Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gibnews (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 2 January 2010 (→Carbon dioxide). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:V0.5

Software: Computing

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

RFC - Final destination of Spanish exodus

A RfC has been repeatedly mentioned. I don't think it has been requested yet. Should we? In that case, should we agree on the approach? (one of us includes it, Atama includes it, ...; scope of the RfC; other details...) Or should one of us just go ahead? What do you think? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama said he would start one, I suggest we wait. Justin talk 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll start it below, but it's mostly about the larger Misplaced Pages community helping decide what's best between the arguments that all of you have regarding San Roque, so you're the best ones to present each side. I'll just begin the process and state the basic points as best as I know them and let everyone else fill out the details and your reasons for wanting to include/exclude San Roque and other details about the exodus. -- Atama頭 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Gibraltar article mention San Roque?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article. -- Atama頭 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Those involved in the dispute

User:Ecemaml
User:Cremallera
User:Imalbornoz
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Statement by Ecemaml

Hi all, first of all, thank you for taking part in this Request for Comments. Atama's done a great job in the mediation but, as he points out, all of us have been inflexible enough to make a definite deal.

I'd like to set first the framework of this issue.

The disputed article talks about Gibraltar, a former British colony, now a British Overseas Territory, part of the European Union. However, there are no separate articles for the British entity and for the city (that is, the article deals with Gibraltar as a whole, not following, for instance, the approach of Taiwan and the Republic of China). A brief summary of the history of Gibraltar is as follows: Gibraltar was a Spanish town, captured to the Moors in the fifteenth century that become the head of an extensive municipal term (the Campo de Gibraltar) for two centuries and a half. It was captured in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession by a mainly Anglo-Dutch force on behalf of one of the claimants to the Spanish Throne, the Archduke Charles (a Habsburg). As a result of the takeover, the Spanish population of the city left it, settled down in different parts of the municipal term. In 1713, the town, yet occupied, was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1713, the history of British Gibraltar formally begun (I focus on this issue since one of the recurrent arguments are that "Gibraltar is not Spain"; well, Gibraltar "was" Spain for two centuries and a half and only was only de iure British since 1713). Therefore, talking about the Spanish period of Gibraltar is perfectly valid. Doing it otherwise would be a evident POV.

The disputed section deals with the capture of Gibraltar in 1704 and the destiny of its population. It's has been argued that once the town was captured (I remember, on behalf of a claimant Spain king) nothing that happens outside the walls of the town (again, I remember that Gibraltar was an extensive municipality in 1704 and remained so, at least formally, until 1713; what nowadays is Gibraltar is of course nothing more than the town) is relevant to the article (there is a graphic statement in : "The main thing to know is the Spanish lost, left and are never coming back"). There has been a long mediation process handled by Atama on the way to describe the capture. Though not confortable with the final result, Cremallera, Imalbornoz and me have agreed to accept a compromise with the text. However, there has been no compromise in how to deal with what happened with the Gibraltar population once they left the city.

My first approach was simply using reliable secondary sources to assess the best way to deal with it. You can see a survey of secondary texts in here (yes, I'll remove extensive quotations once this issue is settled). Mind that only English-speaking bibliography (although it could suffer from systemic bias, I've preferred to use it to avoid any propaganda suspicion). However, if you take the effort to read them (they're just four excerpts), you'll see the following: the Gibraltar population left the head of the municipal term (the very town of Gibraltar) and scattered through the municipal term, but mainly in San Roque (you'll notice phrases such as "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque" or "Most Catholics (..) transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque").

The important issue here is that all historians of Gibraltar mentions San Roque (and acknowledge that it was the main settlement of the Gibraltar refugees). That is, the movement of mostly of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque is something that is unanimous and extensively described by any secondary sources dealing with the issue (not to talk of Spanish bibliography). That is outside any doubt. That is, as long as Misplaced Pages principles with regard to original research are concerned, it's factually accurate and supported by any relevant source to ask for the mention of San Roque in this stage of the history of Gibraltar (remember, we're talking about Gibraltar as a whole).

There is an extra point to defend the relevancy of San Roque to the history of Gibraltar. San Roque establised itself as the "continuation" of Gibraltar (as it kept its historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council...). And it did it in the Gibraltar municipal term, taking over the whole of the Gibraltar municipal term. That status was formally recognized in 1706, when the status of the town of Gibraltar was still dubious (it was not British until 1713). Mind also that the status of San Roque was not recognized until the failure of the contrasiege laid by Spanish and French troops in 174-1705 (in which Gibraltar inhabitants took part, see Simón Susarte). It can be argued that the Gibraltar population left the town in many occasions (that's right and should be mentioned), but this time is the first (and only) time in the history of Gibraltar that the regufees keep a vivid (and legal) memory of its roots and its relationship to the lost town.

The current version of the Gibraltar article does not mention (of course only in the section related to the history of Gibraltar, again, not the history of British Gibraltar) anything about the Spanish municipality of Gibraltar (its Campo). It does not mention San Roque. It does not mention its standard, its coat of arms, the motto granted by Philip V ("My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo."). Not mentioning the latter information might be right (as it's mostly relevant to San Roque in itself). But not mentioning the former (that most of the Spanish population of Gibraltar settled down in San Roque) is, IMHO, a blatant POV.

There is a question that should not be forgotten. The fact that Spain actively claims Gibratar to be transferred back to Spain. Spain's pressure during the Franco's dictatorship went further as closing the communication with Gibraltar, which caused a extraordinary suffering to Gibraltarians. It possibly contaminates all discussions related to Gibraltar. When during the Franco's dictatorship, the dictator tried to twist the Gibraltarians hand (he didn't treat their own citizens much better), one of the arguments that the dictatorship used was that the population of Gibraltar was allegedly "artificially planned" to the prejudice of the original population which "had been expelled". Moreover, when the Gibraltar question was analyzed by the UN Committee on Decolonization in 1964, the mayor (a Francoist official) of San Roque was given a hearing as a representative of the 'Town of San Roque where the most noble and loyal city of Gibraltar dwells' (that's only a translation of the San Roque's motto). He described San Roque as the direct continuator of the old town of Gibraltar, occupied by the English, having been established by the original and real Gibraltarians and to its inhabitants as the descendants of the original and real Gibratarians or the legitimate Gibraltarians . Gibraltarians are described as the current population of Gibraltar. I understand that Franco's statements (about real and not real Gibraltarians) deeply hurt Gibraltarians. However, IMHO, only because a fact is malliciously used it does not mean that such a fact must be hidden as long as it is accurately described, without introducing assessments (remember NPOV summary: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves").

Finally, with regard to "undue balance", at the moment, the section on history is 135-line long (cutting and pasting the text in a standart word processor). The section devoted to the "Spanish" and Habsburg Gibraltar is 12 + 12-line long (12 in the section named "The Spanish period" and 12 in the opening section named "The British period", which should be renamed to "The Habsburg period", as most of the historians do; otherwise is a new POV). What I'm proposing (see below) add just three lines to the overall text. Mind also that most of what is listed in the section "The Spanish period" is a minor incident that is not recorded by most of the historians dealing with the History of Gibraltar. Nothing is said, however, about the royal donation to the town of Gibraltar to establish its municipal term, for instance.

