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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Should the lead mention Gibraltar's inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories? TFD ( talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies to the UN that would be decolonized. The UN added these colonies to its list of non-self-governing territories which would ultimately be given independence. Since then most of these territories have become independent, but a handful of territories with small populations remain on the list. The UK has requested the removal of Gibraltar, claiming that the establishment of internal self-government meets the UN concerns. Spain objects, saying that the local population are not an indigenous population and the UK has colonized a part of Spain. The UN has not taken a position on this dispute and has asked both sides to continue discussions.
No editors question that the dispute between the UK and Spain should be mentioned, but disagree on whether the status as a non-self-governing territory should be mentioned. I think it is important because it elevates a bilateral dispute over territory to one of significance to the international community. Removal from the list is a major concern of the Gibraltar government.
TFD ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You have consistently reverted all references to UN resolutions or positions in the lead, so yes, I stand by my statement and it is visible in the article history. Asilah1981 ( talk) 17:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston),
“ | We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. | ” |
Your conclusion that "inclusion on the list....makes it an issue of international concern" is your own conclusion, we don't permit WP:OR on Wikipedia. You need a reliable secondary source to say that. But again the point remains that inclusion on the list is not the significant political issue, that is the sovereignty dispute. W C M email 08:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ángel Israel Rivera Ortiz; Aarón Gamaliel Ramos (2001). Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean. Ian Randle Publishers. ISBN 978-976-637-040-4.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (people)
[10] I don't believe the individual in this edit meets our notability guidelines. Instead of edit warring, why don't you demonstrate notability or perhaps actually contribute a new article to wikipedia. This reflex edit warring just has to stop. W C M email 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take before there the innuendo started, what are you presuming? I've already stated it's because they don't meet notability requirements nothing more nothing less. W C M email 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And the list goes on... Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
WCM Thank you for your self-revert. I see you have noticed that the version of the article which included the contentious sentence was the consensus version, prior to sentence being deleted a few days ago. Regards, Elie. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W That is a fair observation, but this guy seems pretty notable by Gibraltarian standards - been looking at his stuff and its quite impressive. Btw, I don´t think this is the same guy. http://gibraltarphilanthropyforum.com/th_gallery/trino-cruz/ Somehow doesn´t strike me as a poet banker. Oddly, the poet´s second surname is Sephardic Jewish although his name is a typical hispanic rendition of "Joseph Trinity" which is not Jewish at all. I personally did not know about him but will read up on his stuff, very linked to Morocco and specifically Tangiers. Asilah1981 ( talk) 13:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I created the entry ( Trino Cruz) as suggested by Wee Curry Monster. I argue the the creation of the entry is totally unrelated to the discussion about the inclusion of the contested content, though. Regards.-- Asqueladd ( talk) 14:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the article stops with «the House of Lords has produced a report entitled "Brexit: Gibraltar». It might be rather outdated. I assume that newer declaration might be cited in this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 ( talk) 18:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the history of Brits moving there? Did the British government ever provide incentives, or is it mainly ex-military personnel and their descendants, or wealthy tax-dodging Brits? Historian932 ( talk) 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn´t even mention the resolution of 1946 that talks about "Non-Self-Governing Territories", so I think it shoud be mentioned. http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
"Gibraltar was nominated to be included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946[47] and has been listed ever since.[48] The government of Gibraltar has actively worked to have Gibraltar removed from the list,[49] and in 2008 the British government declared Gibraltar's continued presence on the list an anachronism.[50]"
Incorrect, the article does. W C M email 14:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
One or more anonymous editors recently put some effort into changing all the monthly daily mean temperatures, and I have changed them back. The edit summary seems to say the editor calculated the daily mean temperature for a month as the mean of the highest and lowest temperature in the month, which is not what daily mean temperature for a month means. It is the mean over the entire month. One has to measure the temperature every hour of the month and divide by the number of hours in the month. A bigger problem is that we don't normally synthesize facts in Wikipedia - we just report what other documents say. The source for these numbers is given as http://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/beratung/ak/ak_084950_kt.pdf . Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's happened a few more times, most recently it was only for only three months, for some reason. The edit summary suggests the source is incorrect, but there is no better source given - just the editor's own incorrect calculation. Other edit summaries make it clear the editor didn't check the talk page in August as requested in my edit summary then, and didn't understand why some of us prefer the original numbers. I have changed the numbers back to match the source and referred again to this talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,
In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)
The source, https://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/gibraltar/gibraltar.php, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.
Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.
So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?
As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz ( talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. W C M email 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [11], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.
Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? W C M email 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I made an edit to mention that the population of Gibraltar took the historical documents of the village together with their own belongings when they left it after it was invaded by Rooke's British-Dutch-Spanish forces in 1704. It is well documented fact, mentioned by:
Kahastok not only reverted my edit, but deleted as well part of the previous text (which had been there for 8 years, after a long discussion that caused many users to be banned or blocked). I will restore the previous consensus while we discuss the new proposal (per BRD, as Kahastok has always done even when he had a different alias).
The previous consensus was:"The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."
My proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population. The most important settlement 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 became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."
It seems Kahastok's proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population."
Thanks - Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on content or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ad hominem and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref content or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. W C M email 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-
The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.
Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history -- Rockysantos ( talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. | ” |
I was under the misleading impression I had made myself clear, apparently not. To be clear, I am only prepared to discuss content, nothing more. Now if you could address the content issue, it would be appreciated. W C M email 19:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
it I note there are two inaccuracies in the text currently in the article. 1. It states the population left. This is inaccurate according to Jackson, who notes some 70 families remained behind. 2. It states that they left to the Campo de Gibraltar. Jackson notes those who left travelling quite widely as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga.
I also note the current text is perilously close to a copyvio of one of the sources cited. We cannot allow a copyvio to persist.
