Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Władysław Sikorski

I'm bringing this up again (previous discussion here) as there is a fresh perspective on this article now. The sentence on Władysław Sikorski appearing in the WW2 subsection of the history section is to my mind very odd and out of place in this summary history of the territory. I've never even seen this mentioned in a history of Gibraltar. e.g. this book [1] has no mention in its substantial WW2 chapter. Nor does this book, which you can search inside [2] to confirm what I say. If we search Google books for "Sikorski Gibraltar" we don't find any books on Gibraltar itself [3]. A good example of where we do find it is in the Historical Dictionary of Poland [4].

It was entirely coincidental that he died leaving Gibraltar. Yes it may have been a major talking point and the subject of conspiracy theories in Gibraltar to this day, but that kind of topic should not be discussed in a history section. Therefore I suggest this sentence should be removed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Its considered a significant event 'in Gibraltar enough that there is a monument to the event, and was a pivotal event in world history. I do not understand your obsession with removing a line in the article about this. --Gibnews (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show me a text on the history of Gibraltar which mentions this event? I cannot find one. Therefore, I doubt its effect on the history of Gibraltar, and therefore its relevance in this section. If you can't either demonstrate its significance with a source rather than your own original research, I am going to remove it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than make any comment at present on the substantive point above, which in any case I find too minor either way to be worth arguing about, could I issue a general reminder that if all of us can avoid all reference to the perceived motivators of other editors, and if we are sufficiently large-minded to ignore past disagreements, we will achieve far more, at far less cost in irritation and verbiage, than we have done so far. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines provide excellent ways of working up fine articles, but on this page, discussion has repeatedly been derailed by disagreements based on the imputed desires of others.

To put it another way, if you assume that people are not out to get you, you may find that they aren't. And if you assume they don't care about your agenda and are just trying to improve the article, you may find you can answer their points in a civil and encyclopedic fashion. This will allow the article to improve rapidly with minimum stress all round. In this case, for example, are there any secondary sources on Gibraltar that find Sikorski's death worth mentioning? Or could we accept a nice picture of the monument? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice picture of the monument sounds good. The reason I bring this up is because the article contains far too many indiscriminate list-like one or two sentence paragraphs. Another case: the second half of the recent history section. The 2006+ one-liners are far too recent, and frankly, minor, to be included in a potted history of the territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, and I'm not disagreeing, but sometimes history really is just one damned thing after another, and the last to date in any series of events may be noteworthy for that reason alone. Rephrasing the one-liners into coherent prose may be worth a try, but I suggest that failure to do so doesn't necessarily require their deletion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

History is one damned thing after another, but that shouldn't stop an encyclopaedia article being a good, flowing read. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You may find the below images of use: --Gibmetal 77^talk 16:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks, very useful. I have chosen the picture that has the most legible English text and put it into the article. See what you think. I haven't managed to put it all into really flowing prose - best of luck. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

While the rest of Europe was cooling, the area around Gibraltar back then "resembled a European Serengeti," Finlayson said. Leopards, hyenas, lynxes, wolves and bears lived among wild cattle, horses, deer, ibexes, oryxes and rhinos — all surrounded by olive trees and stone pines, with partridges and ducks overhead, tortoises in the underbrush and mussels, limpets and other shellfish in the waters.

--this (under history) is a direct quote from Clive Finlayson, and should probably be in quotes. Efreak (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Das Boot listed under Gibraltar in film

All we see of Gibraltar itself in Das Boot a very blurry nighttime silhouette (probably not even actual footage of Gibraltar - at least, looks a bit dodgy, having crossed the Straits myself) and apart from a couple of statements about getting "near to Gibraltar" there is only one real line of dialogue about it - "Gibraltar, where the mildness and beauty of the Mediterranean world meet the force and expansion of the Atlantic realm." Is this really enough to list under Gibraltar in film? The film itself is not about Gibraltar at all, and its inclusion here smacks of trivia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Napoleonic times

If we are really interested in war incidents concerning Gibraltar, what about the Napoleonic times? Would it not be normal to expect of Spain hold their own, rather than being France's ideal enemy. Then the Spaniards could have said: "you see? You never needed Gibraltar". Could be that Lord Nelson would be allowed to live till the age of 80 or 90. So what is to be said of the Napoleonic times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar in popular culture

The section "Gibraltar in popular culture" consists only in trivial data. Having just read other articles about bigger cities such as Edinburgh, Madrid, Rome, Chicago or New York, after reading this one I felt that it adds very little to the article overall, which is too large already. This being a wiki, I deleted the section. However, I've been reverted twice for vandalism. I'm new to this, but I want to make it clear that I am not trying to vandalise anything. I state my opinion as a mere user of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.41.201 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia always urges, "be bold"! Don't let it put you off. It's just unfortunate that this page has some regular, stubborn editors who feel very strongly about what is contained within this page, almost bordering on ownership. If you change anything they don't like, it will be reverted as "vandalism", then write a one-million word essay here on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be changed. Chances are you will fall asleep and not even finish what they have written, never mind have it in you to argue your side! I invite you to sift through the Talk Page archives to see exactly what I mean... Beware - arguments and edit wars galore! Enjoy!! _Will^dow (Talk) 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, be bold, but don't get into an edit war. Anon IPs arriving and deleting entire sections is pretty much universally viewed as vandalism. I agree this section adds very little to the article and should be deleted. Personally, I hate these trivia sections. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for Notable people from Gibraltar. This should be integrated into List of Gibraltarians (an odd article, but hey, it can house the cruft), and this article should be listed as a "see also" item in Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the "see also" for List of Gibraltarians rather than having it on this page, which should be about Gibraltar itself. _Will^dow (Talk) 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's done. The (unsourced) LoG page was actually missing a couple of people here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I created an article Gibraltar in popular culture and moved that section's content there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the 'Culture' subsection of External links contains two dead links. Even if they pointed somewhere sensible, it looks like the same rather crude for-profit site which has no place in Wikipedia. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FA Nom?

As civility appears to have returned to this page, perhaps it's time to nominate Gibraltar for FA status? It would need a little work to have it in a state ready for nomination - basically ensuring the manual of style is being followed - reference formats, image layouts etc (unfortunately I think some of the images would have to go - there are too many). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we can work on the article so that it reaches FA status. Related to this, my biggest worry is about the lead. Gib looks like a very lively and mixed community in a strategical place with a very long and interesting history and a very strong personality, and a great part of the lead does not do justice to all of this. Actually, I find the lead a bit of a mess, probably not summarising some of the most important issues about Gibraltar and giving too much importance to things that are a bit anecdotal at best (for example the Jane's country rating part).

Take a look, for example, at France, Spain, UK, USA, ... It seems that the structure of the lead seems to be (more or less) the following: Geography and demography, History and culture, Government, Economy and international relations. If you look, the leads seem to highlight the issues that are more characteristic of the country vis a vis other countries (e.g.: the second largest territory, the biggest economy, ...) Couldn't we come up with a lead that goes along those lines? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent unopposed attempts to remove things from the article by editors who do not have any appreciation of the sigtnificance of events, like censoring the ruling on regional selectivity which was meritorious enough to warrant a PUBLIC HOLIDAY or the IRA incursion which generated international interest, the article is more likely to receive FU status in the future. --Gibnews (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "FU status"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess at Fucked Up. The concept of this being a GA let alone an FA is a stretch to me. I do think some things are along the right line (There appears to finally be a move towards prose as opposed to one liners, as well as removing extraneous information that belongs on more specialised pages), but we are a long way off and progress on this page is in no way fast enough for it to leap up to FA in the space of an FAR. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FUBAR status would be more appropriate. At the moment we have a half-arsed piss-poor compromise which only tells one half of the story. To be blunt, the article has added material on self-government but made no attempt to put the new material in context. Justin talk 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With the return (after threats of prolonged absence) of what I can only see as a WP:DIVA I have to abandon hopes of a Featured Article. An editor who can allude to some sort of apology on the 11th when I find at best "As a matter of disclosure, I said some things in the heat of the moment a few days ago that I regret and apologise publicly and unreservedly for", mixed up with comments such as "You have an agenda and wikipedia is the platform you chose to use; it isn't about writing an encyclopedia. I will never apologise for saying that, because you and I both know its true. I regret some of the things said in the heat of the moment that is all. My intention is to quit, if you wish to follow Red Hat's agenda of making it a block you go right ahead. I bare my buttocks in both of your general directions. Justin talk 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" I'm very sorry to say that in my judgement, after re-reading through the last three archive files, Justin's incivility and difficulty in getting to the point have derailed reams of discussion to date. I can see no reason why this should not continue indefinitely.

Again I ask for civility, relevant comments, encyclopedic suggested wordings rather than restatements of disagreement, and good sources. With them, we can work through almost any issues. Without them, very little can be achieved. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah right I see. Comment on the edit not the editor ring any bells?

You've decided who the problem was, no amount of actually trying to discuss the matter with you will achieve results. Take your own advice to be blunt.

You acknowledged it as as peripheral issue and my argument has always been about due prominence, which you've never ever addressed. Instead you label me a POV warrior and insist on edit warring your solution into the article, oblivious to any objections. You just see what you want to see, take the evidence you think fits the picture.

I suppose the irony of dragging up the comments from a month ago has passed you by restatements of disagreement by any chance Richard. Not to mention bullying your solution into the article when you're talking about civility and ignoring any comments or grossly misrepresenting the arguments. Then when someone gets upset at being treated in that manner, then that just self-reinforces your beliefs. Sorry that I'm a humble engineering graduate and don't have a Cambridge tie dear boy. Justin talk 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

San Roque

San Roque was imposed on this article, in spite of reasoned objections for its inclusion, argued on the basis of policy and not one of which has ever been rebutted or answered. Instead, it has been included on the basis that was "censorship", well on the basis "When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.", I wish to reopen that again because I really do object to a solution being imposed by edit warring and avoiding discussion of the argument. I'm opening it up for discussion, if there is to be no discussion then I am simply going to remove it. Justin talk 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, the present text reflects a consensus, based on the priorities of the authoritative sources quoted. Do we need to go through it all again? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No it does not represent a consensus, it was a solution imposed by yourself and you have never addressed the argument I presented against inclusion. Yes we have to go through it all again, it was included on the basis of long term tendentious arguments and that I resent as a means of arguing for inclusion. We don't encourage consensus agreement by appeasement.

Further, I didn't impose my preferred version I added a compromise as suggested by Atama, which I noted you reverted without discussion. Justin talk 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, Justin... you are not having a very good re-entry (it's been... only 17 days! since your "Thanks but this is goodbye"). Your first post here since your return has included the keywords: "imposed", "censorship", "someone (...) are up to no good", "imposed by edit warring", "avoiding discussion"... Mmmmhhh...

I have found 485 mentions of San Roque in this talk page (here, here, here, and here). Can anyone seriously say that San Roque has not been discussed? Really, if someone said that, I would have to infer that the person a) has a significant level of self-delusion or b) is trying to delude other people or c) is joking. Justin, when you said that it was imposed by edit warring and avoiding discussion you were joking... weren't you?

If you care to look at those archives, you will find that the main argument for the inclusion of San Roque in the History section of the Gibraltar article was that "The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy."

In fact that argument gained the greatest support and led to a consensus (all editors and mediators except you) which is now in the article.

Justin, you should not "simply remove" parts which you don't like, or imply that the only argument for inclusion was the cry of "Censorship!" (or that only you discussed while other people tried to "impose by edit warring and avoiding discussion"). Please.

And also, if you have decided to come back from your "self-imposed exile" (which I am glad you have done, and I was sure you would), please take a new look at your farewell sentence (not the "I bare my buttocks in your general direction" one but the "serious one") and think again whether it was that "one determined editor single mindedly worked the system" (admins, mediators and all) or that you just were not right to keep San Roque out of the Gib article. Please, think again and leave the consensus sentence alone. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty happy with Justin's version. Avoids all the silly debates over 'Was it many or most to san roque, where else in spain did they go' etc. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not provided a response to my argument other than to scream "CENSORSHIP", "SAN ROQUE MUST BE MENTIONED". The version I added was Atama's suggested compromise not my preferred version. Yet your first reflex option was to REVERT.