To sum up (and thank you if you're reached this point), I can't see any valid reason to hide the fact that most of the Gibraltar population that left the town in 1704 established in what nowadays is San Roque, as long as such a mention is included in the proper place, the section on history dealing with this period of time. I'm not proposing a paragraph, only one sentence (in bold the text currently in the article):

Besides, I'm proposing that the first two paragraphs in "The British period" (including my proposals) are set in a section named "The Habsburg period".

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC to which I respond. San Roque, as the destination of inhabitants fleeing from Gibraltar, is notable precisely because of the fact which so annoys some people. That is, the historical continuity of the town with Gibraltar. Ecemaml has kindly provided suitable sources which support his suggestion. Support the brief mention, per Ecemaml.

Weak Oppose the idea of setting the first two paragraphs in "The British period" into a new section named "The Habsburg period". If anyone wishes to do so I would suggest first presenting evidence of not only de jure claims and fictions, but also of actual control at this time, to demonstrate that at the time the Hapsburgs had more influence over Gibraltar than the British. Periodization can only be tentative, of course, but I suggest that the Hapsburg control was in name only and left no notable legacy.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Richard, you've raised an interesting point. I insisted two much in the San Roque issue and not in the Habsburg one. My suggestion is not actually related to de iure claims and fictions. The issue is that the British, as time went by, begun to increase its control of the town (however there were Dutch garrisons in the town until 1713). Stating that Gibraltar was British in 1705 or 1706 is factually wrong. Stating it in 1711 was true although as a mere occupation. However, it's not me the one to argue about this topic but secondary sources.

Let's make a survey among historians (the ones I quote in Selected Quotations...): Hills devoted four chapters to the 1704-1713 period: Gibraltar under 'Charles III of Spain' 1704 (Siege 12), Gibraltar under 'Charles III of Spain' 1705 (Siege 12 cont.), From 'Spanish' to 'British' Gibraltar 1706-1711 and Britain acquires Gibraltar 1711-1713. As you can see, this author if far from using "British" as an adjective for the whole period. Jackson is quite explicit: Hapsburg Gibraltar: The Eleventh and Twelfth Sieges, 1693 to 1713. Gibraltar. A History, by Maurice Harvey is also explicit: Gibraltar for the Habsburgs: 1704-1713. So, from a Misplaced Pages point of view, there is no reason not to label this period as Habsburg Gibraltar (even if between 1516 and 1700 Gibraltar was also Habsburg). However, if an ultrasimplification for this article (not for History of Gibraltar) is desired, it could be valid to use "British Gibraltar", although it's factually wrong for the first years of the period. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose although I might admire the attempt to deny that Gibraltar is British, and to claim that the real Gibraltar and Gibraltarians are in San Roque (founded 1706) on the basis that they stole things that were given to Gibraltar, None of this has any place in an article about Gibraltar. At the point that the Spanish inhabitants ran away from future conflict and justice for their crimes, they ceased being any part of the territory of Gibraltar as it has been since that date. --Gibnews (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gibnews for your statement. After reading it I guess that you haven't even read my statement since you seem to talk about completely different topics. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose This article is already overly long and the facts about San Roque are relevant to San Roque not necessarily Gibraltar. The appropriate place for details of the events are the History of Gibraltar not an overview article of this nature. Justin talk 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this will be my final comment here: San Roque's ongoing relationship to Gibraltar is what makes the matter sufficiently notable for a brief mention in this Misplaced Pages article, but mentioning them does not imply support for any Spanish claim to Gibraltar. We are describing a minor historical fact, any discussion of its dubious relevance to land claims belongs in another article. Just my opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

San Roque's ongoing relationship is no more or less with Gibraltar than any other town in the area, and certainly less than with La Linea, because the latter adjoins. The reason that some editors want to include it and build it up is for political purposes as its used to justify the Spanish irredentist claim suggesting that the people living there have a title to Gibraltar. The 'minor historical fact' if it is indeed a fact rather than a myth, belongs in the history of Gibraltar article, and the article about San Roque itself and not in the main Gibraltar article, where we are struggling to be concise and the information on Gibraltar post 1704 is more significant and interesting to people in general. --Gibnews (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Justin A Kuntz

Some of the above statements are not entirely correct, in fact I would go so far to state that it is actually disingenuous.

One side of this dispute has been flexible, they have pointed out that the detail of the mention of San Roque belongs in the article History of Gibraltar, whereas this article being more general and an overview, then details of the ultimate destination of the people who left in 1704 is not suitable. The other side insists absolutely it must be mentioned, with additional details and have not been prepared to compromise on that.

The problem with this article is that it is already too long by[REDACTED] standards. Before this dispute blew up, we were in the process of reducing its size. Hence, we are reluctant to add significant additional detail. As this is an overview article we cannot cover every single aspect of what happened and in summarising the events we have to prune some facts. The people who left in 1704 played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any consequences to their movement and so the details of what happened to them is not necessary for this article. A reader who wishes to know more can simply look at the greater detail on the History of Gibraltar.

Now this position has been explained but the dispute has gotten somewhat bad tempered, with accusations of bias, suppression of the truth, or even vetoing any mention of San Roque; clearly a false accusation since we suggest not unreasonably that it be mentioned on the history article.

I am rather glad that Ecemaml has mentioned in balance a rather nasty and racist aspect of the Spanish claim, that the populace of Gibraltar are not the "real" Gibraltarians but merely implanted colonists whose views are of no consequence. It should also be mentioned in the interests of full disclosure that this extreme Spanish nationalist viewpoint has been espoused off-wiki by one of the protagonists pushing for this proposal (though he does now disown them).

To single out San Roque is also inaccurate, since as noted in Sir William Jackson's Rock of the Gibraltarians the population dispersed in the Campo de Gibraltar seeking temporary homes, with some travelling as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga. The fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras. The most important settlement was established around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar.

So whilst San Roque was one of the main settlements it was not the only one. Further the details belong in the article on San Roque but not necessarily here.

Now a compromise was suggested that mentioned the population left for nearby areas of Spain, wikilinked to the Campo de Gibraltar. This was previously rejected out of hand because it didn't mention San Roque.

So I would suggest the compromise we put forward of mentioning the Campo de Gibraltar and leaving the details for the History of Gibraltar, facts relevant to San Roque are already mentioned in San Roque, Cadiz. It provides due coverage in what is an overview article, wikilinks to find more general information and the two articles History of Gibraltar and San Roque, Cadiz provide the details. This provides the coverage that apparently people desire, without overburdening this article with details of nearby Spanish towns.

One final request, can we please avoid flooding the talk page with contentious argument to avoid smothering any discussion by the none involved. Justin talk 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Justin's statement

It's interesting the way to approach the issue by Justin, I must admit. I could go point by point but it would be too verbose, so I'll try to focus on the key elements of his statement. Most of it is simply a set of provocations and slanders towards the rest of participants of this RfC. I won't play that game, although I could (for example, one of the parties is the one that has been openly described as POV editor, and not by the other party). I'm not particularly interested in these role-playing aspects of wikipedia. I'm here to write good articles.

