the marines confined to the citadel and several of the drunken rioters hanged as examples to others. Although the terms of surrender guaranteed religious freedoms and property rights, when the garrison left on 7 August almost the entire population chose to join them. A number of factors are cited for the exodus of the population, in a letter to Philip the city fathers cited their continued loyalty to Philip. A counter attack to retake the rock was expected, which would enable the population to quickly return to their homes and rebuild their lives after the violence following the capture. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. The conduct of the allies during the capture aroused great anger in Spain and once again the chance of winning over Andalusians to the cause of the Grand Alliance was lost. Prince George was the first to complain, which was resented by Byng who had led the fighting and who in turn blamed the Prince and his few Spanish or Catalan supporters. Rooke complained in a letter home that the Spaniards were so exasperated against the Allies that ‘they use the prisoners they take as barbarously as the Moors’. The initial intentions of the allies envisaged a Portuguese garrison, allowing the forces used in the capture to be used in the conquest of Spain for the Hapsburg cause. However, Gibraltar was shortly thereafter besieged and attempts to install the Portuguese garrison were foiled by the French blockade. The only forces that succeeded in running the blockade to re-inforced the allied garrison were British. Prince George dedicated himself to organaising the defence of the garrison with the resources at his disposal. In early September a Franco-Spanish army arrived outside Gibraltar and prepared for a siege which they commenced on 9 October. Some seven thousand French and Spanish soldiers, aided by refugees from Gibraltar, were pitted against a force of around 2,500 defenders consisting of English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles. They were aided from late October by a naval squadron under Admiral Sir John Leake. A further 2,200 English and Dutch reinforcements arrived by sea with fresh supplies of food and ammunition in December 1704. With morale falling in the Franco-Spanish camp amid desertions and sickness, Louis XIV despatched Marshal de Tessé to take command in February 1705. A Franco-Spanish assault was beaten back with heavy casualties and on 31 March de Tessé gave up the siege. For the remainder of the war, Gibraltar was somewhat of a backwater playing no signficant role other than supplying the forces of the Grand Alliance. Prince George left Gibraltar to continue fighting on behalf of the Hapsburg cause in Spain, appointing Nugent as the first Hapsburg governor followed later by an englishman, Shrimpton. Gibraltar remained nominally a possession of Charles of Austria but gradually began to be ruled as a British possession held by English troops and at English cost but in the name of Charles III. In 1711, the British Government tired of the expense of the war began secret negotiations with the French and to negotiate the future possession of both Gibraltar and Minorca. Gibraltar was finally ceded in perpetuity with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. |
” |
I await other contributions with interest. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Tangential discussion collapsed to focus on the suggested process
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OK, so what would you put in an overview? Just for comparison, the current text is:
And the current proposal is:
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
|
See [4] and [5]. Congratulations gentlemen, mission achieved? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to follow this process. However, I note that we already have larger texts that deal with relevant issues - our RS are such texts. In every case where we have tried to agree on the facts, we have succeeded. Where we have failed is in coming to a consensus on selection of facts for an overview, specifically in areas where no mechanistic process (or policy) can give us precise directions. With apologies to Andrew and thanks for his substantive contribution here, I really can't see this process as likely to get us any further. Don't let me discourage anyone from trying it! The only thing that I can see as allowing progress is one or more editors who are prepared to make well-informed and sophisticated choices on the selection of facts to appear in this summary, and then to stick to them in the face of endless uncomprehending distractions. Or a single admin, prepared to make choices and then enforce them as gently as possible. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 07:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Andrew has indeed suggested getting together a fuller account elsewhere, and I'd applaud that. In the meantime this may only be, as he says, a stopgap, but it's an improvement on the present text which is:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [25] [2] [26] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
And the current proposal, slightly copyedited by me (I have elided the competing kings to wikilinks) following useful input from Andrew Dalby, Imalbornoz, and Pfainuk is:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar in the name of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances, but during the following days sailors and marines engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [27] On 5 August, the authorities wrote to the Bourbon king, declaring their loyalty to his cause. [4] Two days later, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] | ” |
I'll make the change this evening, unless there are any coherent objections? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not easy to keep a cool and structured discussion with this type of behaviour. We have been discussing alternative texts for several days and now comes WCM like an elephant in a glass store changing the text without even saying it here (not even afterwards):
On the other hand, he -for the first time!- does mention San Roque (that's a good sign).
Please, undo the edit and let's discuss this over. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, this does remind me why I've gone to the effort of following my original brief comment for so long. The process has quite often made me giggle, but I haven't had such a good laugh for a long time. WCMonster, I don't think this was quite what Andrew had in mind. Anyway, I have made another bold edit, this time folding together WCMonster's version with the nearly-possible version in the last section. Since most of WCMonster's text is in the footnotes, this gives us a section only somewhat longer than I would personally have judged ideal, and it seems to include everything that anyone has seriously suggested should be included. I hope for a consensus that this is a basis for progress? I'll revert to yesterday's longstanding version if not.
I should say that in doing this edit I haven't checked any references - I'm at work and my books aren't. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a Anglo- Dutch force of the Grand Alliance [28] [29] [30]captured the town of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was selected, after abortive attempts elsewhere, for its strategic value, its weak garrison, and as a base to raise Andalucia against the Bourbon king in favour of the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. [31] Orders were given to respect civilians, [32] and the terms of surrender promised property and religious rights. [33] However, officers lost control [34] and during the following days sailors and marines [35] engaged in rape and widespread pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. [2] [36] [37] A few of the invading force were hanged as rioters. [38]
On 5 August, the authorities wrote to the Bourbon king, declaring their loyalty to his cause. [4] [4] Two days later, almost all the population departed to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. [2] Several factors influenced the decision including the expectation of a counter attack [39] and the violence [40] during the capture. These events frustrated the war aim of bringing the Andalucians to the Hapsburg cause. [41] The subsequent siege failed to dislodge the invading forces and the refugees mostly settled in the Campo de Gibraltar. The settlement around the hermitage of San Roque became a town and in 1706 was granted its charter as the Most Loyal town of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. [42]
In 1711, the British and French Governments started secret negotiations to end the war; the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 established English sovereignty over Gibraltar. [43]
Spain attempted to retake Gibraltar in 1727 and most notably in 1779, when it entered the American Revolutionary War on the American side as an ally of France. [44]
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Since we are going into this level of detail, I just wanted to point out that only one rioter was hanged (not a few). Also, if we are going to mention the consequences
Regarding intentions and consequences, I am not too sure that we should go into this level of detail here. In case we want to, then I have a few comments. To start with:
Thank you, Richard, for helping to integrate all of our suggestions. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope that you all will stay cool and calm. Not that I personally care much about this discussion, but if any of you get riled up it is likely to raise the temperature in other discussions, such as on the NPOV noticeboard. I would also urge caution in raising any "counting sources" issues here, as that may entangle the discussion at the noticeboard. Thank you. -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
Consideration was given to what other project might be undertaken by Rooke's powerful fleet of fifty-two English and ten Dutch ships of the line. In the debate, three reasons were given for selecting Gibraltar as the target: the place was indifferently garrisoned; its possession would be of great value during the war; and its capture would encourage the Spaniards in southern Spain to declare in favour of the Hapsburgs.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)