My departure and its bad tempered nature was entirely down to the imposition of a solution and the refusal to address the argument.

Still don't see a response either. Things haven't changed in the slightest. Justin talk 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, San Roque is mentioned, ahead of several other details which are uncontroversially in the article, by every reputable English-language historian. That argument achieved consensus, partly because like Atama's suggestion it avoided the historically-dubious issues. Perhaps we could have your arguments again, including any new points, before we change away from what we had managed to thrash out? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No San Roque is currently mentioned as your imposed solution and refusal to address the argument against it. The arguments were stated below already. We didn't manage to thrash it out you imposed it and that is what I violently objected to then and still do now. It was bullied into the article, first by Imalbornoz stagnating the page with reams of tendentious argument, then by you imposing a solution. I stated then I wasn't prepared to accept it and I'm still not prepared to have a solution imposed. Justin talk 18:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

Compromise? No, it was your imposed solution. Which I objected to and which you refused to discuss. You are of course welcome to take it to talk or you can edit war to impose it again.

I await with interest to see the course of action you intend to pursue. Justin talk 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the compromise edit, was the one I addeed, the compromise suggested by Atama and Gibmetal77, not my preferred version. I just bring that to your attention as in your haste to revert you appear to have missed it. Justin talk 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The version you have removed was the result of a long and painful consensus process which finally managed to leave you as the only editor disagreeing. If you can achieve consensus for a change, please, feel free. Until then perhaps we could just leave it as it was? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, no, Gibmetal77 and Atama actually agreed with me. Justin talk 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see Atama's compromise proposal until we see an agreement, could someone else please do a revert for me; seeing as 2 editors are reverting to their preferred version rather than a compromise which is neither mine nor theirs. I just want to underline that point. Justin talk 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, to make it plain I have no objection to the mention of San Roque in the right circumstances. San Roque may be a peripheral issue but in the History of Gibraltar we do have the time and space to devote to it. It may also be worthy of mention in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar. What I really do object to, is the people who mischaracterise my opposition to this edit proposal as "suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs" or "on grounds not acceptable to wikipedia" I have put forward a perfectly acceptable policy based rationale for my disagreement. A perfectly acceptable compromise for an overview article is to avoid mention of peripheral issues and delegate that to the more detailed article. This is within the guidelines of wikipedia for an overview. That compromise suggestion was rejected out of hand by the editors who demand we must mention San Roque in this article. What isn't acceptable grounds for wikipedia are the rationale put forward by JCRB "Some editors try to avoid mentioning San Roque to keep readers of this article in the dark about the original Gibraltarians and how they fled the rock following its occupation." because wikipedia is not a soapbox to advance such an agenda. Nor is it a soapbox to proselytise constantly about "rapings, desecrations, plundering and murders in retaliation" that happened 300 years ago. Because that is simply using emotionally charged language to try and close down the debate and paint the opposing viewpoint as unacceptable. We have wasted too much time and effort to such a peripheral issue, that many times I have thought to simply "let the babies have their chocolate" so to speak. I am utterly fed up with having my position mischaracterised and labelled as "unacceptable" when I have tried to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner and really for me the last straw was having someone who claimed to have set out to be a neutral arbiter to choose to repeat the same baseless allegations made by disruptive editors who are using wikipedia to advance an agenda. The question about when I would find acceptable to mention San Roque in this article are a loaded question. So Richard "When did you stop beating your wife?" I answered that a lot time ago, when it gives due coverage to a fringe issue. I also object to the bad tempered disusssions, largely prompted by the constant bad faith accusations of censoring or suppressing "the truth". I haven't seen one person come up with a valid policy based reason why the argument I put forward is incorrect. I'd be perfectly willing to listen or be swayed by such argument, what I'm not prepared to accept is to be bludgeoned into accepting an edit by reams of tendentious argument and constant bad faith accusations. My position has hardened solely because no one has thought to advance an argument why I'm wrong or mistaken. Neither do I respond well to editors making demands or threats of admin action. So I expect that my objections which are based upon giving undue prominence to what is a fringe issue for the subject of this article are addressed. I do not wish to see accusation of censorship or claims that we have a consensus, because there isn't one and perfectly valid compromises have been rejected out of hand. A civil POV push is still a POV push and appeasement doesn't work. Justin talk 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop edit warring and try to gain consensus before you make a change. Many people have given the arguments for the current consensus sentence, mainly that San Roque is very much more noteworthy than many other events in the History section (see above). Yet you seem to ignore the argument and keep making changes which inevitably result in REMOVING San Roque from the article. Mmmmm...

One more thing, please, read this last sentence from you again:

"really for me the last straw was having someone who claimed to have set out to be a neutral arbiter to choose to repeat the same baseless allegations made by disruptive editors who are using wikipedia to advance an agenda. The question about when I would find acceptable to mention San Roque in this article are a loaded question. So Richard "When did you stop beating your wife?" I answered that a lot time ago, when it gives due coverage to a fringe issue. I also object to the bad tempered disusssions, largely prompted by the constant bad faith accusations of censoring or suppressing "the truth"."

and think about your position once more: did you just say that some editors are disruptive and trying to advance an agenda? who are they? and that an arbiter is repeating their baseless allegations? did you call me a "disruptive aditor", bare your "buttocks in my general direction" and call me a "fascist fuckwit", did not apologise and yet complain about "bad tempered discussions" and "bad faith accusations"? This is not the attitude that you were supposed to take after some time offwiki. Please, reconsider. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which goes nowhere toward addressing the point and is utterly focused on the editor not the edit. I called Franco a fascist fuckwit NOT yourself; I see you and Red Hat continue in the same vein of distorting comments. I also draw your attention to Atama's earlier comment about the so-called argument "that San Roque is very much more noteworthy than many other events in the History section " is of itself based on a bad faith presumption of the editor who made it. Oh and regarding the accusation that I didn't apologise, I refer you to my comment of 11th February regretting what I said in the heat of the moment. So it seems you'd rather rehash old bad tempered argument than actually address my comments.

That being the second time of going over old ground, you can either now address the points or the edit is going back in. Justin talk 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooooffff...

"You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride. Don't pretend for one second that it was about improving the article, it never was. You're clever about it, I'll give you that but I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit." Justin talk 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[5]

This is not the point but it seems you tend to forget what you say (it'd be easier for both of us and everybody else in this talk page if you allowed me to write this kind of clarifications in your talk page).

About the point: the argument that has been repeated MANY times is that San Roque is very much more noteworthy than many other events in the History section (not the History of Gibraltar article, mind you). We found that San Roque had something between 8 times and twice the number of mentions than many other events in the History section (sorry, but I'm tired of repeatedly posting the comparison, you can look for it in the archive). Therefore, if the article is to be consistent, I can't find an argument for the History section to avoid mentioning it (besides Justin's criteria about what is noteworthy and what is not...)

Finally, sorry but I didn't understand a thing about what you seemed to say about Atama and bad faith and so on (what was all that about?). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What does that prove, other than I didn't call you a "Fascist Fuckwit"? 3rd comment, so far you've rehashed old arguments, dragged up bad tempered comments from a month ago but still haven't addressed my point. Third time you've brought up remarks I made in the heat of the moment and already apologised for.

To re-iterate even Richard acknowledges that San Roque is a peripheral issue to Gibraltar, you've not addressed the point ever. I suggest you look through the archive to find Atama's point or ask him yourself. San Roque is peripheral to Gibraltar and what we mention in an overview isn't always what we'd mention in a History article. Justin talk 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: As an uninvolved third party, I would like to state a point per the basics of Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia:Apology. Justin_A_Kuntz (talk · contribs) has apologised to Imalbornoz (talk · contribs) over his remarks passed several weeks ago, so my recommendation is that either you keep your peace (because he had apologised, remember?) or Justin takes you to WP:WQA for continual assumption of bad faith. FWIW, I would rather that Imal take the hint, drop the stick and be gracious, then move on towards constructive dialogue for a compromise or common consensus than to be trolling around here for further bad vibes from other parties, including those uninvolved. Patience is wearing thin, even as we speak. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(PS: Please take your time to read through the below... it will do you much good!)

Justin, if you have an argument other than your own opinion, please let us have it. As I've pointed out, your position that San Roque can be mentioned in the History article not in the main one is just that, a position, not an argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander Richard, your position is no different and who is to say your opinion is more or less valuable than mine so that you get to impose your preferred solution? That isn't the argument at all, so starting from the position of refusing to aknowledge the argument I'm presenting isn't helpful in the slightest. You have already acknowledged that San Roque is a peripheral issue to Gibraltar. If as you acknowledge it is a peripheral issue, then you're giving it undue prominence in this article. The problem as I see it, is you presented yourself as a supposedly neutral arbiter, then took sides and stopped listening to the arguments. Worse still imposing a non-neutral solution when there was a clear compromise that avoided the issue altogether. Justin talk 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: On the other hand, Dave, my patience is pretty thick (as is proven by the fact that I didn't take Justin to A/N in the two days between his insults and his temporary departure). Nevertheless, I am human (and sore skin needs to be soothed a little bit once in a while in order to move on without further soreness), so please let me just say once what my position is on this particular issue directly related to me:

• I have always been civil. On the other hand, we cannot say the same of others: some have made legal threats (Gibnews) and others have made very offensive insults and attacks (Justin). I forgive them, but it would be useful if those remarks on civility (Dave) were used when they are really needed.
• I hoped that Justin's wikibreak was supposed to make him forget personal attacks, but when his fifth comment in the day of his return already included things like "really for me the last straw was having someone who claimed to have set out to be a neutral arbiter to choose to repeat the same baseless allegations made by disruptive editors who are using wikipedia to advance an agenda" I thought he should be warned (I'm sure that a remark by Dave, Narson, Gibnews or Atama would have been more effective, but sadly that didn't happen).
• I hope everybody will realise the irony of Justin saying -after his return- that "I also object to the bad tempered disusssions, largely prompted by the constant bad faith accusations of censoring or suppressing "the truth"" when it was him the only one to insult other editors (again, I think that some response from Dave, Narson, Gibnews, etc. would have been very good both for Justin and for everybody else, but that didn't happen).
• Finally, Justin's comment in my page barely fits in the category of apologies: he started with "You have an agenda and wikipedia is the platform you chose to use. I will never apologise for saying that." and finished with "I bare my buttocks in both of your general directions" but -yes, somehow- did manage to stick a "I regret some of the things said in the heat of the moment that is all." For the sake of rational discussion, I will accept it as an apology, in the understanding that Justin won't repeat his personal attacks. And please, do include comments on civility when they are really needed. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, Imal, if I have to use an elephant gun to shoot through the "thick hide" of an elephant - I will. Having said that, it is not to say that the hide of an elephant is indeed thick but on the contrary. Remember, it takes two to edit war. FWIW, work things out instead of pointing fingers but don't be trolling around to make your point, which to me looks exactly like disruptive editing, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you what the consequences are for behaving as such, right? People, let's cut out all the unwanted drama and work together towards a common consensus, shall we? Otherwise, what is the purpose of us being here? FCOL, IMPROVE THE ARTICLES... not destroy them. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I made my point. Please, Dave, I will only suggest that you go through the thought experiment of reversing the roles (imagine me calling Justin a fascist, me baring my buttocks at him while I apologise, me leaving and returning, me talking about "disruptive editors" and "bad tempered discussions" and then Justin complaining) and think whether your reaction would be the same as now (would you tell Justin that patience is wearing thin and suggest that he reads about civility?). It's up to you to do that and draw conclusions. And up to me to keep insisting about a couple of points about the article (basically to defend the inclusion of one town that is mentioned in practically all History of Gibraltar secondary sources) and try to avoid any waste of time about behaviour. Please, in the hypothetical case that I start (or... Justin! starts) with personal attacks, tell me (or him!) to calm down and not waste one's own temper and everybody else's time. That's all. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