I'd focus, however, in specific statements:

• "Some of the above statements are not entirely correct". However, you haven't provided any indication about which not "entirely correct" statements I've made.
• "One side of this dispute has been flexible, they have pointed out that the detail of the mention of San Roque belongs in the article History of Gibraltar". I beg your pardon but, if your "flexibility" is "accepting" that San Roque may me mentioned in History of Gibraltar (something that already happens as it's a fact extensively mentioned by any historian working in the topic), it's possibly because my poor English prevents me from understading what you mean with flexibility. It'd be so generous by "one side"...
• "The other side insists absolutely it must be mentioned"
• "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by[REDACTED] standards". Well, I don't know which standards you're mentioning. However, only to provide a comparison, the Gibraltar article fits into 20 standard pages of a word processor (if you wish the configuariont details I can provide them). The UK article (which does not include details prior to 1707) fits into 31 pages (I understand that there is not any rule that requires a dependent territory to have a shorter article that a state).
• "Before this dispute blew up, we were in the process of reducing its size." Here you have sections or paragraphs that could be got ridden of the principal article: the interesting but irrelevant anecdote related to the "Conversos" in Gibraltar (simply because it's omitted by most of the historians of Gibraltar), mentions to Minorca, the mention to the "British neutral ground" in the history section (it would belong to the articles on disputes and, at most, as a mention in the communications section, since it affects the airport), the whole section "Spanish Civil War" (as it focuses in irrelevant military incidents), the mention to 1981 honeymoon of Charles and Diana, the excesive detail on the Cordoba agreements, the incidents in the "British waters" (which besides going into too much detail, omits, as usual the fact that such waters are claimed by Spain, another POV in the text), the details on the 2007 election (recentism), the section on the Eastside Development, the details on the National Day (recentism), the whole "tercentenary" section (recentism), the whole section on the Falkland Islands and a severe reduction in the Attempted IRA Bombing issue (recentism). It would reduce the size of the article to 17 pages. However, we're arguing for 2 lines of text.
• "The people who left in 1704 played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any consequences to their movement and so the details of what happened to them is not necessary for this article." Playing further part or not in the history of Gibraltar is an entirely new concept in History study (the first time I've heard of it and possibly most of the historians in the world would ask for a new job). If we followed such a weird approach, we'd never mention the Neanderthals, Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Battle of Gibraltar, the Archduke Charles, the Battle of Gibraltar, the operation Felix or Władysław Sikorski as none of them played "further part in the history of Gibraltar". However, this time San Roque seems to be unacceptable. Is it related to being currently a Spanish town?
• "So whilst San Roque was one of the main settlements..." No, it was the main settlement, not "one of the main settlements". It's amazing that just after quoting Jackson ("The most important settlement was...") you contradict him claiming that it was just "one of the main settlements". However, I can't see any problem in mentioning Algeciras y Los Barrios also
• "Now a compromise was suggested that mentioned the population left for nearby areas of Spain, wikilinked to the Campo de Gibraltar. This was previously rejected out of hand because it didn't mention San Roque." No, it has been rejected simply because it's not accurate. Stating that there was a wave of Italian inmigration to America in late 19th and 20th century is truy however vague. Stating that there was a wave of Italian inmigration to America (mainly to Argentina and the United States) in late 19th and 20th century is not only true but more precise and simply 7 words longer.
• "without overburdening this article with details of nearby Spanish towns." Which details?

Here you have my proposal, stripping most of the "details"

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it interesting, I prefer to simply discuss content but felt the need to defend myself given that you opened the statement by attacking the people holding an opposing viewpoint.

"However, you haven't provided any indication about which not "entirely correct" statements I've made."

OH but I did, you claimed we'd been inflexible, whereas we had. In fact I think you'll find that the principle authors of the compromise text was Gibnews and myself. The record is on the archive page, equally the record is there with you coming close to derailing compromise by re-introducing disputed text. I would urge anyone to check this out for themselves.

"I beg your pardon but, if your "flexibility" is "accepting" that San Roque may me mentioned in History of Gibraltar"

Thank for proving my point, that is a compromise, in return your position is to angrily slam your fist on the table demanding it MUST BE MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE AND ONLY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.

"Well, I don't know which standards you're mentioning."

There are clear guidelines for the size of articles, we're already over them. This is an overview not a tome on a small piece of history. As an administrator your professed ignorance of guidelines, well assuming good faith, that surprises me.

"Playing further part or not in the history of Gibraltar is an entirely new concept in History study "

Ah I see criticism by ridicule, how enterprising, it also happens to be a clear sign of someone losing the argument. You may want to consider that. However, the point I make is a perfectly valid criteria for deciding the facts to include on an overview on the topic of Gibraltar. Conversely not for a historical article but then we've been through that.

"No, it was the main settlement, not "one of the main settlements"

No, the sources say it was the most important settlement, there is a difference.

"No, it has been rejected simply because it's not accurate."

Lets not try to move the goal posts after the goal has been scored, the referee has blown the final whistle and Scotland has won the world cup shall we. The precise reason it was rejected was because it didn't mention San Roque.

And sorry but the text you quoted isn't supported by the source, your favourite author Jackson quotes

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. pp. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

“ On 7 August a dejected procession filed out of the Land Port with Queen Isabella's banner at their head, followed by the city council, the garrison with their three brass cannon, the religious orders, and all the inhabitants who did not wish to take the oath of allegiance to Charles III. Some four thousand people left the city; only about seventy of the original Spanish inhabitants took the risk of staying behind in the town that at the time had twelve hundred dwellings. (..) Then they disperses into the Campo seeking temporary homes. One of the leading city councillors offered to keep Isabella's banner and the city records in this country house. Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ”

Emphasis added, I note that the source supports the compromise we suggested almost perfectly. It does help to include the full quote and to not cherry pick only the bit you like. It does give a rather different perspective. Justin talk 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do love a spot of irony, "Most of it is simply a set of provocations and slanders towards the rest of participants of this RfC. I won't play that game" then goes on with "although I could (for example, one of the parties is the one that has been openly described as POV editor, and not by the other party)." Irony, not to mention chutzpah, so thick you could eat it with a spoon. Especially noting your naked attack on Pfainuk. Justin talk 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And I love the criticism of the article as wp:recent The attempted IRA bombing was an international news story which is still rattling around, it is one of the landmark events in Gibraltar (and the IRA's) History. There are at least six[REDACTED] pages about it which are still hotly contested and subject to edit wars. The attempted terrorist attack by the Argentines is less well known, but is interesting in that at the time the Spanish quietly put them on an aircraft - one would expect something better in the post 9/11 world. Of course there is a precedent from WW2 described in Lionel Crabb. It may be that Spanish readers are more interested in where exactly the spanish who ran away from future conflict in 1704 went. Mentioning the Campo Gibraltar was rejected only because it did not support the myth of San Roque, Cadiz being the 'real' Gibraltar. The history of Gibraltar post 1704 is extensive, better documented, and a lot more interesting and appropriate to most people. --Gibnews (talk)

Addendum

Just to comment on one aspect of the logic claimed for this proposal, that many authors of historical texts mention San Roque, yes they do. I'm sure reams of citations will be produced for that. However, the logic that because authors mention it in history books it must be inserted in this article is flawed. If we're obliged to mention every single fact that an author deems relevant, we could never have a short article. Noticeably other encyclopedias don't feel the need to mention it . Justin talk 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose specific mention of San Roque - to my mind the appropriate question to ask seems to be whether the foundation of San Roque in particular, as opposed to the departure of the townspeople in general, has had any significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar. For a summary history such as this, I think this is a fair test: details can go on more detailed articles. Neither side has argued, and the article doesn't suggest, that the foundation of San Roque has had such an impact; as such I do not believe that it needs to be mentioned explicitly - particularly if, as Justin suggests, San Roque was not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar (as opposed to the largest single destination for those same townspeople). Pfainuk talk 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pfainuk, nice to see you here again. I thought that opinions from uninvolved people was requested, but anyway, your comments are welcome. I've already asked Justin on your statement about that only events with "significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar" (in the best case it leads to recentism, in the worst to POV, as the most recent period, the British, would be privileged) must be mentioned. Following your approach I assume that Neanderthals, Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Battle of Gibraltar, the Archduke Charles, the Battle of Gibraltar, the operation Felix or should not be mentioned at all. It's strange that such removals hadn't been suggested in the past.