Noting this an overview article, which should not be cluttered with tangential information, I would suggest we correct this with:
“ | Following the occupation of the town by Hapsburg forces most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
W C M email 16:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I have given you a google books link to text, what is in the article is a close paraphrase of the text in that source. And I have made it plain that what I introduced was a temporary measure. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert but you chose not to. The tags I added were because the text was inaccurate and didn't reflect the sources, you've just added more sources and the text still doesn't reflect what the sources say. Much as I hate to comment on editors rather than content, I don't see your actions as being in good faith. You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. For the record I don't see a convincing need to delineate what happened to people after they left Gibraltar in an article that is intended to be an overview of Gibraltar. You haven't provided a convincing reason otherwise. W C M email 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the possible copyvio here. The suggestion from our resident copyright expert is to reword removing the term exodus. I have also noted the excessive citations that have been added.
I still point out the current text is inaccurate and doesn't reflect what sources say. All of the source qualify their statement to identify that most of the population left. It's also inaccurate in that whilst many settled nearby, others settled much further away. It is proposed to change this to:
“ | Following the occupation of the Gibraltar by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
This I believe addresses the problems in the text and addresses the comments of Moonriddengirl. W C M email 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the evacuation of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
At the moment the text does not reflect the source, I'd be quite within my rights to go ahead and remove it altogether. You can't veto the removal of inaccurate text citing lack of consensus: consensus cannot override verifiability. W C M email 16:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that using beaten wives as an example to prove a point is quite insensitive, repulsive and off-topic. If you want to use examples, I am sure you can think of much better ones.
I have made a good faith checklist of agreements/disagreements in the phrase about the Gibraltarians that left their homes after the invasion. That is not a leading question.
You can say your opinion about each of those points and/or propose a new checklist. Or propose a different way of discussing this question. Thanks. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This article (and more specifically the History section) is not only about what had an impact on Gibraltar, but also what impact Gibraltar had on others (forgive JFK’s rip-off ;o) ). And I cannot think of any other place where Gibraltar had greatest historical impact than San Roque and the Campo de Gibraltar following the exile of Gibraltar’s refugees after 1704 (and viceversa, even in the XX and XXI century).
Regarding the Treaty of Utrech, I think it has an important prominence in the article. Do you think it should be expanded?
Regarding other episodes in the History section, it would be an interesting exercise to rank the relevance of each one of them and compare that with the details provided in the article. E.g.: What do you think is more relevant, the exile to San Roque or the evacuation of civilian population to London and several other places during WWII? Is the support during the siege of Malta during WWII more relevant to Gibraltar than the exile of more than 98% of Gibraltarians to San Roque with all of the city’s historical documents and institutions? These are not rethorical questions, please share your opinion about the relevance and the due weight of each of these episodes.
(Regarding your comment that editing WP is not an appropriate pursuit for me... I think it doesn’t add any value to the discussion. Let’s stick the discussion to content, please.)
Thanks! - Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Many sources mention that virtually all of Gibraltar's population fled after the takeover, that they did largeply go to San Roque, and that they kept the official continuity of Gibraltar's city council, its historical documents, etc. in the new settlement:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link):“ | 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. | ” |
“ | All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (...) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. | ” |
“ | (...) all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia [the site of San Roque]. (...) Bartolomé Luis Varela, gave houseroom in his country mansion to the city's standard and records; the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque. Philip V, in granting the authority and in subsequent communications, addressed them always as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. | ” |
“ | 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. | ” |
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)“ | (...) although the largest part of the population and the city council settled again in the nearby hermitage of San Roque, which had been founded in 1604 half a league from the ruins of Carteia; the new town, which nobody had the temptation to call "New Gibraltar" expecting a soon return, was recognized in 1706 by Philip V as "Mi city of Gibraltar in its Campo", and went on to be the direct heir and institutional successor of Gibraltar, with its city council, archive and the banner that Queen Isabella the Catholic had given to the city that was "key of these kingdoms". | ” |
“ | But most of them settled in Spain round the hill of San Roque, within sight of the lost city. Their Sovereign, the Bourbon Philip V, whom the British soon recognised as lawful King of Spain, never ceased to regard them as the future burgesses of the fortress he daily mourned, and recognised the new municipality by Royal Patent as the Council, Tribunal, Officers and Gentlemen of the City of Gibraltar. To this day San Roque bears the arms and constitution of the Spanish City of Gibraltar in Exile. | ” |
“ | When the Anglo Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. | ” |
“ | Numbers fell by the way victims to hunger and fatigue some reached Tarifa, Medina Sidonia, Ronda and other towns in the neighbourhood while many especially the authorities remained at St Roque keeping with them the archives of their ancient city. | ” |
Kahastok has said, replying to
Bryan Henderson that "They did not largely go to one place" and that "This is a
WP:FRINGE view that goes far beyond the POV of the Spanish government and of any mainstream literature."
Anyone can see that the overwhelming majority of reliable British and Spanish secondary sources say that the largest part of the population settled in San Roque (even though some smaller groups did settle in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, etc.) and gave official continuity to Gibraltar in that new town. This is a verifiable fact. Like Bryan said, this is relevant information and the cost of words is too small. And, I say, other parts of the article do not omit the destination of other evacuations of Gibraltar's population.
With this evidence I think we should all move on and accept as a fact that "the largest part of Gibraltar's population took refuge in San Roque with the city council and historical archives, and that the new municipality was recognized by Royal Patent as the City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." - Imalbornoz ( talk) 12:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | (...)The most important settlement 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, (...) | ” |
WCM is correct. I don't want this removed, I want this corrected. But if the only way to have an accurate article is to remove the point entirely, then removing it may well be the least worst option.