IRA incident

I see an attempt to remove most of the description of the IRA incident as 'not important' - it was a major international incident which happened in Gibraltar. Three terrorists were shot. The ECHR review ruled on a matter that happened in Gibraltar and removing or trivialising it is wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First, don't revert with the comment "rv vandalism" when you know full well it's not. As to the content, most of this material is not about Gibraltar per se. Yes, mention it happened, no, don't go into detail here about the inquest. You have a tendency to treat this page like a teenager does with their MySpace page - "this is a brain dump of everything imaginable about me". While that may please the teenager, it doesn't always make good reading. I'll let the current nonsense blow over before raising this again, but raise it I will. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop baiting Gibnews Red Hat, not helpful, not helpful at all. Gibnews shouldn't have used that edit summary. Justin talk 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I feel a positive sense of deja vu, claims of a consensus to be imposed by edit warring to someone's preferred version. I am surprised, not, even though it isn't my preferred version but the compromise first proffered by User:Atama. Justin talk 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus for your version Richard, so stop pretending there is. You're imposing a solution and you're edit warring to impose it. Clearly there is no consensus, so please self-revert and stop pretending there is one. You bulldozed and bullied that edit into the article, that isn't how consensus is achieved. Justin talk 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I saw only you, Justin, continue to disagree. Many, many supporting sources were put forward for the proposed wording, to which you responded with original research and - I'm sad to say, lots of Franco insults. You're never going to agree to mentioning San Roque but that doesn't mean you can claim "no consensus" for ever more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no that isn't the case Gibmetal77 and Atama expressed a preference for a compromise not an imposed solution. My response wasn't original research, it was a policy based argument and the "insults" for which I've already pointed out 4 times today I did apologise for resulted from having a solution imposed without actually addressing those points and the sheer frustration that engendered from that. There isn't a consensus, its just people playing the numbers game on 3RR. Its exactly the same game you 3 played to wind me up the last time.

No I won't be bullied, yet again you're claiming my position is on the basis that I won't agree to mention San Roque. That happens to be bullshit as well you know, I won't assume good faith as I've stated my position so many times now that reasonable belief would have to be suspended to continue doing so. Its just another attempt at winding people up, don't you have anything better to do?

Either address the arguments against or I will simply continue to implement Atama's proposed compromise wording. The 3 of you are simply now edit warring to impose your preferred wording. Justin talk 23:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely and certainly willing to address and discuss sources from you which contradict the proposed wording. Do you have any? When I first came to this particular discussion, I had no opinion on the matter. So I did some investigations myself, only found sources which supported the proposed change, and that was how I came to my decision to support it. If I missed something, I'm more than willing to revisit that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not about sources, San Roque is mentioned in the sources, its just one of many destinations. I really don't have a problem in mentioning it in the history article and said so a long, long time ago. In fact I have gone so far as to suggest that part of the History article needs expanding. However, San Roque is a peripheral issue to Gibraltar, that point has been acknowledged by Richard, so its inclusion in an overview is a moot point. Just because you can source a fact does not mean we have to include it. IF that were the only criteria for inclusion we could never write a wikipedia article as we would be unable to precis anything.

The test is really whether such coverage gives due promince in line with the coverage in the literature. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article giving a general overview of Gibraltar so if we take an article like the Encyclopedia Britannica, it isn't mentioned. If you look at a variety of articles like travel guides and anything intended to provide an overview it simply isn't mentioned. So whilst it may be mentioned in the detailed historical texts, those texts dedicated to providing an overview don't. Hence, mentioning it here tends toward giving it undue prominence,

Thats my argument, it isn't about avoiding mention of San Roque at all costs or any one of a number of blatant attempts to misrepresent my position. The sheer number of times my position has been misrepresented as censorship has only fixed in my mind that my comments are correct. Justin talk 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You argued in 2009 that we must mention in the history section the death of a Polish general whose plane happened to crash in Gibraltar. You are also ignoring the huge paragraph on the events relating to Death on the Rock, not to mention all the other gubbins in the history section. Yet, you are quibbling over a 60 byte edit in order to gloss over a pivotal event in the history of Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, there we go again, no that isn't the case at all. I suppose the comment about misrepresenting my argument just sailed right over your head did they? Bollocks. Justin talk 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that's beside the point. You said above "If you look at a variety of articles like travel guides and anything intended to provide an overview it simply isn't mentioned."

Fodors: [6] "The town of San Roque was founded within sight of Gibraltar by Spaniards who fled the Rock when the British captured it in 1704. Almost 300 years of British occupation have done little to diminish the ideals of San Roque's inhabitants, who still see themselves as the only genuine Gibraltarians."

Rough Guide: [7] "San Roque was founded by the people of Gibraltar"

Granted, these don't appear in the Gibraltar section itself, but how can we remain honest to ourselves as editors while not mentioning San Roque in a history section on Gibraltar if even travel guides make the connection? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really you think being facetious and a dick is helpful? I really don't know why I bothered. Justin talk 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing. Though not unexpected. Y'know, as much as I dislike Gibnews' approach to things, there are times I think he deserves a medal for being able to put up with it. The constant grinding and inability to accept that compromise isn't just about the other side moving is enough to try the patience of a saint. Should San Roque be mentioned within the history? Yes. It is germaine to an article on the territory as a whole? No because we cannot do the subject justice at all in the space we can afford to give such an event. Foolishly I was happy to accept it at the time on the belief it would stop the arguments, however the arguments continued and ultimatly how it was put in was reprhensible. There is no attempt here to build consensus, just tossing accusations at Justin and attacking him or dismissing his ideas as 'Oh you are just being stubborn', and you wonder why you fail to get a consensus. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (ecx2. Seriously. Quit conflicting me, darn it!)

Most of that comment is not helpful, Narson. Please remember that this is the talk page for discussing the Gibraltar article. Noone is tossing accusations at Justin, or attacking him, or dismissing his ideas. He and I were in the middle of what I thought was a rational discussion, though I see from the instruction on my talk page from him to "swivel" that I was mistaken on that point. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As regards no attacking him, Imalbornoz has been dredging up old bollocks to toss at him so no, I do not recognise your denial as accurate. Richard has also simply dismissed his request for clarification as his point of view. I was, for once Red Hat, not having a dig at you. Justin is not perfect and gets himself far too worked up, but he does have valid concerns that deserve a response rather than dismissal from those willing to revert. If I am willing to revert, then I am willing to discuss as a general rule and expect the same from others. I apologise if after the ECs it appeared I was responding to you (in fact the first EC was you putting in what I wanted to see brought forward, the start of a rational debate around the issues. I should have perhaps removed the ::s as it was more a general comment on the edit wars. I am as much disappointed in myself and Justin as with yourself, Richard and Imalbornoz. However this outcome was rather predictable based on how the last 'consensus' was implimented. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that San Roque is in Spain and was not founded until 1706. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Gibraltar. The other things happened in Gibraltar after 1704 when the Spanish were soundly defeated and ran away. Justin is totally correct. Although I tried to defuse the situation by agreeing to a neutral although totally irrelevant mention, I now see that was a mistake as it has led to getting Gibraltar sources questioned and large significant parts of the modern history deleted without any discussion. so no more concessions like that. --Gibnews (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And your sources for this claim are...? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Red Hat's earlier facetious comments, no that clearly wasn't a rational discussion you were taking the piss and don't pretend for one second you were doing anything different. Come back when you can address the argument or not at all. Congrats to the edit warriors for getting the article protected again. And before the usual accusations that I'm the lone voice of unreasonableness, at least two editors have come out now and said they were unhappy with the solution bullied into the article but went along with it for the sake of peace. Whats also telling is that I came back with arguments and the compromise suggested by an indepedent 3rd party and all I got in response was recycled junk from a month ago, personal abuse and tag team edit warring to impose your preferrred solution. Yet no doubt I'll be accused of being unreasonable. Justin talk 08:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a remark. San Roque was established as a municipality in 1706. San Roque was established as settlement one day after the surrender of Gibraltar. Just for the sake of clarity. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-Government

Seeing as we've imposed the content that the Government of Gibraltar is not directly responsible for internal security. Then surely to fully inform the readers of this article we should make it plain that the appointment of the judiciary is one of the important parts of the separation of powers from the Government. We should also explain how internal security is controlled, how it isn't imposed from London but is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority and we should be explaining how it works in practise. At the moment the article is a piss-poor compromise telling half the story and leaving the false impression its controlled from London by the British Government.

Seeing as we mention that foreign representation is also the function of the British Government, we should also mention that the Government of Gibraltar is not entirely passive in this respect and where the British Government doesn't represent its interests it has stepped in, such as representing itself at the UN C24. Justin talk 17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK with me to put more detail in the Politics section (as long as it doesn't get too much detail). I think that mentioning some of those issues that you suggest would be OK. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for accuracy. Let's have some suggested wording, with appropriate sources please. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The GoG has stopped attending the C24 meetings as they say they are are a farce and not worth the airfare. However in discussions with Spain Gibraltar has equal standing and a veto on anything. As that is the only active foreign affairs matter, its significant. --Gibnews (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article locked

Another edit war has broken out so I've locked the article again (for one week). This seems to happen far too regularly; because page protection is meant to be an absolute last resort, in future any editor reverting the article for anything other than obvious vandalism (definition here), WP:BLP reasons, or to remove copyright infringement, can expect to be blocked with no further warning. EyeSerene^talk 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add: while protection is active, editors can use {{editprotected}} to request an admin to make consensus edits to the article. EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Serene, thanks for salting the article per my request, I think enough is enough with the massive reverting. Let them work things out here first. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What is Disputed? (Please list)

Obviously, looking through the archives and ongoing discussions here, there are many things that people disagree about. Can we compile a list here? No arguments. No long explanations because it puts people off reading through it. No baiting. No long discussions on the issue here. Simply, just a list of everything in the article that is disputed and a one line explanation of why. At least then we can see everything that is disputed and go through them one at a time. At the moment it's going back and forth between different issues and it's quite hard to follow everything at once. We could then discuss each one in turn, and try to reach some kind of genuine consensus rather than arguing about whether there's even past consensus, which gets us distracted from the article! _Will^dow (Talk) 09:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)(This discussion can go on whilst the article is protected so that no off-the-cuff edit warring can take place. Hopefully we can agree to something and be constructive whilst the block is in place...)

# disputed #1 -- (short reason) # disputed #2 -- (short reason) # disputed #3 -- (short reason)

1. Disputed #1 - Mention of San Roque. Does it need to be mentioned in the history section? As a peripheral issue to the topic of Gibraltar appropriate and due coverage is to mention it on the history article but to insist it has to be mentioned in an overview is giving it undue coverage.
2. Disputed #2 - Self-Government There is a deliberate confusion between governance and Government to minimise the degree of self-government in Gibraltar. The current article doesn't paint the full picture and needs to be expanded if we're going down that route. Alternatively we simply mention governance not government.
3. Problem #1 - Anyone disputing mention of San Roque is accused of censorship or suppression, the issue of due coverage has not and never has been addressed.
4. Problem #2 - Tendentious editing has driven away productive editors.
5. Problem #3 - You point out the nationalist aspirations of editors pushing for a particular edit, that is then turned around to accuse the person making the point of being a nationalist POV warrior and suppressing the truth. Justin talk 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed #1 - San Roque

Do we have solid, reliable sources that state most people relocated to San Roque? If yes, San Roque should be very briefly mentioned (San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain, for example), but not over mentioned as, of course, the article is first and foremost about Gibraltar. If there's no rock solid sources, then the "nearby areas of Spain" sounds ok to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Willdow, as I've pointed out for uncountable times, there are solid reliable sources that state that most of the Gibraltar people relocated to San Roque. See, for umpteenth time User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar#San Roque. All the sources that detail the distribution of refugees make it clear that most of them settled down in San Roque (where, BTW, the Spanish municipality of Gibraltar was re-established). So, I wonder why we go on discussing this. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "left for San Roque and other nearby areas" would be more appropriate judging by the sources. Considering San Roque isn't mentioned at all in the article at present, I don't think adding this would constitute over-coverage. Anyone else agree/disagree? _Will^dow (Talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that mention it, reliable as in they conform to WP:RS but they're conflicting. There are sources that say more people settled in San Roque (6000) than actually left Gibraltar (4000). The sources also list the fishermen relocating to Algeciras, given that Gibraltar was a fishing village. The problem is also that associated with the Spanish sovereignty claim is the assertion that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians - which is only briefly alluded to above.