On the other hand, your statement ("particularly if, as Justin suggests, San Roque was not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar") is surprising. I didn't thought Justin was a reliable secondary source. Unfortunately, what Justin "suggests" is simply untrue. Let's see:

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.:

• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

Unfortunately, as the historians on the topic suggest San Roque was the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your own source contradicts the assertion you make "Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras.". The sources describe San Roque as the most important, whether this is simply a language issue I don't know but the most important is not synonymous with most populace. Justin talk 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Pfainuk played no part in the dispute, his comments are perfectly valid. The ad hominem attacks are out of order. Can we expect anyone who opposes to be subject to such attacks? Justin talk 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I draw a distinction between "the primary destination" and "the largest single destination". Perhaps I should clarify this distinction further (this may be a language issue or it may be me expressing myself badly). If San Roque was the "primary destination", then a decent-sized majority of the former townspeople of Gibraltar went there, and there was no significant concentration anywhere else. If it was merely the largest single settlement then sizeable groups ended up in various towns in the Campo or in Andalusia, but more ended up in San Roque than in any other individual town. By this measure, for example, Moscow is not the primary city in Europe, merely the largest single city in Europe.

Both you and Justin cite a source that suggests that San Roque may well have been the largest single destination, but not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar - so I cannot accept that that suggestion is "simply untrue".

On "significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar". Plainly, we're trying to summarise the history of Gibraltar here - major points of Gibraltar's history obviously have to go in. But we really shouldn't be going into much more than the major points - the rest can go to a dedicated article. The founding of San Roque is not a suitably major event in the history of Gibraltar. The exodus is, but the founding of San Roque isn't. It may well be sufficiently significant in the context of a summary history of the dispute, or in the context of a summary history of the Campo de Gibraltar, but not in a summary history of Gibraltar itself IMO.

Note that I don't say impact on modern Gibraltar, but rather on the later history of Gibraltar. If the existence of San Roque had become a significant part of the historical narrative later on - in the Napoleonic Wars or World War Two, then the circumstances of San Roque's founding would have to be explained. But there's no evidence of that. Pfainuk talk 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points, Pfainuk. First of all, please notice that the history of Gibraltar and the history of the Campo de Gibraltar prior to 1713 are pretty much the same issue. It was a township as a whole (a single "administrative division"). The frontier and all that mess comes after the capture and subsequent cession in 1713 (with San Roque replacing Gibraltar with regard to the coat of arms, local council...). In 1704 there was a massive migration of the population of Gibraltar within the township as a consequence of its siege and capture. It is a significant historical incident and as such is addressed by every cited historian. There's really no point in locating the origin of this exodus but eschewing the journey's end. And not a single secondary source proceeds this way, as far as I know.

As a response to your reasoning, the town of San Roque has indeed influenced the history of Gibraltar. It has been a base for every following siege of the fortress, its people has participated in such blockades, has suffered raids and attacks of the british troops and has had its impact to this day in events such as the UN Committee on Decolonisation assemblies. Mentioning San Roque would provide the reader with a better understanding of Gibraltar's history as a whole, and of its relations with Spain, in particular. Best regards. Cremallera (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But San Roque wasn't the destination, the sources say dispersed into the Campo de Gibraltar (supporting the proffered compromise), then going onto to found Algeciras, San Roque and going farther afield. Yes San Roque was the most important as the Spanish governance was transferred there but this fact is relevant to San Roque not Gibraltar. The UN Decolonisation Committee reference is relevant to the Disputed Status of Gibraltar.

The one thing I would agree merits further discussion is the point where it has impact on the subsequent history of Gibraltar as the basis for future assaults on Gibraltar. Lets hope it doesn't get swamped in the usual acrimony. Justin talk 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, sources are pretty much unanimous in stating that althought the hermit of San Roque wasn't the only terminus, it was the destination of a majority of the townsfolk, who settled there. As for the UN Decolonisation Committee not being relevant to Gibraltar, well, that's your opinion. As I've stated previously, the criteria to assess objective relevance values to the information should be coverage amongst secondary sources. I was just responding to some good points raised by Pfainuk here. Regards. Cremallera (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you, perhaps, cite any major event in later Gibraltar history (so, after San Roque was founded) where an understanding of the background of settlement in San Roque is crucial to the understanding of the events that took place in Gibraltar?

You argue that the history of Gibraltar and the history of the Campo are the same prior to 1713 based on their being part of the same administrative division. I would suggest that it is perfectly possible for different parts of a single administrative division to have different histories or to be affected by events in different ways - particularly where the administrative division includes both rural and urban areas.

But regardless, the reason why I suggest that that it may be relevant in the context of a summary history of the Campo de Gibraltar is that it is a significant town in its own right. Equally, the background of the foundation of La Línea or of Algeciras would be relevant to such a history. But, like Algeciras and La Línea, San Roque is not part of the modern British Overseas Territory, and this article's summary history should, IMO, concentrate on the history of the BOT and of the town, leaving out other historical events unless they are immediately relevant to the history of the town.

And that brings me back where I started. The sieges are perfectly well understood without an understanding of the history of the town where those besieging were based. The UN Decolonization Committee meetings do not credibly constitute a significant event in Gibraltar's history - they are not significant enough to be included in what is intended to be a short summary history. If they ever have an important practical effect on Gibraltar then I may reassess my view here, but they haven't so far. And even if they do count as a significant event, it would still not require an understanding of the history of San Roque to understand the meetings. So, as I say, is there a major event in Gibraltar history post-1706 where an understanding of the background of settlement in San Roque is crucial to the understanding of the events that took place in Gibraltar?

That said, I may quit at this point. I don't desperately want to get drawn back into the big Gibraltar hoo-haa. There was a request for comment, so I answered. You now have my answer. Though I should say, if you're worried about POV on Gibraltar-related articles, I rather think you're concentrating on the wrong one. Pfainuk talk 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cremallera

This article reviews, albeit briefly, most of Gibraltar's history in the appropriate section. The territory has been inhabited since the Stone Age, later populated by the phoenicians, carthaginians and Vandals; it has been part of muslim iberia until conquered by the Kingdom of Castile following the Reconquista, and of Spain since the establishment of the Spanish Crown in 1479, until its cession in 1713. In 1704 it was captured by Anglo-Dutch troops on behalf of the austriacist side of the War of the Spanish Succession, and its population fled from the town, but not from the township, to settle down mostly in the Saint Roch's shrine nearby. Franco-Spanish troops tried to recapture the fortress between 1704 and 1705, eventually lifting up the siege. At this point, in 1706, King Philip V of Spain granted the aforementioned settlement the status of "city". The Crown of Great Britain obtained Gibraltar in 1713, by the means of the Treaty of Utrecht.