And as I noted before, if it is removed in these circumstances, then per WP:BURDEN, we will need a consensus for a specific text before we can reinstate any text, including the one currently in the article. Kahastok talk 18:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | The occupation caused the departure of virtually all the population to several places in Andalucia, although the most important settlement was in San Roque. The city council, banner, and records were moved there and, in 1706, Philip V addressed it as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." San Roque became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of virtually all the population the most important settlement was San Roque. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the flight [or the exile] of virtually all the population, to several nearby places, but the most important settlement was San Roque. | ” |
Should we use Kahastok’s (a very respectable Wikipedian but not actually a wp:source) interpretation of “the most important settlement” or William Jackson’s (a cited historian and Gibraltar’s governor for 4 years)? - Imalbornoz ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank for, inadvertently I presume, making my point for me. What is the "most important" is entirely subjective, whether it is me, Jackson, the Jackson 5, the Pope, Uncle Tom Cobbley and his Aunt; it's an opinion and it is not a fact. And no, you haven't provided overwhelming numbers of sources, you've provided precisely one; the opinion of one author not a fact. And as Kahastok points out above, you've selectively tailored that quote and it doesn't support your edit.
The point I made is very simple, the criteria for deciding what is "most important" is entirely subjective; you can't use an author's opinion based on their subjective criteria. That is all. I won't indulge you by following you down the irrelevant rabbit holes you wish to bolt. W C M email 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- the most important settlement to be set up was San Roque - the largest part of the population settled in the nearby hermitage of San Roque - most of them settled around the hill of San Roque - to San Roque, some miles inside Spain
Absence of a reply is not agreement. Sometimes people have better things to do than argue over minutiae. We've already acknowledged you seem unable to distinguish between individual author's opinions and fact. We've acknowledged that sources mention some facts and some the author's opinion. So personally I didn't see the point in repeating myself. I did not see an edit proposal from you, you've been most insistent that we have to have agreement in talk before editing. In fact, reviewing what you've written there was clearly objection to the weasel wording you are using. So as there is no consensus I have reverted. W C M email 16:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to over the same ground repeatedly, it isn't rude to ignore you when you insist we do so. It is rude, however, to constantly treat other editors like they were idiots.
Your own quotes demonstrate 2 things:
The current text does not, it's inaccurate and doesn't reflect the sources. The text fails verification and could be removed at any time. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that we are editing in good faith and trying to reach a consensus solution. The fact that one has not arisen stems from the fact you are obstructing it by filibustering . You are determined that you get your preferred wording, which is not acceptable per WP:NPOV and seeks to introduce WP:WEASEL wording. Instead of discussing the text you seem to determined to personalise matters. I don't think matters are helped by everytime you agree with something you go back on your word. You agreed that the term exodus should be removed and now you're reintroducing it. Above I asked you what your red lines were. That's the first time you ever came out and said it, that you want the mention of San Roque reintroduced. Funny how 10 years later you're still stuck on the same stubborn agenda, which you're not prepared to compromise on under any circumstances. It's your stubborness that is leading to a situation where the text is likely to be removed. WP:BRD doesn't apply here, the text has been challenged, it's failed verification and can be removed at any time. W C M email 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation of the Gibraltar by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of more than 98% of the population, mainly to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
Whooa! Let's all calm down, please. You said many things in your comments ("No we don't agree", "I'm not going to discuss your rabbit hole", "you are conducting WP:OR"), so it seems I didn't understand you were asking for the content in the sources.
I already posted the content of two sources, which are pretty clear: townspeople were only permitted to remain if they made an oath of allegiance to Charles III. I don't see any other interpretation of "Only about 70 persons (...) elected to remain, which was only permitted on the conditions that they swear allegiance to the Archduke Charles as Charles III". That is what the rules of the terms of surrender said. Therefore, it was mandatory.
If you need to know more, here are more details:
This is really very tiring, honestly. Anyone who reads those sources, or even the WP article about the capture of Gibraltar can see that the oath was mandatory. I just hope that my dedication of time to satisfy your doubts counts as a sign of good faith.
Regarding the accuracy of the term "exodus of the population": let me insist that it does not mean "exodus of ALL the population", just like "evacuation of the population" does not mean "evacuation of ALL the population". Otherwise, the name of the article " Evacuation of the Gibraltarian civilian population during World War II" would be wrong, because not ALL the civilian population was evacuated, as you know. It can be more accurate (thanks for adding the qualifier "most" in the Gibraltar article), but it is not wrong. Would you want to delete the Evacuation article because of lack of accuracy? No way. It is a very interesting article and the name is correct. Then, please be consistent and don't delete the phrase about the exodus.
Regarding my attitude for consensus, I have proposed several alternatives. I even proposed one that does not include the name "San Roque" (which I think is very important), because I thought that was a no no for you. You have only proposed one possible sentence, without any mention of the destination at all. Please, I think you need to see me in a more positive light. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 10:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town, many settling nearby. | ” |
Unless I see movement on your part I feel, reluctantly, there is no other option other than to remove the text. W C M email 13:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
“ | Following the occupation mainly the population elected to leave the town mostly settling nearby. | ” |
You say you want to change the current text because it is not accurate. The following alternative keeps the wording of the current CONSENSUS text, eliminates redundant information, keeps its length (23 words now and 23 words before) AND is more accurate as you proposed:
“ | The occupation of the town caused the exodus of virtually all the population, mainly to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
I will include this edit unless someone opposes it with a very good explanation. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Subsequently most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling within sight of the Rock. | ” |
But I'm pretty much done with this. W C M email 22:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, you have just deleted any mention of the fact that 98% of the population of Gibraltar left their homes (forever, even though they didn't know it at the time) after the British-Dutch takeover. It was a pivotal point in Gibraltar's history. The sentence you deleted was written while you and I (and Kahastok) were banned from Gibraltar related articles. There has been consensus for that sentence for 8 years. There is no consensus for removing the sentence now.