Then there is the problem that San Roque is a peripheral issue to Gibraltar. We don't have the room to cram everything into this article and we simply don't have the room to give the subject justice here. Hence, mentioning it here is giving undue promience to an issue where the only imperative for its inclusion is related to issues of Spanish nationalism. It would be worthwhile on History of Gibraltar discussing the distribution of the exodus but not here. That is a reasonable position but is portrayed as being unreasonable and seeking to suppress the truth. Thats the problem consensus is seem as making the other side move not agreeing a middle ground. Maybe that is why my position has hardened, I don't take too well to being pushed around.

Why are we arguing about an issue that is actually peripheral to Gibraltar? For an article that is supposed to be a overview of Gibraltar? Justin talk 11:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just to make a nit picking comment, San Roque didn't exist at the point of the exodus, it was subsequently founded there later by some of the people who'd left. Justin talk 11:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If this was the be expanded upon in the History of Gibraltar (which is indeed where it should be), should it still be mentioned in the overview section in this article? When I say mentioned, I literally mean a few words rather than a long drawn out paragraph- no figures, just that the majority went to San Roque (as the figures are conflicting). _Will^dow (Talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Just read your after thought, would "...moved to what would later become San Roque" be better? Or considering that San Roque wasn't there, maybe "...nearby areas of Spain" would be more accurate afterall... hmmm...

Willdow thank you for actually realising the point I've been trying to make for so long and it seemed like no one was listening. That is precisely a point I've repeatedly tried to raise. Justin talk 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Justin, they are no conflicts in the sources at all. All of them are coherent among them (you're an expert in statistics). The problem is that the census talked about neighbors (head of family) and not inhabitants. Some sources make an equivalence of four people per neighbor (other five or six), but all the sources clearly state that most of the Gibraltar inhabitants settled down in San Roque (or course that if you compare source A in wich 4000 people left Gibraltar with source B in which 6000 people left Gibraltar it may happen that the population settled down in San Roque according to B is larger than the whole Gibraltar population in A, but that's not the point). That's a fact. Of the remaining, other settled down in Algeciras and other in Los Barrios. Talking about "other nearby areas of Spain" suggest a random spread (something that is simply false).

With regard to your middle ground, I definitely agree with you. Our first proposals were a whole paragraph in which it was said:

Most of them took refuge around the hill of San Roque, inside the municipality of Gibraltar, and created a settlement which would later become the town of San Roque and be granted the arms and constitution of the Spanish City of Gibraltar in Exile.

Now, simply a sentence. Suppressing the mention does not seem to be a middle ground, but your ground. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) PD: I call your attention again about this article being about Gibraltar as a whole, not about Gibraltar since 1704. The destination of the Gibraltar population is relevant for the article of Gibraltar, just in the same way as with the people evacuated in 1940.

First of all Ecemaml, the sources are in conflict and airily dismissing that problem is ignoring the fact that there is a 50% discrepancy in those two numbers. Even in the 18th Century a census didn't have a 50% margin of error. Nearby areas of Spain doesn't suggest a random spread in the slightest but suggesting they went to a town that didn't actually exist is misleading.

Secondly that proposal above is germane to the history of San Roque but not to Gibraltar.

Thirdly I win £5, the very first comment includes mention the word "suppressing".

Fourthly, the people of Gibraltar evacuated in 1940 came back.

Fifthly, focus on content not the past, not other editors. Justin talk 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll mention suppressing if you split the money with me! Anyway, we're arguing about figures here. Very specific figures. Is this not an argument intended for a full write-up in the History of Gibraltar article? For inclusion in this article, are we in agreement that we only want a sentence at most. The history section covers 128,000 B.C. to 2009 A.D. - I don't think in this "overview" of history, that there should be anymore than one sentence about this. The question is what does the sentence contain? "San Roque", or "nearby areas of Spain"? _Will^dow (Talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to simply mention nearby areas of Spain, the compromise first suggested months ago by User:Atama who was acting as a neutral arbiter to put it into perspective. Given the population left and played no further part in the History of Gibraltar I don't see the need to mention where they went to but I'll accept a compromise. I agree that in an overview it merits at most a sentence. Justin talk 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the history section of San Roque. I think it's certainly something not to aspire to. It reads more like a history of Gibraltar. It gives the impression that San Roque was purely created by the Spanish from Gibraltar. Do we have a date/source for when San Roque was established as "San Roque"? If it was well after 1704, then I think "...nearby areas of Spain" should remain, as San Roque is just described as an area of settlement. Could we have suggestions for an ending to the sentence that begins: "By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left without further violence.........................." _Will^dow (Talk) 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The date San Roque was declared a town was 1706, some 2 years later. ....for nearby areas of Spain. as a compromise, though personally I don't think it needs anything other than they left. Justin talk 12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus for "...nearby areas of Spain", as the section is an historical overview? Could all the finer details about where, when, why, how many etc, go in to the very detailed History of Gibraltar? _Will^dow (Talk) 12:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree To both suggestions. Justin talk 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Given that this overview article has room for events much less noteworthy than San Roque, I don't find any encyclopedic reason to exclude it. Please, Willdow, if you take a look at what sources say (I apologise to the others, as this summary has been repeated like twenty times –actually, I don’t understand how we can keep discussing with this evidence on the table), you can check that ALL of the sources that have been used for the History section DO mention San Roque SPECIFICALLY:

• Maurice Harvey: "Gibraltar. A History" page 68
• Frederick Sayer: "The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe" page 117
• Allen Andrews: "Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar" page 54
• Edward G. Archer: "Gibraltar, identity and empire" page 34
• George Hills: "Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar" page 176
• William Jackson: "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" page 101
• Stephen Constantine: "Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704" page 15,...
• and in googlebooks you can find 90 references more in English (there are quite a few addtional ones in Spanish as well).

Many of those sources don’t even mention other destinations than San Roque (I suppose that the reason behind is that historians think that San Roque is very noteworthy).

But, is it worthy enough to be in the overview article? Let's take a look at other events in the History section of this overview article about Gibraltar and compare their relative notability vis a vis San Roque, comparing the number of hits in googlebooks.

San Roque: Number of books with the word "Gibraltar" in the title and "San Roque" in the text:

• San Roque: 99 books (I quickly counted more than 20 of them describing the historical episode of most inhabitants going from Gibraltar to San Roque)[8]
• San Roque: 15 books (with the word "History" in the title, as well as the word "Gibraltar")[9]

Other events that are currently described in the History section: Number of books with the word "Gibraltar" in the title and a keyword relative to the event in the text:

• Abd al-Mumin or Abd al-Mu'min: 7 books[10]
• Pedro de Herrera: 1 book[11]
• HMS Arethusa: 1 book[12]
• HMS Hunter: 1 book[13]
• Deutschland: 13 books[14]
• Guernica: 4 books [15]
• Endymion: 6 books[16]
• Jose Luis Diez: 6 books[17]
• Sikorski: 6 books[18]

I think this would be enough evidence to support including San Roque, it being much more notable for historians than at least 9 other events currently (and undisputedly) in the History section, wouldn't it? --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Note: I only say that the article should say "left for San Roque and other nearby areas in Spain", I have already compromised (like Ecemaml said) and will accept not putting all of the detail here.

No this isn't an argument, please stop flooding the page with tendentious argument and address the comments made against inclusion. Something you have consistently refused to do ever. Flooding pages with references from detailed historical texts is not an argument for inclusion. Justin talk 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an awful lot a writing here, granted. Could we impose some sort of voluntary word limit to avoid this? Maybe a hundred or so words? If we were to include San Roque, could the suggestion be slightly re-worded to show that at the time of leaving Gibraltar, there was no such place as San Roque? I'm not quite sure how best to word it, but they settled nearby and established San Roque - that's not my suggestion, but something that suggests it? _Will^dow (Talk) 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And you've already been warned that the argument that other less important events are in the article is based on the presumption of bad faith. Stop it now. I really don't see what you hope to achieve by repeatedly posting the same lengthy list, since the point was conceded long again that reliable sources mention San Roque. The question is whether it merits coverage here. I can only conclude that pasting lists is a tendentious attempt to stifle dialogue and impose a solution, since the argument is never actually addressed. Justin talk 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we go back to trying to achieve a consensus? I don't want to get side tracked.
"Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions"

I have proposed that the article remain as it is now. It's an easy solution that we (the group) can achieve at this time. We may not all agree, but we are looking for consent to settle this issue (for now) and move onwards. "...for nearby areas of Spain". Yay or nay? Keeping in mind that they made a settlement in what is now San Roque which is a nearby area of Spain. It subsequently became San Roque. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no historical inaccuracy in stating "...for nearby areas of Spain". Can this be agreed upon to allow us to move on to other matters such as the Governance? San Roque is generously mentioned in relation to Gibraltar in history books, so lets make a big deal of it in History of Gibraltar _Will^dow (Talk) 14:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Though that isn't my preferred option I'd be prepared to accept it. Justin talk 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Sorry Willdow but this is a clear example of why this never goes anyway. Time and time again we have the same argument cut'n'pasted and there is no attempt to move forward or address the counter argument. I appreciate your attempt to find an accommodation but really I don't see how some people will ever accept that compromise is not about bludgeoning the other side into submission. Unless the arguments against including mention of San Roque are actually addressed for once, rather than simply restating the position IT MUST BE MENTIONED NOW, NOW, NOW, then I don't see how we can move forward.

Above is a typical example, saying look these events are less notable, they're mentioned. Its purely based on a bad faith presumption and its an attempt to paint other editors as unreasonable. We either stop it now or the stalemate will simply continue. Justin talk 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Consensus for San Roque

Lets cut the bullshit, no essays, no moaning at/about each other. Lets state our preference and briefly why. Shall we say 50 word limit to avoid this dragging out? _Will^dow (Talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "...left without violence for nearby areas of Spain"
2. "...left without violence for what was to become San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain"
3. "...left without violence for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain"
4. "...left without violence"

• Number 4 - I'm edging towards not saying where they went at all in this historical overview. That avoids any argument about where they went, how many there were, whether San Roque was there at the time or not etc etc. There's a lot more room to go into that at History of Gibraltar. "...left Gibraltar without violence" _Will^dow (Talk) 14:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Number 4 - Avoids the argument of where they went. 2nd choice number 1 as it is a compromise as suggested by User:Atama and favours no one. I might possibly be persuaded to accept number 2 but it requirs modifying. Justin talk 14:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Number 2 or 3 - They avoid the incoherence of removing all mention of San Roque and keeping less noteworthy events (see sources). I don't see the encyclopaedic argument for removing San Roque (avoiding an argument is not an encyclopaedic argument). - Imalbornoz (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (Note: please notice that this does not imply a "bad faith assumption" but an "incoherence assumption", which is totally different).