All this (and much more) is covered in the history section of the article, except the foundation of the neighbouring town of San Roque as a direct consequence of the 1704 capture. Not every existing municipality can claim to be cause of the foundation of another city. Neither historian disregards this connection in the works concerning Gibraltar's history. You can read some related excerpts of the following books "Rock of the Gibraltarians", "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" and "Gibraltar. A History" (written by Sir William Jackson, George Hills, and Maurice Harvey respectively) here. Allen Andrews' "Proud Fortress. The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar" alludes to this incident too, and so does Ayala's "Historia de Gibraltar" (in Spanish, and being quoted as a source by the historians mentioned above) here. I'd like to add that all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore should be the main criterion to assign objective relevance values to that information, as opposed to some editors' very respectable opinions. And I've used this argument before. Justin, above, anticipates this and states:

• "Just to comment on one aspect of the logic claimed for this proposal, that many authors of historical texts mention San Roque, yes they do. I'm sure reams of citations will be produced for that. However, the logic that because authors mention it in history books it must be inserted in this article is flawed", and "If we're obliged to mention every single fact that an author deems relevant, we could never have a short article". Of course I am not suggesting to verbatim quote every single word of those books. That is absurd. However, when a specific notation is considered cogent enough to merit publishing by every available reliable source, and thus there is consensus amongst scholars and historians, we can assume its relevance per WP:V and WP:RS.

• "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by[REDACTED] standards". This has already been discussed also. Whilst I agree with him on principle as I consider it too long as well, I can't see how preventing reasoned and abundantly sourced editions complies with WP:SIZE policy. Besides, splitting this article or trimming it down merits a talk page section on its own, and the involvement of several editors to discuss exclusively this point. Count on me then, but for now, we are dealing with another debate.

• "Noticeably other encyclopedias don't feel the need to mention it ". Other encyclopedia(s), or Britannica, to be precise, have no bearing in Misplaced Pages. To be fair, the provided feature does not mention a great deal of the information this article includes, like the "one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and territories by Jane’s Country Risk which listed Gibraltar as 5th most prosperous and stable worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory" present in the lead section, the fact that there was "one incident that resulted in the death of Gibraltarians occurred in January 1938 when a submarine of unknown origin, though probably Italian, sank the SS Endymion, a small freighter taking a cargo of coal to Cartagena, which was in Republican hands" in the history section, or several "did you know" mentions on the likes of "In the film The Captain's Paradise, Alec Guinness plays the captain of a ship that travels between Gibraltar and Morocco", or "In 1952 American country singer Frankie Lane had a song called "The Rock of Gibraltar", which made it to #20 in the US Top 40". The discussed addition of San Roque's creation complies with WP:DUE further than any of those examples.

• "Some of the above statements are not entirely correct, in fact I would go so far to state that it is actually disingenuous", "One side of this dispute has been flexible", "Now this position has been explained but the dispute has gotten somewhat bad tempered, with accusations of bias, suppression of the truth, or even vetoing any mention of San Roque; clearly a false accusation since we suggest not unreasonably that it be mentioned on the history article", "I am rather glad that Ecemaml has mentioned in balance a rather nasty and racist aspect of the Spanish claim". Well, I'm not going to tell you whether all those qualifiers are correct or not. That's what archives are for.

And thanks for reading it all! Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Other encyclopedia(s), or Britannica, to be precise, have no bearing in Misplaced Pages." Other encyclopedias are sources too and provide a more objective and independent measure of whether a fact is relevant to an overview article, than detailed treatises by professional historians focused solely on one aspect of the History of Gibraltar. And I don't suggest we mention every single word, (lets not try to invalidate the argument with sarcasm eh?), but make the point that you can't summarise if you mention every single detail from a more focused text.

Also compare apples with apples, not with oranges as it seems the people pushing ever so hard to have this measure added like to do. This is an overview article, it by definition covers a range of topics such as films that depict Gibraltar. Expunging such details to include details of an unrelated town would make the article all the more poorer.

And addressing the first point last, there has only been a push to include ever more details about a town tangentially related to the focus of the article.

Well, I'm not going to tell you whether all those qualifiers are correct or not. That's what archives are for. Indeed they are, so much so I thought it worthy of emphasising that point again. Someone objectively viewing those archives will get their own picture rather than any carefully edited highlights.

I see the appeal to avoid tendentious arguments fell on deaf ears, oh well, never mind. The RFC will attract fewer comments as a result. Justin talk 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS covers using encyclopedias as sources. It's allowed, but encyclopedias vary in terms of reliability. I would imagine that Encyclopedia Britannica would be considered one of the more reliable ones out there. On the other hand, I believe that Cremarella is reminding us that Misplaced Pages does not have to mirror any other encyclopedia, especially since unlike Britannica it is not paper. -- Atama頭 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is a reliable source, most would consider it authorative, but just to also make the point that only selecting the sources you agree with, ignoring sources that conflict, selects a predetermined outcome does it not? Justin talk 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Ecemaml, at least, has argued that this article should mention San Roque because every historian does, but Cremarella says that we should ignore Britannica's omission. -- Atama頭 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've argued both, Atama. That's what I tried to explain: on the one hand, Justin, please mind that the absence of statements can't be interpreted as a statement of absence. Thus, you are very entitled to judge San Roque as an "unrelated town" to Gibraltar. However, please understand that Encyclopedia Britannica does not support this opinion, neither do historians Sir William Jackson, George Hills, Maurice Harvey, Allen Andrews nor Ignacio López de Ayala, who have authored a bunch of the existing secondary sources that deal with the issue at stake, and have written otherwise.

On the other hand, Britannica, like any other encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. WP:RS remarks that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources". Of course, I don't mean that Britannica isn't a good source, nor that using an encyclopedia to write an overview isn't a valid approach. What I am saying is that we can't compare tertiary sources to secondary sources to assess the relevance of the information they provide (or the lack of it).

And finally, I am not advocating to expunge such "details" at all. It's been quite amusing to learn that "In the anime series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, Gibraltar serves as a major military base for the ZAFT forces" ;) What I propose is to include the main destination of Gibraltar's inhabitants after the capture of the town in 1704 as well, just like every available secondary source I know of does. And that's it. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But the fact you're ignoring is that it is an overview rather than the detailed historical texts you prefer, that it provides an objective and independent example of the core facts that are relevant to Gibraltar. The examples you have cherry picked are all detailed historical texts and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned on the History of Gibraltar, so please would you stop the tendentious arguments on the false premise that bears no relation to the issue at hand. Further criticism by wikilawyering doesn't impress anyone, the article is based on secondary sources but just because a secondary source mentions a fact, does not mean it has to be repeated. That is the logical fallacy you just don't seem to grasp, sources don't dictate the content of an article consensus does. No one is saying we can never mention San Roque, merely the overview of Gibraltar isn't the right place. Please discuss the issue at hand, rather than trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you as suppressing the truth,[REDACTED] does not exist to right great wrongs.