I have proposed to leave the current sentence and, if you want more accuracy, add some qualifiers. I really don't understand the reasons for your wanting to delete the last consensus sentence and your opposition to just add some qualifiers.
In any case, I am not going to edit war with you. I will just remind you of the discretionary sanctions mentioned in your ban and its withdrawal and ask you to revert the deletion and continue the discussion. If you think that discussion here is improductive, then I propose to try mediation or a request for comment. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
or
“ | Subsequently most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling within sight of the Rock. | ” |
A source used by all of the involved editors, Peter Gold ("Gibraltar, British or Spanish?" published by Routledge in 2005) makes a very brief and effective summary of the episode. It is a reliable source, cited in several academic books and articles, and the research was financed by both British (the British council) and Spanish (Ministry of Education) institutions (that is, it is not suspect of having a nationalist POV). We can use it as a guide to develop a consensus text.
The source says:
“ | After three days of battle, on 4 August, Gibraltar was successfully seized. Of the 4,000 inhabitants, all but 70 fled across the isthmus into the hinterland of the Campo de Gibraltar, many settling temporarily (or so they thought) in San Roque, which two years later King Philip V of Spain dubbed ‘My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo’. | ” |
We can use this source to say:
or
I propose we use this sentence (at least as a stopgap measure). What I think is unacceptable right now is the very unsalomonic solution of removing the information altogether (I really can't see how it benefits Wikipedia). - Imalbornoz ( talk) 14:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Your suggestions have not received support and you seem to have a unique view of "compromise" or meeting people half-way. At the moment we could quite legitimately place into the article one of the sentences that have broad support, citing a non-unanimous consensus. The only reason it hasn't been done so, is the certain knowledge that you would revert it, claiming a "lack of consensus" and no one wishes to indulge you in an edit war. And the current proposal is based on a source YOU provided. I'll remind you:
“ | All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (...) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. | ” |
At the moment, you're scouring sources to fit the exact wording you wish to impose. Whereas, the current suggestion with broad support is based on evaluating sources and coming up with an original text that reflects the range of views. I suppose the current situation will persist, whilst you adopt an approach of frustrating consensus building by claiming "consensus" means you have a veto. No one is happy with the current situation, equally I don't see people happy with continuing to try reasoning with an editor unable or unwilling to accept the broad consensus position. W C M email 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Although any other civilians who elected to remain must swear allegiance to Charles III, they would retain their rights and privileges as they had existed under Charles II.
All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia. They had been promised by their priests that the French would quickly retake the city and most doubtless believed this. Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. |
” |
Let's take a step back, please. Honestly, what I see is:
I think we should bring some external comments from users who are not as involved as we three are and with a bit more involvement than the editors we have managed to scare away from the discussion. Probably, the best way to do this is to start the RfC that was imposed on us when we were banned (and which we never put in place), with a compromise to minimize (i) our explanation of the possible options and (ii) our responses; we could also ask for the guidance of an administrator.
I am not going to edit war. You can see that in ALL of the articles where there has been a dispute ( Gibraltar, Gibraltarians, Campo de Gibraltar, and Capture of Gibraltar) the current edits are always yours (even if there’s no consensus for your changes to the text). I have not pushed for WP:BRD. I would ask you to self-revert to the previous consensus text in those articles while we discuss, but this is not a condition for the RfC.
Would you agree to define a short explanation of options for the RfC request and limit ourselves in our comments? - Imalbornoz ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
IdreamofJeanie, I agreed with you and so do several sources who use "flight" or the verb to "flee". But it seems that WCM and Kahastok's refusal (two editors) was enough to discard a suggestion supported by two other editors.
I have accepted to not mention many facts to build consensus. Initially, I proposed to mention a very brief or even an indirect mention of some facts that are included in practically all the sources. In order to reach consensus, I have progressively dicarded them. For example:
You can (i) mention those facts and say that they "elected to leave" or (ii) you can remove the facts (as I have accepted) and say they "fled" or left in "exodus" or "exile".
An example: you cannot say that the Jewish population "elected to leave" Spain in 1492 without mentioning that, in order to remain, it was mandatory to convert to Christianity and that they were persecuted; but if you don't mention those facts, at least you must say that they were "expelled" or left in "exodus".
I have also accepted in my proposal not to mention that the legacy of the city council in exile, its archives, etc. stayed in San Roque which, as William Jackson says "became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar". But you cannot understand Gibraltar today if you don't know that almost all the 4,000 former townspeople stayed in the municipality of Gibraltar (which afterwards was split in two: Gibraltar and its Campo), because their descendants have had a huge influence in the city (for example, even today they represent 33% of the workforce: 9,000 CampodeGibraltarians cross the border everyday to work in Gibraltar).
So, I have accepted to adapt my proposals and remove mention of some facts, but we should take them into account when we describe the episode in one phrase, and all of that fits in a sentence that is only 19 words long. I can not see why anyone would want to remove even an indirect reference of those facts from the article with no significant gain in length of text. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Although any other civilians who elected to remain must swear allegiance to Charles III, they would retain their rights and privileges as they had existed under Charles II.
All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave (...) |
” |
“ | Following the takeover, all but 70 of the existing population of 4,000 fled, most of them settling in the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
I've followed Bryan and Apcbg's suggestion to simply say they left. I will not be reverting to restore a text that fails verification, please step away from that dead horse. I oppose the above suggestion for once again introducing weasel words and too much detail for an overview. It also ignores consideration of WP:WEIGHT to attach greater emphasis to this event. Details belong elsewhere. I would suggest the current bold edit I made is all that is required. 13:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
PS my alternative suggestion is to simply remove the whole sentence altogether, I think everyone is tired of this silly nonsense. W C M email 13:27, 24 January 2019 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Should the lead mention Gibraltar's inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories? TFD ( talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies to the UN that would be decolonized. The UN added these colonies to its list of non-self-governing territories which would ultimately be given independence. Since then most of these territories have become independent, but a handful of territories with small populations remain on the list. The UK has requested the removal of Gibraltar, claiming that the establishment of internal self-government meets the UN concerns. Spain objects, saying that the local population are not an indigenous population and the UK has colonized a part of Spain. The UN has not taken a position on this dispute and has asked both sides to continue discussions.