Number 1 with Number 4 as my alternative vote I'd favour the Atama wording, rather than unnecessary detail that requires further explanations we are unable to give in this article. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For inclusion, yet again: The facts about San Roque are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy. Sorry to repeat, but this doesn't seem to be getting through and it strikes me as fairly decisive. I understand that San Roque was previously more or less uninhabited, a Roman ruin with a hermitage. "Many settled in the ruins of Roman Carteia, modern San Roque." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, the phrase "left without further violence is fine, but leaving out the word "further" seems to deny the indisputable violence that followed the actual takeover. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All's I'm trying to achieve is an ending to a sentence; whether San Roque should or shouldn't be in this sentence. No hidden agenda from me despite my preferring the current text. Can we keep the long winded discussions out of this sub-section and purely focus on consensus of how this sentence should be worded? _Will^dow (Talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of 2 and 3, 2 would appear more historically factual. Can we fiddle about with this version until all agree? "...left Gibraltar without further violence for nearby areas of Spain, most settling in an area later to become San Roque".
I know that's a little long winded, but something along the lines of that? Figures and stats can be left for the history of gib page. _Will^dow (Talk) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not keen, primarily because its is giving undue prominence to a peripheral issue and that point has not been acknowledged. You could call it in the other Elephant in the Room. Plus noting the comments by Narson, I still tend to favour 1 or 4. Justin talk 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Narson sums it up well. The "short, sharp sentence" I initially set out to find would become long and drawn out trying to further explain the issue. I think that number 1 has been thrown around more and would be more of an agreeable compromise, as long as other editors allow it ( as a compromise to move forward, not denying any of the facts about San Roque). _Will^dow (Talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The original sentence that gained almost unanimity (except for Justin) was: "...felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left without further violence. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz." My comments (why I think this sentence has gained the greatest consensus so far):

• It's pretty general so it does not have any problem with inaccuracies (some editors compromised and didn't insist in saying "the majority" or anything else).
• It mentions information that is present in ALL of the secondary sources, which as you can see in my previous cites (sorry for their length) ALL of them give prominence to San Roque as the most important final destination of previous inhabitants of Gibraltar.
• and it only adds two or three words to the article.

Like Atama said:

“ My question is this... Does anyone but Justin object to the inclusion of the text proposed by Richard earlier? I don't ask this because this is a "majority vote", but out of curiosity. Scanning this talk page, I don't see anyone else opposing it. -- Atama頭 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) ”

“ You know, considering how long this has dragged on, maybe it's best to let it go. Consensus is a tricky thing; there's no real metric determining when consensus has been reached. Consensus doesn't mean a majority vote, but it also doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. It is usually somewhere in-between, and when you have a handful of people who agree with one person disagreeing, that's a pretty good consensus right there. Gibnews has accepted the proposal (whether or not he was bludgeoned into it), at least one outside editor who has joined the discussion supports it, and I honestly don't see any new arguments for or against including mention of San Roque. Frankly, I still think that saying that the people who left had "relocated to nearby areas of Spain" would be a decent compromise, but it seems that as good of a consensus as can be expected has been reached here. -- Atama頭 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) ”

Twenty days later, I still think this has dragged for too long and as good of a consensus was reached then (and I would do anything I could so this was not a painful thing for Justin, honestly). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we also note that two other editors opposed it, they were bullied into submission at the time. Can we also note that Atama and Gibmetal77 suggested the compromise edit. Can we also note the inability to respond to the other Elephant in the room. Not that I'm counting but the subject was avoided 4 times yesterday and its been avoided 4 times today as well. Can we also note that the past is being dragged up again in preference to dealing with the issues? Where is that pesky elephant gun? Justin talk 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fair point being raised here. The question(s) has been skirted around far too long now, and if now isn't the right time to answer it... then whoever holds their peace has indeed forfeited their option of participating here. It's that simple, we can all learn to agree to disagree and disagree to agree, but never only choose one, as evident here by some group of people (it's bleeding obvious!). Imal, take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the suggestion Atama mentions too much as a compromise, although it does give the impression that there was a town up the road called San Roque that they moved to. It's been brought to our attention that there was no San Roque at the time in question. Whereas the simple "nearby areas of Spain" skirts around this keeping the sentence short and simple. _Will^dow (Talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, to be honest, I don't know very well what to do. This question has been answered many times, but every time someone answers you say that it's not an answer. In very good faith, I'll repeat the answer: "The facts about San Roque are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy." If you don't mind (please, for the sake of understanding) I'd respectfully ask you to answer two questions (so that I better understand your position):

• Do you find that anything is not supported or not true in that answer? What part?
• Is there anything that you think is not an encyclopaedic argument in the answer? What would be it?

Thank you very much.

Willdow, Atama actually said that the consensus sentence is the one that has been in the article (mentioning San Roque) for 20 days until someone removed it and unleashed the edit war.

Regarding the existance of San Roque, to make things clear: A place called San Roque existed before those people moved there, but it was not "administratively" a "municipality" (it formally became one very shortly -only two years- after the "camp of refugees" was settled there). There was a hermitage (dedicated, not surprisingly, to San Roque - or Saint Roch in English), some Roman ruins and some houses (in fact the sources mention that they moved there because the major of Gibraltar had a "country house" in that settlement). Therefore, the text "many settling in San Roque" is not inaccurate at all. A place called San Roque existed and many (most according to some sources, the greatest part according to others) did in fact settle down in that place.--Imalbornoz (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No Imalbornoz, San Roque was not a town in 1704. It was a hermitage, some ruins and some houses - as you note. And the compromise suggested by Atama was nearby areas of Spain. Lets not misrepresent things shall we?

Secondly, I've already acknowledged more times than I care to count that reliable sources mention San Roque and to answer your second question you're ignoring the encyclopedic argument about whether it should be included or not.

And the encyclopedic question thats been avoided 4 times yesterday and now 5 times today and more times than I care to count is why are people so hell bent on insisting a peripheral issue to Gibraltar must be included in an overview of Gibraltar. Because it is giving undue prominence to a fringe issue for Gibraltar.

Oh and the accusation of unleashing an edit war, a) I edited the compromise suggested by Atama not my preferred version b) I raised the issue in talk and c) I did not start the revert war. Now where is that elephant gun? Justin talk 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please see if you can pinpoint where I have said that San Roque was a town in 1704... If you can't it's because what I have said is that a place called "San Roque" (with hermitage, ruins and some houses) already existed and therefore the text "moved to San Roque" is not inaccurate. The camp of refugees settled down in a place called San Roque which later became the town of San Roque. I want to make sure that this is clear, but please tell me if you objection to this - to what I say, not to what I don't say... ;-)

Let me understand, with good faith, your question. It seems to be: "Why are people so hell bent on insisting a peripheral issue to Gibraltar must be included in an overview of Gibraltar?". I don't think that a question about motivations is very encyclopaedic, but anyway I'll try to answer it the best I can: I don't know about other people but, myself, I just want to be sure that the article is coherent, so that one event that is mentioned in ALL the sources is not removed, given that other much less noteworthy events are mentioned. Otherwise, it would mean that the article is incoherent for no encyclopaedic reason, and then I would have to look for non-encyclopaedic reasons -which would be very sad.

Let me ask you, if you don't mind: Why are you so hell bent in not mentioning the two words San Roque in the overview article? I suppose that it's not lack of space, because it's only two words, and you want to keep a much longer mention of some "Sikorski" Polish general who is much less noteworthy in ANY source on the History of Gibraltar. So, Why are so hell bent in not mentioning the two words "San Roque"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want the article to be coherent, then when someone questions whether a peripheral issue should be included you consider that argument. You don't repeatedly dump a list of sources and demand it should be mentioned. To be coherent involves adding nmore than just 2 words, to be coherent you'd have to mention Algeciras or any one of half a dozen significant places. That is why I suggest we tackle it on the History of Gibraltar where we have the space to dedicate to the topic and do it justice. Curious why it is you don't agree that it needs appropriate coverage that is actually an expansion of what is currently there.

And yet again I find myself reminding you for what feels like the millionth time, I have no objection to mentioning San Roque in the right context. Curious isn't it, how you civilly make the same bad faith accusation time and time again.

And however civilly you phrase it, your comments about other events, such as the death of a Polish General, they are equally worthy of space in the article. Your presumption is to assume bad faith and preferential treatment and to construct an artificial metric to attempt to give credence to that notion. Thats the 3rd time today alone you've attempted to paint other contributors as acting in bad faith.

And I note for the 6th time today you've avoided addressing the issue that San Roque is a purely peripheral issue to Gibraltar and insisting on its inclusion is giving undue prominence to a fringe issue. After 10 requests for you to respond to it, I can only conclude that you concede it is a valid and coherent argument against inclusion to which you have no answer. Slainte. Justin talk 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very tiring, but here we go again: see? I respond but you still say that I have not answered. I won't even talk about all that nonsense about bad faith and so on. Please, let us focus on content. Let's go for one more try:

• How much due coverage does an issue deserve in WP? In theory, coverage in WP should be proportional to noteworthiness and coverage in reputed secondary sources.
• How to measure how noteworthy an issue is in the History section of the Gibraltar article? a) coverage by reputed sources dealing with the History of Gibraltar b) some other metric (I can't think of a different one, but Justin, you can propose one if you think one up -other than your own original opinion)
• Is Sikorski and -at least- 8 other events in the History section of the Gibraltar article more or less noteworthy than San Roque? They have much less coverage by reputed sources: for example, only one book mentions "Pedro de Herrera" or six books mention Sikorski, while more than 20 books mention the San Roque episode. To me, this means that Pedro de Herrera or Sikorski deserve much less coverage than San Roque. Do you have any alternative explanation of why Pedro de Herrera or Sikorski deserve more coverage, even though they have between 20 and 3 times less coverage by secondary sources?

Please, Justin, read carefully (you seem to forget one part or other of this question): How do you justify (with criteria other than you own very respectable opinion) that the overview article should mention events that only have peripheral and fringe coverage by History of Gibraltar books (Pedro de Herrera, Sikorski...), but not the two words "San Roque" that have overwhelming coverage in secondary sources? (mentioned by every History book that is used as a source for this article and between 3 times and 20 times more coverage in other secondary sources than those fringe events)?

Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC) PS: BTW, at this point I don't even ask for more coverage on San Roque than those other issues. I only ask for it to be -at least- mentioned.

Right so again you don't address the argument and continue with the same bad faith presumption. Mmmm, well I don't think there is anything further to add over anything I've said a million times before. Justin talk 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, could you just drop your "bad faith presumption"? I really don't see where you got it from. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was a comment from Atama but I can't find it for now, remind me and I'll look for it again. If I may precis it, the "argument" look at these other facts they're less worthy than the facts I want to include is based on bad faith. And thats the "argument" Imalbornoz is constantly using. Its bad faith because its an attempt to portray anyone opposing the edit of preferential treatment. Justin talk 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add Richard, I have already explained this, so it might be helpful if you were to explain it to Imalbornoz. Oh and Richard, I'm not the sharpest tool in the box but its blindingly obvious to me why its bad faith. Justin talk 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No Justin, I read your comments above quite carefully and I still have no idea where you got the original idea of bad faith from, nor how you think it relevant to the present. Dropping it seems like a much better idea than explaining it. But if you must explain it, please do it clearly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, thats disappointing I thought I'd been clear enough about it. Justin talk 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I still don't understand how you have come to a conclusion of bad faith. "an attempt to portray anyone opposing the edit of preferential treatment" does not make anything of the sort clear to me. It seems to me that you have merely been vaguely offensive. Could I ask you again to drop the issue, or, if you feel you can't, to explain it more clearly? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm willing to bet others can. Actually it seems very clear to me but if you wish to continue with your presumptions about me and looking for bad faith in everything I do, then there is little I can do to change your mind. I intend to focus on content and agree to disagree, you might do me the courtesy of the same - both of you. Justin talk 08:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please don't be offended, I am only (respectfully) criticising the lack of coherence of your position. I am not assuming anything about your motivations (I don't give a damn about them) or your good or bad faith either (in fact, I think that you are wrong in some areas, but with good faith). Please, can you make an effort and believe me or at least not make any assumption of bad or good faith? If you manage to do so, please, look again at my previous question as something trying to make me understand your position (or make you realise your mistake, from my POV).

My question was: How do you justify (with criteria other than you own very respectable opinion) that the overview article should mention events that only have peripheral and fringe coverage by History of Gibraltar books (Pedro de Herrera, Sikorski...), but not the two words "San Roque" that have overwhelming coverage in secondary sources? (mentioned by every History book that is used as a source for this article and between 3 times and 20 times more coverage in other secondary sources than those fringe events)?

Please, answer it as if it were just an academic question... Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room?