And finally as regards the tufty nonsense in the Cultural section, that was the prime candidate to be trimmed if you'd bothered to read the archive (I know how much you like to drag things up from the past). But what stays and what goes is decided by concensus. Remember concensus, that annoying[REDACTED] policy that says people have to agree, not what you can wikilawyer or bulldoze by edit warring. Justin talk 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a secondary source mentions a fact, does not mean it has to be repeated. That is the logical fallacy you just don't seem to grasp, sources don't dictate the content of an article consensus does". Right. And when every secondary source mentions it and the only reason preventing consensus is an opinion based on what a tertiary source does not state, where's the logical fallacy? And please, spare me the epithets regarding "wikilawyering", my "tendentious" arguments, or "cherrypicking" (up to 5 distinct) references. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What else would you call it, using excuses to ignore sources that contradict the pre-conceived idea you picked a series of sources to support? Its unsurprising that they re-inforce the initial presumption is it not? I have explained the logical fallacy but feel free to continue with the tendentious arguments and ad hominem attacks. I fear you'll find that it doesn't re-inforce your argument, rather it appears like you have no confidence in it. Also the thread become tl;dr. Ciao. Justin talk 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Excuses? There's a clear difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Justin. Please, do read this. And I don't intend this to be an attack. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I guess the point went over your head, tell you what, why not let participants in the RFC decide for themselves, I've said my piece. We shall see. Justin talk 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact there are many differences between the Britannica Gibraltar article and the Misplaced Pages article. A few examples: Britannica's introduction says that Gibraltar is a "British overseas territory" while WP says that it is a "self-governing British overseas territory"; also, Britannica does not mention the Jane report, or some movie where sir Alec Guinness played the captain of a boat that covered the line between Gibraltar and Morocco, or the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED anime series, or... --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So what Imalbornoz, unless we plan to return to your pet hobby horse of denying that Gibraltar is self-governing territory, denying that it has a measure of democracy that independent observers described as the epitomy of how elections should be conducted, or insisting that the people living and who were born there are imported colonists with no rights. Criticism by ridicule is not productive. Justin talk 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I have nothing more to say that what the policy states: secondary sources are preferred to tertiary ones. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Imalbornoz

All the historians that have been cited as sources for the History section in the Gibraltar article (most of them English) have considered the following to be relevant enough to be mentioned in their books: Almost all the population of Gibraltar left their village on 7 August 1704, and most of them settled around the chapel of San Roque (6.5 kilometers away from the Rock). Most of these historians also mention that this settlement became permanent and was granted the status of "city" two years later when it was considered as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" by the then King of Spain, keeping the public records, the standard, etc of the town of Gibraltar. The article currently does not mention San Roque as the final destination of most inhabitants of Gibraltar after their departure in 1704. Some editors argue that the article is already too long and "San Roque" is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the History section of the Gibraltar article.

On the other hand, these same editors are happy to include in the article many other issues which most sources don't consider relevant enough to be mentioned in their books. For example, only three paragraphs above the capture of Gibraltar, the article describes that some Sephardim left for "Cordoba" after a stay of only a couple of years in Gibraltar.

If we are going to judge the relevance of events according to their being mentioned by secondary sources, the "San Roque" episode should be considered more relevant than the "Cordoba" episode -for example- and also many other events that have much less coverage in secondary sources than San Roque. Therefore, I think that excluding "San Roque" from the Gibraltar article is not justified.

I have my own opinion about the relevance of "San Roque" in the history of Gibraltar (I honestly think that the fact that the biggest part of previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled down only 6.5 km from their old homes after the capture of the Rock, and stayed there to found a city keeping historical continuity with the old town of Gibraltar is very relevant). But probably it should not be my opinion which counts, but the relative coverage in secondary sources of this event vis a vis other episodes that are indeed mentioned in the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the forced exile of Sephardim Jews to Cordoba had an impact on their future persecution under the inquisition, whereas the voluntary movement of the population from Gibraltar had no lasting consequences. So please can we compare like with like, instead of trying to pervert it as an example of unequal or preferential treatment. Implying a racial motive for the position of those opposing is dirty pool and kind of pointless since I am in fact half-Spanish. The tendentious arguments and ad hominem attacks are unproductive; they poisoned the previous discussions and have entrenched positions. Please will you just stop. Justin talk 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ad hominem attacks"? "racial motive"? "dirty pool"? "tendentious arguments"? Have you read my statement? Can you (Atama) explain Justin that none of those is present in it? (or, in case I have incurred into any of those, can you tell me so that I can apologise?) I'm afraid we need to cool things down, or Justin won't listen to me anymore. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"On the other hand, these same editors are happy to include in the article many other issues which most sources don't consider relevant enough to be mentioned in their books." That is an ad hominem attack. Further the accusations of unequal treatment are on the basis of the race and faith of the people involved. We have also discussed the allegations of unequal treatment previously, so bringing them up again was bound to raise tension. Justin talk 00:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question I've been meaning to ask. One of your sources claims 6000 settled at San Roque, all of the comtemporary counts put the Spanish population of Gibraltar at 4000. Given that a significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga it seems unlikely does it not? Further all of the cultural references you keep making are to pronouncements of the Spanish King are relevant to San Roque, Cadiz but ceased to be relevant to Gibraltar and its future development and history in 1704. Its relevance is a historical detail, that belongs in the more detailed History of Gibraltar. Co-incidentally I think its relevant to mention, that whilst you're seeking to add more details to an overview, you're also seeking to remove details of the events of 1704 from that article. Its bizarrely inconsistent to argue for expanding and overview while seeking to expunge details where they are relevant. I for one just don't get it. Justin talk 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For your info:

• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

You're welcome. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, where does your weird statement "significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga" comes from? None of the sources (but you, and you're not a source) talks about "significant chunks"

Your favourite source Jackson, since when you quote the full text he points out the fishermen and their families settled in Algeciras. I'm so sorry that I used colloquial English, is your argument so weak that you're reduced to semantic arguments about English usage? Or was that just an attempt to get a rise and reduce this to a senseless confrontation again. Don't you get it, I'm not biting. Justin talk 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. Ecemaml, it's not helpful to call Justin's statement "weird", even if you disagree with it. It's not like he made a completely inappropriate remark or tried to change the subject, he was questioning the accuracy of the source. Justin, there's no need to attack Ecemaml over this, it's reasonable to question whether or not the number of people settling in other locations after leaving Gibraltar are "significant". It's not a colloquialism, it's original research or personal opinion if you can't attribute it to a source, or at least an exaggeration. -- Atama頭 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its unhelpful to point out there are major discrepancies in what the sources say, particularly about numbers. Equally it is not unreasonable to point out that the very source Ecemaml quotes points out that MOST fishermen and their families chose to reside in Algeciras. Since fishing was one of the main occupations, in Gibraltar the use of the colloquialism "signficant chunk" is perhaps poor grammar but neither inaccurate, nor OR, nor personal opinion. It might tentatively be described as an exaggeration at a push. However, I merely asked why there were more people settling in San Roque than apparently left Gibraltar according to the sources being used and it is not an unreasonable question. One source (Hills) quotes an eye witness with 4000, another speculates at around 5-6000 and yet another quotes 6000 founding San Roque. Things don't add up between sources, so can we actually address that rather than attacking the person making the observation. Justin talk 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Procedural request

Any chance we can move the comments by outside parties to a separate section? The extended arguments by participants are making the comments that you've requested difficult to spot. Don't want to do it myself without consensus that it's fair enough since it's a little close to editing others' comments, but I think it would be useful... Pfainuk talk 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's a pretty good idea. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence, my appeal to avoid tendentious arguments by the participants....doesn't seem to have been taken up though. :-) Justin talk 21:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. To start another heated discussion is of no use and it can scare away potential outside commentators. If we really want some outside commentators at all, inside editors of the Gibraltar article (myself, Ecemaml, Cremallera, Justin, Gibnews, Pfainuk,...) would better refrain from commenting. And maybe we should also move somewhere else the comments we have made in the RfC so far (maybe except for each inside editor's "statements"). I am ready if you are. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk has played no part in the discussion and is not a party to the dispute, so why are we trying to remove his comments? I'm sorry but I did appeal for no further tendentious arguments, since the attempt to denigrate the other side started with the very first statement. I have only defended myself and I'm not going to see that expunged, nor would I like to see the attempts to bait Gibnews into making an ill-tempered remark.