No editors question that the dispute between the UK and Spain should be mentioned, but disagree on whether the status as a non-self-governing territory should be mentioned. I think it is important because it elevates a bilateral dispute over territory to one of significance to the international community. Removal from the list is a major concern of the Gibraltar government.
TFD ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You have consistently reverted all references to UN resolutions or positions in the lead, so yes, I stand by my statement and it is visible in the article history. Asilah1981 ( talk) 17:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston),
“ | We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. | ” |
Your conclusion that "inclusion on the list....makes it an issue of international concern" is your own conclusion, we don't permit WP:OR on Wikipedia. You need a reliable secondary source to say that. But again the point remains that inclusion on the list is not the significant political issue, that is the sovereignty dispute. W C M email 08:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ángel Israel Rivera Ortiz; Aarón Gamaliel Ramos (2001). Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean. Ian Randle Publishers. ISBN 978-976-637-040-4.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (people)
[10] I don't believe the individual in this edit meets our notability guidelines. Instead of edit warring, why don't you demonstrate notability or perhaps actually contribute a new article to wikipedia. This reflex edit warring just has to stop. W C M email 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take before there the innuendo started, what are you presuming? I've already stated it's because they don't meet notability requirements nothing more nothing less. W C M email 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And the list goes on... Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
WCM Thank you for your self-revert. I see you have noticed that the version of the article which included the contentious sentence was the consensus version, prior to sentence being deleted a few days ago. Regards, Elie. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W That is a fair observation, but this guy seems pretty notable by Gibraltarian standards - been looking at his stuff and its quite impressive. Btw, I don´t think this is the same guy. http://gibraltarphilanthropyforum.com/th_gallery/trino-cruz/ Somehow doesn´t strike me as a poet banker. Oddly, the poet´s second surname is Sephardic Jewish although his name is a typical hispanic rendition of "Joseph Trinity" which is not Jewish at all. I personally did not know about him but will read up on his stuff, very linked to Morocco and specifically Tangiers. Asilah1981 ( talk) 13:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I created the entry ( Trino Cruz) as suggested by Wee Curry Monster. I argue the the creation of the entry is totally unrelated to the discussion about the inclusion of the contested content, though. Regards.-- Asqueladd ( talk) 14:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the article stops with «the House of Lords has produced a report entitled "Brexit: Gibraltar». It might be rather outdated. I assume that newer declaration might be cited in this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 ( talk) 18:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the history of Brits moving there? Did the British government ever provide incentives, or is it mainly ex-military personnel and their descendants, or wealthy tax-dodging Brits? Historian932 ( talk) 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn´t even mention the resolution of 1946 that talks about "Non-Self-Governing Territories", so I think it shoud be mentioned. http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
"Gibraltar was nominated to be included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946[47] and has been listed ever since.[48] The government of Gibraltar has actively worked to have Gibraltar removed from the list,[49] and in 2008 the British government declared Gibraltar's continued presence on the list an anachronism.[50]"
Incorrect, the article does. W C M email 14:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
One or more anonymous editors recently put some effort into changing all the monthly daily mean temperatures, and I have changed them back. The edit summary seems to say the editor calculated the daily mean temperature for a month as the mean of the highest and lowest temperature in the month, which is not what daily mean temperature for a month means. It is the mean over the entire month. One has to measure the temperature every hour of the month and divide by the number of hours in the month. A bigger problem is that we don't normally synthesize facts in Wikipedia - we just report what other documents say. The source for these numbers is given as http://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/beratung/ak/ak_084950_kt.pdf . Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's happened a few more times, most recently it was only for only three months, for some reason. The edit summary suggests the source is incorrect, but there is no better source given - just the editor's own incorrect calculation. Other edit summaries make it clear the editor didn't check the talk page in August as requested in my edit summary then, and didn't understand why some of us prefer the original numbers. I have changed the numbers back to match the source and referred again to this talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,
In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)
The source, https://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/gibraltar/gibraltar.php, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.
Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.
So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?
As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz ( talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. W C M email 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [11], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.
Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? W C M email 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I made an edit to mention that the population of Gibraltar took the historical documents of the village together with their own belongings when they left it after it was invaded by Rooke's British-Dutch-Spanish forces in 1704. It is well documented fact, mentioned by:
Kahastok not only reverted my edit, but deleted as well part of the previous text (which had been there for 8 years, after a long discussion that caused many users to be banned or blocked). I will restore the previous consensus while we discuss the new proposal (per BRD, as Kahastok has always done even when he had a different alias).
The previous consensus was:"The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."
My proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population. The most important settlement 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 became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."
It seems Kahastok's proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population."
Thanks - Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on content or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ad hominem and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref content or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. W C M email 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-
The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.
Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history -- Rockysantos ( talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. | ” |
I was under the misleading impression I had made myself clear, apparently not. To be clear, I am only prepared to discuss content, nothing more. Now if you could address the content issue, it would be appreciated. W C M email 19:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
it I note there are two inaccuracies in the text currently in the article. 1. It states the population left. This is inaccurate according to Jackson, who notes some 70 families remained behind. 2. It states that they left to the Campo de Gibraltar. Jackson notes those who left travelling quite widely as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga.
I also note the current text is perilously close to a copyvio of one of the sources cited. We cannot allow a copyvio to persist.