Agreed. The trouble here is, I think we've yet to see anyone's real reason for the problem over San Roque. What is the emotive aspect that's the sticking-point about mentioning (or not mentioning) that a bunch of people went from point A to point B? Is it that the choice one way or the other is perceived as giving ground to / argument for / legitimacy to the opposing side? It might make things a lot more straightforward if these worries were on the table rather than arguing round and round over surface rationalisations (space, detail, the topic being peripheral, etc etc) that are obviously not what this is actually about, else it wouldn't be such a huge deal. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to mention the elephant in the room - the dictator Franco founded his claim to Gibraltar partly on the assertion that San Roque was the "real" Gibraltar because that's where many former inhabitants of Gibraltar settled. The Spanish claim to Gibraltar is ongoing. As a result, mentioning San Roque is extremely annoying to many people who dislike either Franco or the Spanish claim or both. (I'm in both groups but merely find the 21st-century claim ridiculous to the point of being self-defeating.) Without this issue, which as I say I find merely laughable, I don't think we'd have much trouble agreeing. With it, any attempt to mention an uncontroversial fact seems to bring accusations of nationalist bias. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gawd! To be honest, that thought crossed my mind once or twice, but I discarded it... Maybe that's why there's so much opposition to including San Roque? If that is so, maybe it's not off-topic to explain to anyone not acquainted with present day life in Spain that Franco is pretty much a ridiculous character nowadays, and it creates a significant rejection so that his position on most issues is more of a liability than an influence. It seems ironic that this should affect the Gib article now... Actually, it's pretty offensive to say that one is aligned with him on any issue. On my side, I have to say that -of course- I completely reject the figure of Franco: he caused great harm to many people (murders, prison, complete economic stagnation and hunger during twenty years, lack of freedom... some of that to relatives of mine) during the 40 years of his dictatorship, and his legacy seems to keep doing that. Also, I don't think that San Roque is a serious argument to support the Spanish claim on Gibraltar (but even if it were, that should not affect WP as long as it limits itself to reflect what reputed secondary sources say...) I apologise for the verbose comment, but maybe it was necessary. If wasn't, then I apologise twice. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Seems writing articles comes secondary to using wikipedia to advance Spain's illogical irrendentist claim to Gibraltar. Its shameful that a supposedly democratic Spain should be carrying on that Fascist Fuck Franco's crusade but lets be honest about it, its macho fucking Spanish pride." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justin_A_Kuntz&diff=prev&oldid=343048205

Seeing as the elephant in the room has been raised, didn't think it would take long. Can we note that an inability to consider a simple compromise by certain parties results from that. Justin talk 15:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear from Justin's comments above that mention of San Roque is taken to be support for the Franquista claim to Gibraltar itself. I suspect that's a minority view in Spain these days anyway, and I'm sure it's an absurd basis for any modern claim, but it has nothing to do with why we should mention San Roque as the destination of the population. That reason is - here we go again - that it is overwhelmingly regarded as notable by reliable sources, more notable than many other points which are (and, I suggest, should remain) in this article. Even travel guides mention it. Hurt feelings seem to be getting in the way of writing a good encyclopedia - and Justin's lack of civility and of competence also strike me as serious problems. Perhaps I could just repeat that I'm British and have no interest whatever in supporting irredentist claims to Gibraltar? It shouldn't matter but I suspect that, to some, it does. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, just before you violated WP:TPG to dredge this up again, I'd just sent Gordon a detailed email setting out my concerns and was about to note that I'd sent an email to him setting them out. What is interesting comparing the two responses is that I focused on why I didn't wish to move, you instead have chosen to villify me as an individual and blame me for everything. I really do object to you bringing something up that was said in the heat of the moment and at a time when I was extremely upset by you forcing it into the article over my objections and using tag team edit warring to keep it there. This is a classic example of WP:CPUSH push someone into making a rash statememt, then dredge it up time and time again to paint them as being unreasonable. Trying to avoid bringing nationalism into this Richard but to parade one's nationality I'm half-Spanish so could be expected to have some sympathy with Spain's irredentist claim but don't. Not so sure its hurt feelings getting in the way but the attempt to bully and bludgeon me into submission over an issue instead of reasoning with me might have hurt my feelings. Oh and before I'm blamed for anything else, I was not the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. Justin talk 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC) aka the Evil Scotsman

Peripheral issue?

Seeing as the Elephant in the room has been mentioned, can I just mention the other elephant in the room. Richard has never done me the courtesy of replying to my counter argument. Yes San Roque is mentioned in Reliable Sources, we've already acknowledged that. You acknowledge that San Roque is a peripheral issue to Gibraltar, so is mentioning it in an overview of Gibraltar not giving undue prominence to a peripheral fact? Simple answer please, 50 words or less. Justin talk 15:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. It gives due (minimal) prominence to a fact agreed as notable by the relevant sources. The relevant sources give this fact more notability than many others, and failing some very good reason to omit it, it should go in. I appreciate that you have a strong opinion to the contrary, but you have never explained why this is relevant to the task of achieving consensus on a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right so given you acknowledged that San Roque was a peripheral issue to an OVERVIEW of Gibraltar are you now saying that it isn't? Just to make sure whether or not you're now changing your position.

I'm also bemused that a comment on whether certain facts are germane to an overview have to be justified as to whether they're relevant to achieving consensus. Err isn't that what consensus is about deciding whether or not something is germane? I really don't know how to take that comment, because it seems to be finding reasons to ignore editors comment rather than consider what they have to say.

So why are you just picking that one fact out and adding it in a place where you're unable to give sufficient detail to put it into context? Thats what I just don't see and it would seem that several editors agree with me. Justin talk 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Context? It's not a fact that requires much context, is it? It stands quite well on its own. And it's important to reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That in a nutshell is the problem it does require context. San Roque as a town didn't actually exist, it was founded subsequently, so no it doesn't stand quite well on its own. Nor does it tell the complete story, others went to Algeciras and a significant number at that. Anyway its clear that you don't agree, so the focus should shift toward finding content we can both agree on. Which is what we should have done rather than imposing a solution. Justin talk 08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem #2 - Tendentious editing has driven away productive editors

Yes, that's right. It's me one of such editors, Justin (besides by paternity). I'm really fed up of discussing with people with definitely has an agenda (I'm not referring to you). We have here editors that openly claim that only Gibraltarians must be allowed to write in this article. We have here editors with huge conflicts of interests (of course not recognized) that openly say that are "foreign" POVs (which obviously should not be allowed to be here). So, can you explain a little bit more on "tendentious editing"? --Ecemaml (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't wish to be rude by striking text out, but I think it would be a lot more constructive to focus on what content in disputed for the timebeing in this section, rather than reverting back to bickering. _Will^dow (Talk) 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK fine but you have to also acknowledge that the motivations of certain editors in pushing for mention of certain topics on one article at ridiculous length is motivated by narrow nationalism not a desire to see an improvement to the article. The push to include San Roque is one of those topics and the bad faith accusations that have resulted from that push have hardened attitudes. Let us focus on the content but and its an important but see how long it lasts before the first accusation of censorship is levelled. See how long it is before the first example of editor baiting to get a rise occurs and note who does it please. Justin talk 11:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please, could you avoid assuming bad faith again and again? Your sentence "...you have to also acknowledge that the motivations of certain editors in pushing for mention of certain topics [..] is motivated by narrow nationalism not a desire to see an improvement to the article." is a personal attack and offensive. Given my background in Gibraltar-related articles that statement make me laugh, but it does not help to discussion. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And that statement was in no way aimed at you, so could you also avoid assuming bad faith please. Justin talk 11:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Retiring

I'm sure this will please certain people but I'm retiring from this page, thanks to Justin's bullying and unpleasant behaviour both towards me and others. I support mention of San Roque because the sources mention it and anyone is free to use my name in determining whether there is consensus on that. May the force be with you all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And you have in no way contributed to creating tension? J'accuse. Justin talk 12:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, no he has not.--English Bobby (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a positive move as his recent unilateral edits have been simply removing important referenced content on the grounds that RH 'does not like it' --Gibnews (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont you worry, I'll have more to say on those edits when all this has died down, Mr VOGG. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing, this is harassment Red Hat, I urge you to withdraw that remark. Justin talk 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the title would be pretigious if true it is harassment here. --Gibnews (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Consensus on San Roque

Seems clear to me that the arguments for/against inclusion will never reach a conclusion. Sorry for hijacking your attempt Willdow. To get back on track with the focus on Content.

4 editors syggested 1 or 4. 1 editor suggested 2 or 3.

Personal preference is for 4, can I suggest we go with number 1 as a compromise that will satisfy no one but leave honour intact all round. Justin talk 08:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(And no essays please)

• Agree (number 1) - I won't expand and turn it in to an essay! _Will^dow (Talk) 09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree (number 1) - No essay either. Justin talk 09:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree (number 1) San Roque did not exist --Gibnews (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have to repeat, but "without further violence" may be just acceptable as describing a miserable procession trudging from their homes after a military takeover accompanied by rape, desecration of churches, and mutual murder, leaving out "further" is not.

Of your choices, Willdow, I'd go for "for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain". Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Richard's choice. Also let's not forget another editor is presently blocked and is unable to express his opinion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Richard's choice too, and I also agree with RH's proposal of taking into account the blocked editor's opinion (who has repeatedly insisted in something along the lines of Richard's choice). --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"...without further violence..." should be added. I overlooked this when making the 4 suggestions as I was focussing on the very end of the sentence. What it boils down to, once again is whether the two words "San Roque" should be added..._Will^Dow (Talk) 12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard's stance as well, including mentioning San Roque.Cremallera (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary, so far

Suggestions:

1. "...left without [further] violence for nearby areas of Spain"
2. "...left without [further] violence for what was to become San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain"
3. "...left without [further] violence for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain"
4. "...left without [further] violence"

• Justin - Number 1
• Willdow - Number 1 (open to suggestions)
• Richard Keatinge - Number 3
• Red Hat - Number 3
• Imalbornoz - Number 3
• Cremellera - Number 3

_Will^Dow (Talk) 15:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget

• Narson - Number 1

And to put into perspective:

• Justin - Moved from personal preference of Number 4 to Number 1
• Willdow - Moved from Number 4 to Number 1
• Richard Keatinge - Unchanged at Number 3
• Red Hat - Unchanged at Number 3
• Imalbornoz - Unchanged at Number 3
• Cremellera - New vote (but restating a previous position)
• Narson - Unchanged at Number 1 but only because has yet to comment further

Number 1 being a compromise suggested by independent 3rd party.
Number 2 a compromise suggested by independent 3rd party addressing the comment the town of San Roque didn't actually exist in 1704.
Number 3 personal preference of Richard Keatinge, Red Hat, Imalbornoz and Cremellera, Ecemaml.
Number 4 personal preference of Gibnews, Justin, Pfainuk, Redcoat10, Gibmetal77 and Apcbg.