I'm happy for the RFC to proceed on the basis of the arguments, I won't make any further remarks provided you and your friends do the same. But I feel there should be at least one further disclosure from your side. Justin talk 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pfainuk has nothing to do with any party in this RfC or with this article... just an outsider. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk has played no part whatsoever in this dispute as you well know, diffs taken out of context, really plumbing the depths now aren't we. This RFC is doomed, it will be smothered by your tendentious comments. Justin talk 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of him being a regular editor to this article or not, Pfainuk is as entitled as any of us to state his opinion. Definitely. If we could just wait for other comments, please... Cremallera (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was simply surprised by Justin's statements on Pfainuk being an unrelated editor. His comments are obviously welcome, just as any other involved one. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, a diff from fifteen months ago and proof that I haven't edited the article since July. You'll forgive me if I don't find that compelling evidence that I'm involved in this dispute... Pfainuk talk 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Pfainuk is welcome to comment. I only included him in the list of inside editors because one of the versions of the paragraph under dispute was proposed by himself in the talk page last September . Again, shouldn't we just limit ourselves to the statements and put our comments somewhere else? I just want to leave more room to outside editors. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) How would you all prefer this to be structured? I agree that some comments can be lost in this discussion with the long statements and back-and-forth between disputants. I had considered creating a subpage, like Talk:Gibraltar/RFC Statements and moving the statements there, but then I wasn't sure whether the responses to the statements should also be moved because some of the comments from outside participants are replies to those statements. But leaving the responses without the statements would remove the context and make it more difficult to understand the comments.

What about collapsing the statements? Anyone who wants to read them can expand them to do so, but when not expanded the RFC section would be much smaller. How does that sound? -- Atama頭 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it's the comments from us inside editors (who just can't resist the temptation to respond when one of us makes yet another comment) what is the problem, clogging the RfC and -possibly- scaring outside commentators. I think that collapsible parts of the discussion are a very good idea, but I would include any comment coming from us, not the statements (or -at least- not just the statements). How does that sound? --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If we had gone with my initial suggestion of merely stating our arguments that would have worked. But it immediately started with a statement that made certain allegations about other editor's motives and that poisoned the well. Now I would suggest we stop the comments, leave the narrative as it is and hope for a response. But I fear that the tl;dr response will put off participants. I don't agree with removing or moving responses as it will ruin the narrative. We are where we are. Justin talk 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside Imalbornoz, you might like to let Ecemaml know that the Demographics of Gibraltar was drafted with your help and is sourced, seeing as he seems intent on edit warring to keep it out. Justin talk 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. It's not really practical to selectively collapse replies, nor should it be necessary. An RFC is an attempt to bring outside opinions into a debate, but that doesn't mean that opinions from insiders are unnecessary nor unwelcome. I do agree that a monopolization of the debate by involved editors is likely to drive away such outside opinions. There are many occasions where I've dropped into an article talk page, looked it over and saw a long page full of heated debate between people and just moved on. It can feel like stepping into a feud (and that's pretty much what it is). Most people are reluctant to do so.

All I can say is to try to keep things civil. Don't bait others, don't assume anyone is baiting you, and don't rise to the bait. If this blows up into a big fight then I think that ArbCom is the last resort and that's pretty messy. The Arbitration Committee, if it accepts a case, is likely to pick carefully over everyone's conduct and I wouldn't be shocked to see someone given restrictions or even a topic ban. I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. -- Atama頭 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that all the information about what happened at that time is unreliable, most of the histories simply quote what others have written, but changing the wording slightly. The only important thing is that the Spanish inhabitants left and since then Gibraltar has developed and prospered. That is what the article should be focused on and not what happens in San Roque as that has an article of its own which has grown from a simple whinge about 1704 to something more useful. --Gibnews (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than move comments by outside parties to another section, could I suggest that a list of the arguments pro and con should be presented? I might do this over the weekend if other diversions fail me; I would cut, paste and rewrite. The relevant arguments are quite short and if we can agree on what they are we can then, I hope, move on towards a consensus on what the article should include, free from sniping about motives. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, you're a brave man for trying though. Good Luck. Justin talk 12:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, be my guest. Thanks! Cremallera (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jane's Country Risk Index

Hi all, I've changed the phrasing of the mention to this extraordinarily relevant report.

There are two main reasons. The first one is that it's misleading in the sense that it suggests it has taken one year to analyze Gibraltar. The second and most important is that the report is only about "risk" and not about "prosperity". The source of the mistake is not in the wikipedist that included the text but in the source, which takes some "literary" licenses when describing the report. The Times talks about the most stable and "prosperous" nations. However, when other news agencies talk about this report, only mentions "stability" and not prosperity. See Reuters and UPI. Furthermore, if you go to the original source (that is, Jane's and its parent company, IHS), they talk only about stability (see press release by Jane's, description by Jane's and explicit mentions to Gibraltar in IHS press release and report summary). --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it pays to read the references you quote because the report summary cited says something different to what you assert. --Gibnews (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What seems definitely worthless is wasting our time in your ridiculous assessments. Let's see:

• Summary of the report:

The Jane’s Country Risk Ratings measures the stability of all 235 country, territory and political entities in the world.
The ratings provide a holistic assessment of the various factors that affect stability. The service measures 24 factors across five fundamental categories—political, social, economic, external and military and security.

• My edition:

According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory.

So, at the end, the one who's lying it's not me. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) PS: how does your edition complies with your statements about about avoiding "excessive detail"? Double standard? Possibly yes.

I am trying to avoid saying people are lieing because its offensive when you do it. However you are implying that the report only deals with stability, and the reference you cite explains the reasons for their assessment of stability which is based on a large number of critera, so its useful to bring that out by way of an explanation of what is meant, otherwise the term is meaningless. Its a common misconception, particularly in the Spanish media that Gibraltar is a 'parasitic state living off Spain rife with drug smuggling and criminality', rather than a stable prosperous law abiding community., which is implied by this sort of independent assessment. In this case the detail is significant. In the case of comings and goings in Spain 305 years ago by people who subsequently played no part in Gibraltar history, no its not. Now its been explained, perhaps you could insert it in the es.wikipedia so that the readers there are better informed. I would do so but my edits tend to be reverted and people criticise my use of language. --Gibnews (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war by Justin

After the edit war created when I allegedly tried to "make a point" including some Spaniards among the Gibraltar-born people, I have to recognize that this time Justin has surprised me once again, since I didn't expected him to start yet another edit war with no apparent justification. Let's see.