Noting this an overview article, which should not be cluttered with tangential information, I would suggest we correct this with:
“ | Following the occupation of the town by Hapsburg forces most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
W C M email 16:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I have given you a google books link to text, what is in the article is a close paraphrase of the text in that source. And I have made it plain that what I introduced was a temporary measure. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert but you chose not to. The tags I added were because the text was inaccurate and didn't reflect the sources, you've just added more sources and the text still doesn't reflect what the sources say. Much as I hate to comment on editors rather than content, I don't see your actions as being in good faith. You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. For the record I don't see a convincing need to delineate what happened to people after they left Gibraltar in an article that is intended to be an overview of Gibraltar. You haven't provided a convincing reason otherwise. W C M email 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the possible copyvio here. The suggestion from our resident copyright expert is to reword removing the term exodus. I have also noted the excessive citations that have been added.
I still point out the current text is inaccurate and doesn't reflect what sources say. All of the source qualify their statement to identify that most of the population left. It's also inaccurate in that whilst many settled nearby, others settled much further away. It is proposed to change this to:
“ | Following the occupation of the Gibraltar by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
This I believe addresses the problems in the text and addresses the comments of Moonriddengirl. W C M email 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the evacuation of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
At the moment the text does not reflect the source, I'd be quite within my rights to go ahead and remove it altogether. You can't veto the removal of inaccurate text citing lack of consensus: consensus cannot override verifiability. W C M email 16:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that using beaten wives as an example to prove a point is quite insensitive, repulsive and off-topic. If you want to use examples, I am sure you can think of much better ones.
I have made a good faith checklist of agreements/disagreements in the phrase about the Gibraltarians that left their homes after the invasion. That is not a leading question.
You can say your opinion about each of those points and/or propose a new checklist. Or propose a different way of discussing this question. Thanks. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This article (and more specifically the History section) is not only about what had an impact on Gibraltar, but also what impact Gibraltar had on others (forgive JFK’s rip-off ;o) ). And I cannot think of any other place where Gibraltar had greatest historical impact than San Roque and the Campo de Gibraltar following the exile of Gibraltar’s refugees after 1704 (and viceversa, even in the XX and XXI century).
Regarding the Treaty of Utrech, I think it has an important prominence in the article. Do you think it should be expanded?
Regarding other episodes in the History section, it would be an interesting exercise to rank the relevance of each one of them and compare that with the details provided in the article. E.g.: What do you think is more relevant, the exile to San Roque or the evacuation of civilian population to London and several other places during WWII? Is the support during the siege of Malta during WWII more relevant to Gibraltar than the exile of more than 98% of Gibraltarians to San Roque with all of the city’s historical documents and institutions? These are not rethorical questions, please share your opinion about the relevance and the due weight of each of these episodes.
(Regarding your comment that editing WP is not an appropriate pursuit for me... I think it doesn’t add any value to the discussion. Let’s stick the discussion to content, please.)
Thanks! - Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Many sources mention that virtually all of Gibraltar's population fled after the takeover, that they did largeply go to San Roque, and that they kept the official continuity of Gibraltar's city council, its historical documents, etc. in the new settlement:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link):“ | 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. | ” |
“ | All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (...) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. | ” |
“ | (...) all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia [the site of San Roque]. (...) Bartolomé Luis Varela, gave houseroom in his country mansion to the city's standard and records; the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque. Philip V, in granting the authority and in subsequent communications, addressed them always as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. | ” |
“ | 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. | ” |
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)“ | (...) although the largest part of the population and the city council settled again in the nearby hermitage of San Roque, which had been founded in 1604 half a league from the ruins of Carteia; the new town, which nobody had the temptation to call "New Gibraltar" expecting a soon return, was recognized in 1706 by Philip V as "Mi city of Gibraltar in its Campo", and went on to be the direct heir and institutional successor of Gibraltar, with its city council, archive and the banner that Queen Isabella the Catholic had given to the city that was "key of these kingdoms". | ” |
“ | But most of them settled in Spain round the hill of San Roque, within sight of the lost city. Their Sovereign, the Bourbon Philip V, whom the British soon recognised as lawful King of Spain, never ceased to regard them as the future burgesses of the fortress he daily mourned, and recognised the new municipality by Royal Patent as the Council, Tribunal, Officers and Gentlemen of the City of Gibraltar. To this day San Roque bears the arms and constitution of the Spanish City of Gibraltar in Exile. | ” |
“ | When the Anglo Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. | ” |
“ | Numbers fell by the way victims to hunger and fatigue some reached Tarifa, Medina Sidonia, Ronda and other towns in the neighbourhood while many especially the authorities remained at St Roque keeping with them the archives of their ancient city. | ” |
Kahastok has said, replying to
Bryan Henderson that "They did not largely go to one place" and that "This is a
WP:FRINGE view that goes far beyond the POV of the Spanish government and of any mainstream literature."
Anyone can see that the overwhelming majority of reliable British and Spanish secondary sources say that the largest part of the population settled in San Roque (even though some smaller groups did settle in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, etc.) and gave official continuity to Gibraltar in that new town. This is a verifiable fact. Like Bryan said, this is relevant information and the cost of words is too small. And, I say, other parts of the article do not omit the destination of other evacuations of Gibraltar's population.
With this evidence I think we should all move on and accept as a fact that "the largest part of Gibraltar's population took refuge in San Roque with the city council and historical archives, and that the new municipality was recognized by Royal Patent as the City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." - Imalbornoz ( talk) 12:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | (...)The most important settlement 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, (...) | ” |
WCM is correct. I don't want this removed, I want this corrected. But if the only way to have an accurate article is to remove the point entirely, then removing it may well be the least worst option.