I'm also open to suggestions, I'll also point out the previous suggestion if we go with Number 1 there could be a wikilink to San Roque. Justin talk 15:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion, Number 1 with a wikilink to a short article dealing with the movements of the refugees, being careful to avoid a content fork. Justin talk 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, if you are going to speak in the name of other editors recently involved in the discussion... please at least take Ecemaml into account as well (who cannot contribute because he is blocked). Also, I don't know if it's necessary to tell the history of changes in each one's position; actually, all of us have compromised and changed our position in the long discussion since... September 2009? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

An unfortunate oversight in the circumstances and completely unintentional, so thank you for that. I thought it helpful in pointing out where suggestions have come from and to highlight who has moved. Also I draw your attention to 2 further suggestions. Justin talk 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. I just received an email from Ecemaml asking me to mention that he supports Richard's choice, so:

• Ecemaml - Number 3

My point is that we have all moved (including "You, me, him, them, everybody, people, everybody!" like the Blues Brothers used to sing), not just a few ones. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you redact that last comment and review WP:MEAT, voting on behalf of a blocked user is a no no. Ask someone independent, if you don't believe me (like last time I tried to get you to redact a faux pas). Oh and just to remind you, you denied corresponding by email to co-ordinate your activities. IF you do so, you have my permission to remove this comment as well. Justin talk 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never corresponded by email or otherwise to co-ordinate my activities. I have only received an e-mail from Ecemaml and mentioned its content (like some other editors did when Gibnews was blocked, and as I've seen several times here in WP). I'm very sure this is not meatpuppetry: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus.". If I'm wrong and this is not allowed, I'll apologise and remove whatever is necessary, of course. Meanwhile... I suppose that the content from Ecemaml's message can stay and you can be gracious and take it into account or be ungracious and not take it into account. That's all. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes should be signed no proxies. --Gibnews (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of openness and mutual respect let's ensure that everyone who wants to have their say can, and furthermore that we don't try to place spin on people's votes (not that voting is binding anyway). In other words, whether or not you've changed your opinion on something is irrelevant to the weight of the contribution of your opinion to deciding next steps. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think this "vote" is absolute bollocks. It's entirely based on the views of a handful of polarised "Big-enders" and "Little-enders" who have driven away any objective opinion. I wouldn't believe any conclusion on this topic to be a valid consensus until all who have previously voted fuck off recuse themselves, and we try an RFC only open to those who have a long edit history outside this topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's RFA time, not RFC time, no? Either way, I support what you say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to 1) ask either for RFC or RFA 2) have the "Big-enders" and the "Little-enders" briefly summarise their arguments, their sources, etc. (which are spread all over the discussion) if only for the convenience of outside commentators or arbitrators and then 3) f*** off stay away and let the "Martians" do their work. Maybe once in a while, and only at the explicit request of the Martians for a given period of time, the Earthlings can explain some points (that way, you have both the independence of Martians and the detailed knowledge of Earthlings). How does that sound? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

This isn't a vote, votes don't mean squat as far as consensus goes.

May I interject and just point out that when the RFC was originally proposed, I urged that external opinions should be the only comments allowed as that was what it was for just before it was swamped with tendentious argument. And that if you only allow the votes of "Martians" then its:

1. Willdow Number 1
2. Narson Number 1

I don't include Richard as a "Martian" as he has adopted a partisan position, the edit warring to impose a solution and the way he has mischaracterised my position I don't think you could claim he was objective. If its going to work, no earthling input, full stop. 'cos some of those earthlings will fill this page with tendentious crap the moment they see the vote isn't going their way. So I propose a topic ban on myself, Gibnews, Richard, Red Hat, Ecemaml, Cremellara, JCRB and Imalbornoz with immediate blocks for violating it. I'm happy to let the consensus process decide without my involvement. But I would ask for very strict admin attention to prevent sock and meat puppet participation to stack votes. Gordonofcartoon or Atama to decide when its finished. One final condition, no talk page messages stroking admin egos either. Justin talk 10:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A proposed ban on yourself may be useful, but I just note that all the others whom you have proposed banning either have yet to comment on this call for preferences, or disagree with you. I'm sorry to disagree, but, just to repeat, San Roque is clearly found to be notable by the relevant sources, we had a weary, but genuine consensus on mentioning it from which you were the only dissenter, and Willdow is still trying his process. Perhaps we could let him do his best to achieve consensus, and call for admin action if he declares it a failure? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you seem unable to grasp that you are the problem just as much as everyone else. There was no genuine cconsensus, you imposed a solution and it has emerged several editors felt bullied into accepting it. The way you did it was completely and utterly unreasonable. Gordon is right, let others decide. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the Summary(!)

So far, there is no consensus obviously, but I think I can safely say that we have narrowed it down to two different versions, with both sides set in their ways.

"...left without [further] violence for nearby areas of Spain"

"...left without [further] violence for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain"

The difference between the two of course is the mention of San Roque.

• As far as I can see, for San Roque is because of it's importance to Gibraltar in that it is mentioned so much in books and other sources, so it should be included (albeit very briefly) here.

• Against the inclusion of San Roque, is because (hope this can be clarified); that there was no San Roque at the time, it was named San Roque after the migration. Two, it is a fringe matter, not worthy of being mentioned. Three, some sort of nationalist agenda by those who want Gibraltar returned to Spain.

If no side is to compromise, and choose the other option, can we come up with a compromise, that is, somewhere between the two? For example, if San Roque didn't exist as "San Roque" at the time, can we briefly squeeze in "what was to become San Roque" or "Roman ruins, later San Roque" etc. Also, can we get independent people (never been involved) to look over these points too and add to consensus?

San Roque, if I understand correctly, existed under that name as a rather small place (consisting of the original Saint Roque's hermitage, some Roman ruins, and a few houses) in 1704, but only got its town charter two years later. There are many possible reasonable wordings and I'm not stuck on any one of them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get sidetracked here. Lets be short, blunt, and to the point. Bollocks to Franco, assume good faith. Keep it short.(I'll try to keep it short and on topic by striking out irrelevant text if that's okay with everyone...) _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your compromise is good. Suggest "left to found SR" if supported by sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Willdow! I'm fairly sure we can get consensus on b**s to Franco, and I don't suspect anyone of acting in bad faith.

For. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When I say bad faith, I refer to the inclusion or exclusion of two words invoking cries of hidden agendas. All's I want is to find out whether to include, exclude or re-write the ending to one sentence which has remained unresolved for an unbelievably long time as I'm sure everyone is aware!! Does anyone have suggestions for wording to imply that they settled in what later became SR + nearby areas of Spain? _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason why the two alternatives I suggested wouldn't work? For example Number 1 or something similar with a wikilink to a short article dealing with the exodus, being careful to avoid a content fork. San Roque, the town did not exist, the hermitage of Saint Roch existed, the town was founded in 1706 and named after the hermitage. It seems to me a sensible way of dealing with it with than simply mentioning a place that did not yet exist. It would also enable the topic to be explained for example with the fishermen founding Algeciras. Both Algeciras and San Roque were founded by the people who left Gibraltar in 1704. As Gibmetal77 observed, some of them travelled a great deal farther. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, is the issue that it didn't exist prior to its founding (a tautology anyway) or that you simply don't want the words to appear in the article? If the former, that has an easy solution - the compromise above. Let's do it and all move on in our lives. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if the majority went to what became SR, then it should be mentioned as "what became SR" (or something along those lines). If the rest went to Algeciras and other places (a lot of people, yet the minority) then "other nearby areas of Spain" also covers this. Is, "San Roque didn't exist at the time", the main argument for it's exclusion? Or the notability? _Will^Dow (Talk) 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity and to see my nickname in future revisions of WP:LAME: Yes, the Shrine of San Roque chronologically predates the War of the Spanish Succession. No, the town of San Roque was not founded in 1706. Most of the Gibraltarians established themselves in San Roque the day after they left Gibraltar (that is 1704). Prior to 1704 it was a hamlet (that's the best translation of the words "pedanía" or "parroquia" I can come up with, meaning a group of houses without its own church and thus administratively dependent); 1706 being the year when the king Philip V of Spain granted the town the title of "city" (cities being bigger than towns, and towns more important than villages and so on).

I'd say that the inhabitants of Gibraltar "left and settled in San Roque and other nearby areas". As far as I know, that's factually correct and widely supported by secondary sources. 'Evening. Cremallera (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

::::If we're going down the route of extreme pedantry, the sources say they established themselves near the hermitage of San Roque, the refugees then went on to found the modern city of San Roque. But it didn't become magically transform into the town of San Roque in day did it? You're still trying to find reasons to say they went to a place that was founded 2 years later. What was the hamlet called by the way? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its peripheral information for an overview, so its notability is debatable and there is more than one way to deal with it. Feel free to continue with the accusations of censorship and suppression of the truth that must be told but that is my opinion, one which I have a perfectly valid policy based rationale for. But just note that I have an alibi for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? I can't remember when have I accused you of censorship. Would you mind to refresh my memory?

Anyway, and I don't mean to be rude (nor pedant), but please notice that your opinion, while respectable, isn't equiparable to secondary sources giving prominence to something.

After several months already, I have not really much else to add to this debate. Feel free to respond, though. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedantry wasn't anything to with being rude. And I wasn't referring to you, it appeared that way as we posted at the same time. I was pissed off with being blamed for everything again by certain parties. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Q. Could someone actually explain to me why it is so important to mention San Roque that they're constantly finding reasons to villify me for suggesting that it is peripheral information to an overview of Gibraltar? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I think everyone's getting a little sidetracked... Some people are set in stone about having SR put in, some are set in stone about keeping it out. Is there a compromise at all? If no, then this argument will never be resolved. Somebody has to budge. _Will^Dow (Talk) 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd allowed myself to get pissed off again, with the past being dragged up again. I went away for 5 minutes and kicked the dog so I'm feeling better about it and struck through several comments above. No I'm not set in stone about it not being mentioned and never have been, though I do think its peripheral information. Lets be clear about that.

It does seem however, that those who insist it must be mentioned are set in stone and claiming that sources support it is just an excuse. I have been stubborn for a variety of reasons, good reasons, but its time I think to be the bigger man and be the one to walk away from this utterly ridiculous stalemate. I've always been prepared to budge but that hasn't been reciprocated.

Willdow thank you for your attempt to mediate and for recognising what I had to say had merit. I'd extend the same courtesy to Atama. Richard that you're not suited for the role of a mediator is just about the kindest thing I could say.

Willdow, if you feel that peripheral information should be included I won't oppose you. Probably your best option as other options will be tendentiously argued into the ground. Good luck. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good man, if you're willing to compromise, then I sure hope that everyone else can follow suit to compromise and lay this to rest. I thought we'd try to tackle SR first as it seemed the most trivial. I think the argument over self governance seems a lot more complicated and so could be tackled second. IF SR is mentioned, do we state "San Roque", or, "what became SR"? Of course, the easy way to avoid that is to just say "nearby areas of Spain". Anyone who feels that option would be an injustice to SR, we could still internally link to it another way (not forgetting all the nitty gritty details can go into History of Gibraltar). _Will^Dow (Talk) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

¬¬u How about the wording displayed prior to the last edit war? Cremallera (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"and left without further violence. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cádiz." Is everyone happy with this? Or do we go back to the "what became SR" thing? _Will^Dow (Talk) 15:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

San Roque, Cadiz was founded in 1706 ie 2 years later. Personally I always really disliked the imposed solution for that reason. I really think independent thought on the wording is required here. The usual protagonists should follow Gordon's suggestion, fuck off and let Willdow come up with his own version. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, no. Repetition won't make it true. Even in the event of Philip V not dropping by in 1706 pontificating "My well beloved, Very Noble and Very Loyal city of San Roque (...)", San Roque would still exist today. On the contrary, had not a population settled there, San Roque would be farmyards and pastures nowadays irrespective of any Crown declaration issued in 1706. Municipalities are founded by their population, not by royal decrees (it's not like every Spanish city has been labeled as such by a king either). This has been explained to you several times. Here's a diff dated 2 December 2009. Could we move forward, please? Cremallera (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed founded by their population, and the vast population came from Gibraltar in 1704. If anything, that backs the "with many settling in what was to become San Roque" version. San Roque became what it did two years later because of the migration from Gibraltar (so I'm told). Hence the "what was to become" part. Would that not appropriately and accurately sum it up? We are not arguing over whether they moved to SR, just how to word the sentence to address that matter of it officially becoming SR after the migration (due to the increase in population from Gibraltar). I think I could have worded this better(!) but I hope you get what I mean. _Will^Dow (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Within 24 hrs of leaving the camp of refugees from Gibraltar transformed itself into a municipality...OK I've learnt something new. Now can we leave Willdow alone to cogitate for himself. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, knock off the smarter-than-thou attitude. A camp of refugees is an improvised municipality. There is a direct causal relationship between the 4-7 August 1704 siege and the 8 August 1704 settlement of San Roque, and the place has been uninterruptedly inhabited ever since. Why are you trying to disconnect both events? Historians don't do it, as you've been told over and over. Cremallera (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If I've got it right, there was a parroquía (hamlet) there before, called San Roque; on receiving some thousands of refugees it became a town, a status defined simply by having a largish number of people in residence - presumably nobody bothered to rename it - and it became a municipality when that status was granted by the King a couple of years later. On that basis "and left without further violence. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cádiz." seems fine to me, though as I say I'm not stuck on any one wording. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Cremallera if you say so ..... but thats not what the sources say, see[19]. I quote the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque and aunque el grueso de la población y el concejo se constituyó de nuevo en la cercana ermita de San Roque (the bulk of the population and the council was formed again in the nearby hermitage of San Roque). I don't see how connecting the later establishment of the city of San Roque to the departure from Gibraltar is disconnecting the events but perhaps you'll enlighten me on my talk page so we can all fuck off and leave the none involved to it. Now for the 3rd time of asking, can we agree to fuck off and leave the none involved to it? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How about making the proposed change, we post an announcement here that the change has been made, and then all of us in the "hard core" here promise not to discuss this particular matter any further on this talk page until the end of March? If noone stops by and complains, then we know we have a solution that can stand the test of time, even if it is not unanimous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How about forgetting the whole thing.

The only reason to mention San Roque (a town formed in 1706) is to promote the view that is the home of real Gibraltarians and not the ones claiming rights over the territory since 1704. The people who left (willingly) to avoid getting involved in future conflict were Spaniards who went to live in Spain there is nothing notable about that. Once they left Gibraltar they were not involved in its history. --Gibnews (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Many, many flaws in that response, but Gibnews I do give you credit for being frank in your objection to its mention, what we all knew, that it's the British v Spanish question. Everything else is a smokescreen. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It was always a matter of trying to push a Spanish POV onto an article about Gibraltar. However since 1704 Gibraltar has not been part of Spain. The article is about Gibraltar and not happenings in a nearby foreign state unless they affect Gibraltar and San Roque does not (apart from the pollution from the CEPSA refinery). --Gibnews (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pointless to reply as we're just rehashing the same arguments now. But I'll give you one thing, you do have a good sense of humour. I did chuckle at the refinery comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Its actually a very serious matter that affects Gibraltar, Spain and Morocco. Indeed the environment is one area where there is a degree of co-operation at grass roots level. --Gibnews (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be Gibnews' objection ie the British v Spanish thing but that doesn't mean it is everyones. Its also pertinent to mention it, as some on the pro side have it as their main motivation but they just don't want to talk about it openly. ie As least some of those who have a hard on about it being mentioned are in part motivated by the pro Spanish POV, just as much as some of those against it. Equally just because you happen to mention this doesn't mean it is your view either - something people might want to take on board when they accuse others - ie it isn't just a smokescreen. So lets not attack Gibnews for being one of the few people to openly state their opinions, rather than hiding behind excuses. Equally lets stop with generalising and lumping anyone with an opposing viewpoint into the same camp. Now yet again can we all just fuck off and let others sort the mess out because continuing to bicker among ourselves will just drive people away again.

Oh and Red Hat, didn't you retire or are you going for Silver? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a lesson there - don't gloat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, dinnae gloat or the Evil Scotsman will get you. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ecemaml - Number 2 or Number 3 --Ecemaml (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A request

Would an admin block for a week the next editor who makes a sniping comment, attempts to bait another editor or rakes up the past. Seems like only a damn hard bitch slap is going to fix the attitudes round here. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for ArbCom. The purpose of this page is for civil discussion about the article. I really do fail to see why you posted this or to whom it is directed but you are making it utterly disfunctional, and the problem is you are blaming everyone else for that and not seeing your huge, primary role in it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Misguided Arguments I've Come Across at Wikipedia...

The content of this collapsible box is completely unrelated to this article.

Removal of "true" or "sourced" material from Wikipedia is unconstructive/vandalistic: one of the purposes of Editing is to ensure that the text being edited is of appropriate length. This may mean removing irrelevant information or a level of detail that is not required. The fact that the excised words may be "true" is neither here nor there. Furthermore, the whole point about encyclopaedias is that if you want more detail on something you can jump to the article on that topic. Someone reading about the British Empire may be interested to know that Britain recaptured the Falkland Islands following an Argentine invasion, but would they care to know that 649 Argentines and 258 British lost their lives (as sad as that is)? Probably not, but if they do, that is what the Falklands War link is for - so they can read more. Author credit goes to the Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Shame I hadn't spotted it earlier.....would have been useful. Slainte. Justin talk 10:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) While I'm flattered you attach such gravitas to my words of wisdom, you've completely grasped the wrong end of the stick. This was directed at the type of editor who likes to insert a paragraph on something tangential to the article (usually their pet topic) that could be better served with a link to a subarticle. We're talking about an extra two words here. And how can anyone get to the San Roque article if mention of it has been censored? I encourage you to stop by my talk page if you would like to discuss my teachings in more detail so that next time you can properly employ them. Class dismissed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see you're back from your 2 weeks retirement, Justin. Please, stay on topic.Cremallera (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that comment is related to the content on this article, see also WP:TPG about modifying other people's comments. Justin talk 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

British 'recognition' of Franco

The uncited statement After Britain recognised the Franco regime in 1938. . . could maybe be rehashed as De-facto recognition of both the Franco and Republican sides in the late 1930s resulted in two Spanish consulates in Gibraltar. The change is supported by legal authority cited here. The official answer to a parliamentary question (8 Feb 1939) indicates the somewhat unenthusiastic nature of the 'recognition' of Franco. And a very recent analysis emphasises that the great majority of Brits "preferred to rally to the Non-Intervention policy adopted by the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments in relation to the Spanish civil conflict". The present statement gives the very misleading import that Britain was officially pro-fascist. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Until now I've always interpreted literally the phrase "After Britain recognised the Franco regime in 1938", but I see what you mean.

While I can't see the statement as intended to suggest a pro-fascist position of pre-WW2 UK (which is the context of the phrase), and I don't think that "de-facto recognition of both the Franco and Republican sides in the late 1930s" is entirely correct because -after all- the Republican Government was "the Government" (and thus recognised by every existing country at that time, until the military insurrection and the Spanish Civil War broke up, that is), your contribution and the addition of reliably sourced references are valuable. How about simply stating that it was a de facto recognition (suggesting pragmatism instead of filofascism)? "After Britain de facto recognised the Franco regime in 1938". Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that this wording is a problem (if the date is correct) - a government is either recognised or not recognised by another government - it doesn't entail support. The USA stopped recognising the Taipei Nationalist government as the Chinese government and instead recognised the Communists in 1972 but that doesn't mean it was/is pro-Communist. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks , both of you, for the consideration. Uh huh, I can't dispute what Paddy says--the present wording has to be accepted as cool. After all, members of the 'free world' recognised Saddam (installed him, in fact) as well as Pol Pot, and continues to recognise Red China (not Tibet) and the Burmese junta. Yup, it's a pragmatic process and I was wrong to read adverse emotional imputations into it. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. It's refreshing to have a pleasant conversation round here for once! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome mate. PS: may I suggest implementing Bjenk's sources to the article? There's a citation needed tag we can get rid of by doing so. Cremallera (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, once the page is unprotected. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems it was primarily the Spaniards who recognised Franco. The socialists wanted a Spanish Republic, and they got it (strictly speaking) for five decades. The Germans and the Italians did their part to....recognise Franco. So if the Gouvernement of Neville Chamberlain said or did not say something, it's not really about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium

As there is an ARBCOM case pending over Gibraltar pages, I suggest that its a good time for the existing editors to voluntary refrain from making any changes to this page particularly those designed to deliberately provoke edit wars. --Gibnews (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltarian people

Given what I have learned after reading up on the San Roque situation, I find the Gibraltarian people article rather disturbingly skewed. Comments welcome at the talk page there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving this article has opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

colony? where is the neutral point of view?

In no place appear the word "colony" in the last colony of Europe. I understand this is a english encyclopedia and a the pro british point of view is normal. But i think you should say that spain considere the rock of gibraltar a colony and it is supported by UN comittee against colonization.

Sorry for my english (i always try to improve... ) and i desire someone include the point of view of spain (a royal navy base, fiscal paradise and black ecological point in mainland of spain ). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.250 (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is indeed what we're here for. There is an extensive discussion of some of the issues you raise at Disputed status of Gibraltar. I suggest that any additions to any relevant article should be referenced to reliable sources, and should take careful account of:

Gibraltar being self-governing under the British Crown

Recent changes to ensure that financial operations conform to modern best practice

The success of Gibraltarian businesses in providing fuel for international shipping

The Royal Navy base is prominently mentioned already, as are the ongoing Spanish claim and the geographical location of Gibraltar on the Iberian peninsula.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It´s true the correct place is Disputed status of Gibraltar, but in gibraltar should talk about list of United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and Special Committee on Decolonization.

I have read the name Dependent territory and i didn´t found diferences between colony, is only a new denomination more "polite" and modern. Are there some diference in english between colony and dependent territory? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that Gibraltar is no longer a colony. It became a British Dependent Territory in 1981 and later a British Overseas Territory in 2002. Although it could be argued that the change in denomination made no difference, a new Constitution was granted in 2006. Such new constitution meant a large devolution of powers to the former colony, with made Gibraltar enjoy a huge degree of self-government. Thus, from both a denomination and political organization points of view, Gibraltar is no longer a colony, even if such a denomination is very usual in the Spanish media. Hope it clarifies what we're talking about. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It´s true, it is not a soapbox, but each afirmation has two points of view.

A colony could have right to a internal self goverment, but it is a colony becouse other country have the absolute control and this control was issue by military force. The English "propaganda=point of view" always say is a self goverment territory, but never talk about list of United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and Special Committee on Decolonization. And i think in a correct encyclopedia shoul talk about this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at extreme length in the past. Perhaps you would rather go through the Talk Page archives to see the outcome and for an explanation rather than digging it back up again. _Will^Dow (Talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The British crown does retain some powers over Gibraltar, but as with its powers everywhere, these are mostly directed towards stability of the local democratic system and are fairly irrelevant on a day to day basis. I note that in the Politics section we already have mention of the UN list. This seems to be an appropriate place for it.

We are trying to write an encyclopedia, which means reporting the reality, as well as any notable points of view. We are not here simply to present competing nationalist viewpoints. 85.136.157.123, I commend the way that you have suggested changes on the talk page before making live edits in main space. But I do not feel that these particular suggestions are good ones, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, It´s your encyclopedia and you have to decide what is the level of reality. But, in my personal opinion,It´s more important the legal status in the united nations than others informations in the start of the article. And talk about de UN point of view, it isn´t nationalist viewpoints. Sorry for my insistence and my poor english. Thanks for you attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's our encyclopedia, yours as much as mine! However, I would suggest that the reality of self-government, with multiple references, is more important than any points of view. You may disagree, and if you can achieve a consensus among concerned editors it is your view that will enter the article. I hope you enjoy editing. Muchas gracias para su contribución. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The status of Gibraltar is a matter of public international law which may differ from the position of the UN, UK, Spain or the Gibraltar administration. TFD (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you practicing Spanish, Richard? :) Regarding the self-governance issue, it has been discussed already (a lot; check the archives). Currently, the article depicts the status of Gibraltar within the 'politics' section, which reads as follows:

• "The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar is internally self-governing with an elected parliament. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor, the representative of HM the Queen as head of State, who is responsible for judicial and other appointments made on her behalf in consultation with the head of the elected government. Gibraltar nonetheless remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories though politicians both from the British Foreign Office and Gibraltar wish to see it removed citing that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list".

You are right in one thing, though: the article omits that Gibraltar has been a Crown Colony for a century and half (from 1830 'till the British Nationality Act which as of 1983 made Gibraltar a Dependent Territory), which is a pretty relevant detail of the territory's history and consequently should be mentioned in the history section, in my opinion. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, effective local democracy in Gibraltar is a fairly recent thing. I agree - go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cremallera, when i create this section, my main complain was no appear the word "colony" in the last colony in Europe. The english goverment called "colony" to gibraltar, all spanish know that gibraltar is a colony, and in the article "gibraltar" no use this word. I think someone should write about the Point of view of spain,becouse the point of view of the british is "self goverming territory" and silence "non self goverming list UN" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)