And as I noted before, if it is removed in these circumstances, then per WP:BURDEN, we will need a consensus for a specific text before we can reinstate any text, including the one currently in the article. Kahastok talk 18:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | The occupation caused the departure of virtually all the population to several places in Andalucia, although the most important settlement was in San Roque. The city council, banner, and records were moved there and, in 1706, Philip V addressed it as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." San Roque became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of virtually all the population the most important settlement was San Roque. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the flight [or the exile] of virtually all the population, to several nearby places, but the most important settlement was San Roque. | ” |
Should we use Kahastok’s (a very respectable Wikipedian but not actually a wp:source) interpretation of “the most important settlement” or William Jackson’s (a cited historian and Gibraltar’s governor for 4 years)? - Imalbornoz ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank for, inadvertently I presume, making my point for me. What is the "most important" is entirely subjective, whether it is me, Jackson, the Jackson 5, the Pope, Uncle Tom Cobbley and his Aunt; it's an opinion and it is not a fact. And no, you haven't provided overwhelming numbers of sources, you've provided precisely one; the opinion of one author not a fact. And as Kahastok points out above, you've selectively tailored that quote and it doesn't support your edit.
The point I made is very simple, the criteria for deciding what is "most important" is entirely subjective; you can't use an author's opinion based on their subjective criteria. That is all. I won't indulge you by following you down the irrelevant rabbit holes you wish to bolt. W C M email 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- the most important settlement to be set up was San Roque - the largest part of the population settled in the nearby hermitage of San Roque - most of them settled around the hill of San Roque - to San Roque, some miles inside Spain
Absence of a reply is not agreement. Sometimes people have better things to do than argue over minutiae. We've already acknowledged you seem unable to distinguish between individual author's opinions and fact. We've acknowledged that sources mention some facts and some the author's opinion. So personally I didn't see the point in repeating myself. I did not see an edit proposal from you, you've been most insistent that we have to have agreement in talk before editing. In fact, reviewing what you've written there was clearly objection to the weasel wording you are using. So as there is no consensus I have reverted. W C M email 16:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to over the same ground repeatedly, it isn't rude to ignore you when you insist we do so. It is rude, however, to constantly treat other editors like they were idiots.
Your own quotes demonstrate 2 things:
The current text does not, it's inaccurate and doesn't reflect the sources. The text fails verification and could be removed at any time. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that we are editing in good faith and trying to reach a consensus solution. The fact that one has not arisen stems from the fact you are obstructing it by filibustering . You are determined that you get your preferred wording, which is not acceptable per WP:NPOV and seeks to introduce WP:WEASEL wording. Instead of discussing the text you seem to determined to personalise matters. I don't think matters are helped by everytime you agree with something you go back on your word. You agreed that the term exodus should be removed and now you're reintroducing it. Above I asked you what your red lines were. That's the first time you ever came out and said it, that you want the mention of San Roque reintroduced. Funny how 10 years later you're still stuck on the same stubborn agenda, which you're not prepared to compromise on under any circumstances. It's your stubborness that is leading to a situation where the text is likely to be removed. WP:BRD doesn't apply here, the text has been challenged, it's failed verification and can be removed at any time. W C M email 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation of the Gibraltar by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town. | ” |
“ | The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of more than 98% of the population, mainly to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
Whooa! Let's all calm down, please. You said many things in your comments ("No we don't agree", "I'm not going to discuss your rabbit hole", "you are conducting WP:OR"), so it seems I didn't understand you were asking for the content in the sources.
I already posted the content of two sources, which are pretty clear: townspeople were only permitted to remain if they made an oath of allegiance to Charles III. I don't see any other interpretation of "Only about 70 persons (...) elected to remain, which was only permitted on the conditions that they swear allegiance to the Archduke Charles as Charles III". That is what the rules of the terms of surrender said. Therefore, it was mandatory.
If you need to know more, here are more details:
This is really very tiring, honestly. Anyone who reads those sources, or even the WP article about the capture of Gibraltar can see that the oath was mandatory. I just hope that my dedication of time to satisfy your doubts counts as a sign of good faith.
Regarding the accuracy of the term "exodus of the population": let me insist that it does not mean "exodus of ALL the population", just like "evacuation of the population" does not mean "evacuation of ALL the population". Otherwise, the name of the article " Evacuation of the Gibraltarian civilian population during World War II" would be wrong, because not ALL the civilian population was evacuated, as you know. It can be more accurate (thanks for adding the qualifier "most" in the Gibraltar article), but it is not wrong. Would you want to delete the Evacuation article because of lack of accuracy? No way. It is a very interesting article and the name is correct. Then, please be consistent and don't delete the phrase about the exodus.
Regarding my attitude for consensus, I have proposed several alternatives. I even proposed one that does not include the name "San Roque" (which I think is very important), because I thought that was a no no for you. You have only proposed one possible sentence, without any mention of the destination at all. Please, I think you need to see me in a more positive light. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 10:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation by forces of the Grand Alliance most of the population abandoned the town, many settling nearby. | ” |
Unless I see movement on your part I feel, reluctantly, there is no other option other than to remove the text. W C M email 13:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
“ | Following the occupation mainly the population elected to leave the town mostly settling nearby. | ” |
You say you want to change the current text because it is not accurate. The following alternative keeps the wording of the current CONSENSUS text, eliminates redundant information, keeps its length (23 words now and 23 words before) AND is more accurate as you proposed:
“ | The occupation of the town caused the exodus of virtually all the population, mainly to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
I will include this edit unless someone opposes it with a very good explanation. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Subsequently most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling within sight of the Rock. | ” |
But I'm pretty much done with this. W C M email 22:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, you have just deleted any mention of the fact that 98% of the population of Gibraltar left their homes (forever, even though they didn't know it at the time) after the British-Dutch takeover. It was a pivotal point in Gibraltar's history. The sentence you deleted was written while you and I (and Kahastok) were banned from Gibraltar related articles. There has been consensus for that sentence for 8 years. There is no consensus for removing the sentence now.
I have proposed to leave the current sentence and, if you want more accuracy, add some qualifiers. I really don't understand the reasons for your wanting to delete the last consensus sentence and your opposition to just add some qualifiers.
In any case, I am not going to edit war with you. I will just remind you of the discretionary sanctions mentioned in your ban and its withdrawal and ask you to revert the deletion and continue the discussion. If you think that discussion here is improductive, then I propose to try mediation or a request for comment. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
or
“ | Subsequently most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling within sight of the Rock. | ” |
A source used by all of the involved editors, Peter Gold ("Gibraltar, British or Spanish?" published by Routledge in 2005) makes a very brief and effective summary of the episode. It is a reliable source, cited in several academic books and articles, and the research was financed by both British (the British council) and Spanish (Ministry of Education) institutions (that is, it is not suspect of having a nationalist POV). We can use it as a guide to develop a consensus text.
The source says:
“ | After three days of battle, on 4 August, Gibraltar was successfully seized. Of the 4,000 inhabitants, all but 70 fled across the isthmus into the hinterland of the Campo de Gibraltar, many settling temporarily (or so they thought) in San Roque, which two years later King Philip V of Spain dubbed ‘My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo’. | ” |
We can use this source to say:
or
I propose we use this sentence (at least as a stopgap measure). What I think is unacceptable right now is the very unsalomonic solution of removing the information altogether (I really can't see how it benefits Wikipedia). - Imalbornoz ( talk) 14:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Your suggestions have not received support and you seem to have a unique view of "compromise" or meeting people half-way. At the moment we could quite legitimately place into the article one of the sentences that have broad support, citing a non-unanimous consensus. The only reason it hasn't been done so, is the certain knowledge that you would revert it, claiming a "lack of consensus" and no one wishes to indulge you in an edit war. And the current proposal is based on a source YOU provided. I'll remind you:
“ | All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (...) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. | ” |
At the moment, you're scouring sources to fit the exact wording you wish to impose. Whereas, the current suggestion with broad support is based on evaluating sources and coming up with an original text that reflects the range of views. I suppose the current situation will persist, whilst you adopt an approach of frustrating consensus building by claiming "consensus" means you have a veto. No one is happy with the current situation, equally I don't see people happy with continuing to try reasoning with an editor unable or unwilling to accept the broad consensus position. W C M email 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Although any other civilians who elected to remain must swear allegiance to Charles III, they would retain their rights and privileges as they had existed under Charles II.
All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia. They had been promised by their priests that the French would quickly retake the city and most doubtless believed this. Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. |
” |
Let's take a step back, please. Honestly, what I see is:
I think we should bring some external comments from users who are not as involved as we three are and with a bit more involvement than the editors we have managed to scare away from the discussion. Probably, the best way to do this is to start the RfC that was imposed on us when we were banned (and which we never put in place), with a compromise to minimize (i) our explanation of the possible options and (ii) our responses; we could also ask for the guidance of an administrator.
I am not going to edit war. You can see that in ALL of the articles where there has been a dispute ( Gibraltar, Gibraltarians, Campo de Gibraltar, and Capture of Gibraltar) the current edits are always yours (even if there’s no consensus for your changes to the text). I have not pushed for WP:BRD. I would ask you to self-revert to the previous consensus text in those articles while we discuss, but this is not a condition for the RfC.
Would you agree to define a short explanation of options for the RfC request and limit ourselves in our comments? - Imalbornoz ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Following the occupation most of the population elected to leave the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
IdreamofJeanie, I agreed with you and so do several sources who use "flight" or the verb to "flee". But it seems that WCM and Kahastok's refusal (two editors) was enough to discard a suggestion supported by two other editors.
I have accepted to not mention many facts to build consensus. Initially, I proposed to mention a very brief or even an indirect mention of some facts that are included in practically all the sources. In order to reach consensus, I have progressively dicarded them. For example:
You can (i) mention those facts and say that they "elected to leave" or (ii) you can remove the facts (as I have accepted) and say they "fled" or left in "exodus" or "exile".
An example: you cannot say that the Jewish population "elected to leave" Spain in 1492 without mentioning that, in order to remain, it was mandatory to convert to Christianity and that they were persecuted; but if you don't mention those facts, at least you must say that they were "expelled" or left in "exodus".
I have also accepted in my proposal not to mention that the legacy of the city council in exile, its archives, etc. stayed in San Roque which, as William Jackson says "became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar". But you cannot understand Gibraltar today if you don't know that almost all the 4,000 former townspeople stayed in the municipality of Gibraltar (which afterwards was split in two: Gibraltar and its Campo), because their descendants have had a huge influence in the city (for example, even today they represent 33% of the workforce: 9,000 CampodeGibraltarians cross the border everyday to work in Gibraltar).
So, I have accepted to adapt my proposals and remove mention of some facts, but we should take them into account when we describe the episode in one phrase, and all of that fits in a sentence that is only 19 words long. I can not see why anyone would want to remove even an indirect reference of those facts from the article with no significant gain in length of text. - Imalbornoz ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
“ | Although any other civilians who elected to remain must swear allegiance to Charles III, they would retain their rights and privileges as they had existed under Charles II.
All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave (...) |
” |
“ | Following the takeover, all but 70 of the existing population of 4,000 fled, most of them settling in the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar. | ” |
I've followed Bryan and Apcbg's suggestion to simply say they left. I will not be reverting to restore a text that fails verification, please step away from that dead horse. I oppose the above suggestion for once again introducing weasel words and too much detail for an overview. It also ignores consideration of WP:WEIGHT to attach greater emphasis to this event. Details belong elsewhere. I would suggest the current bold edit I made is all that is required. 13:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
PS my alternative suggestion is to simply remove the whole sentence altogether, I think everyone is tired of this silly nonsense. W C M email 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)