Unfortunately, I've got very familiar with Gibraltar-related issues, so, when I read the following text in the section on Demographics, something sounded very strange to me:

The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I know they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to access the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (Maltese out; Jews and Spaniards in). So, I included the following text:

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. Is it because my text includes any banned word? Which one? Can we bet? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) PS: this section is on the "disputed" text. The edit war is discussed here

You could simply take up my suggestion of asking Imalbornoz or perhaps even Gibmetal77 who also helped in drafting the demographics article, seeing as whatever I do, or suggest, will be turned around and twisted. You could also just stop trying to needle all the time, the reason for my request to stop using my talk page, try also reading WP:BRD. Justin talk 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice small talk, Justin, but the issue remains. Why do you insist in including false information in Misplaced Pages? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this but once. Ecemaml needs to calm down and get a perspective on editing wikipedia. Its all too easy to form a view that his edits are designed to provoke edit wars and disputes. We have been here before with edits to Communications in Gibraltar Of late I've found a couple of instances where references introduced do not support his edits, there is evidence of looking for trouble and we had the fiasco over CO2 emissions and an attempt to derail the compromise on 1704 plus trying to change the start date of ww2. I note he shows up in the most unlikely places eg Peter Hain with contentious edits. This is not a personal attack, and although reluctant to start a RFC on his behaviour if it continues that is the next logical step. With the time and effort that we have all put into the pretty worthless discussions on this page, a number of new articles could have been created. I really don't want to spend my remaining time this way. --Gibnews (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

-)

Your usual defamations, Gibnews. The most interesting thing is how you see a trouble in the most unsuspected editions. It's too boring. Can you provide any diff of your dubious statements? No, as usual. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that it would be better if we made a summary of the Demographics of Gibraltar main article. It's true that I helped to reorganise it. It used to be more similar to the current section in the Gibraltar article (a bit disorganised, mixing history with ethnic groups...). I intended to summarise it in the Gibraltar article, but then we got tangled in the History section. My approach would be to use a similar structure to the Demographics main article, including other demographic issues which are mentioned in the Demographics main article (not only ethnic origins) such as genre, ages, etc.; I would put less emphasis in the history of ethnic groups, as this is not a History section but a Demographics section. Regarding the ethnic mix, I would mention the main reasons for this ethnic mix (summarising what is distributed between several ethnic groups in the Demographics main article) and then list the different ethnic groups and their approximate size. I think this approach is more similar to the Demographics main article. What do you think? --User:Imalbornoz (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Imalbornoz, your suggestion is pretty good. I can try, as the books I have are very good. However, the current statements are false. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, thats what we did on the Demographics article. Perhaps Gibmetal77 would also be interested in drafting the text. Justin talk 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you haven't been able to explain why you reverted my editions, I'll fix them again. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not rising to the bait, I simply restored the content you destroyed. Justin talk 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you go on not having any reason to restore weird statements (obviously unsourced) such as the presence of Maltese population in Gibraltar in 1753. So, did you talked about vandalism? --Ecemaml (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not getting into an argument, you have a nice day now. 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the Demographics section so that it better summarises the Demographics of Gibraltar main article. It surely can be improved but I think it is now a more accurate "Demographics summary" and less "disputable" at the same time.--Imalbornoz (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a good effort, my apologies for doubting you, I've self-reverted. Justin talk 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Although one can guess at the ethnic origins of people from names on the electoral roll, its misleading because of marriage, and eligibility. The term 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is an oxymoron as to be Gibraltarian one must be British, although it is possible to be British with dual nationality, Spain does not allow it. Its also a sweeping statement that the Spanish population left in 1704 - a good number came back which is why there are so many Spanish names in Gibraltar. Since Spain joined the EU there is nothing unusual about actual Spanish nationals living in Gibraltar and they are enumerated as such in the 2001 census. --Gibnews (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

San Roque, the arguments

The Rfc by Atama was: :Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article.

The subsequent debates do not seem to have settled a long-running discussion, which I suggest has too often become sidetracked by irrelevancies. I'd like to propose a week for consensus on the arguments - the arguments only, not the answer - for and against the proposal that something like the following comment should be included at the end of the first paragraph of the British period section of the Gibraltar article: "By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for the Campo de Gibraltar. Many of them settled nearby, within the previous territory of Gibraltar, founding the town of San Roque, Cádiz. Others went to Algeciras and Los Barrios."

Comments are invited. I propose to edit them ruthlessly, removing in particular anything that I think is a personal comment or in any other way brings irrelevancies into the issue. I may put such comments into a separate section, but in any case the two subsections below will contain the briefest statement of the arguments that I can produce. In effect I will be taking ownership, for a week, of this section. If you don't like it, well, this is Misplaced Pages and you can edit as you wish. But if you can support this process for a week, keeping this section to relevant arguments with supporting links, we may hope to produce a brief consensus statement of the arguments. (Some will find some of these arguments tendentious or feeble or both, but please keep your opinion of the arguments out of this section until the 21st.) This in turn may help us to arrive at a reasonably courteous consensus on the issue.

Arguments for inclusion

(Numbered purely for convenience, no further implications intended)

1. 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.

2. The town of San Roque has, because of the facts, some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. It is within the former territory of the Campos de Gibraltar. Many of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled in San Roque, which kept Gibraltar's historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council. Thus it has some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. This is notable to both Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians.

3. Gibraltar can claim the unusual distinction of having founded San Roque.

OK, thanks for your patience. Do we have any further comments on the arguments to be included, or is my summary tolerable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in all of the reputable History of Gibraltar books by modern historians that have been used for this History of Gibraltar section."

I would also add a new point saying that "The facts can be considered more notable (according to their inclusion in all of the reputable History of Gibraltar books that have been used for this History of Gibraltar section) than some other events that the article does include in the History section (which are not present in most the sources that have been used). Therefore, the facts should be considered to pass well above the "notability" standard that is used in the History section of the article."

I would agree with Gibnews that San Roque is not part of Gibraltar according to Spanish law. I would only say that "The town of San Roque has,because of the facts, .."

I would put part of the previous point in a new one: "The new settlement around the chapel of San Roque was, at the time of the facts, inside the territorial limits of the municipality of Gibraltar."

I have decided to only propose the points above in order to avoid conflict. If it's alright, I will include them as arguments from the "pro-inclusion" side. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I don't know if it is us "conflicting editors" ;-) who are supposed to edit the arguments away or it is you (Richard Keatinge).

Could you leave it to me? Just until the 22nd? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course! It's just that I wasn't sure of the procedure. Thank you very much for your effort. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing about notability. I think that this is the main issue, if it is argued that the article is too long (which it probably is). I think that it is relevant whether reputable secondary sources find it relevant enough. The problem is... how much is enough? According to all editors, the fact that Cordoba was the final destination of "Pedro de Herrera" and his Sephardim who only stayed for 3 years in Gibraltar is notable enough. Here we have a benchmark, only 3 paragraphs above the capture of Gibraltar.

Let's compare their notability according to Historians:

• Maurice Harvey: Gibraltar. A History. - San Roque: page 68 - Pedro de Herrera: pages 51-52
• Frederick Sayer: The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe - San Roque: page 117 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Allen Andrews: Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 54 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Edward G. Archer: Gibraltar, identity and empire - San Roque: page 34 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• George Hills: Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 176 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• William Jackson: The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 101 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Stephen Constantine: Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. - San Roque: page 15 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a

Result: All 7 historians mention "San Roque". Only one mentions the Sephardim episode.

Furthermore, if you look it up in Google books, only one book with "Gibraltar" in its title mentions "Pedro de Herrera". On the other hand, besides the 7 reference historians, you can see that San Roque is mentioned in 228 instances (quite a few of them are about the History of Gibraltar, and some of them are not, but you can take a look and see that the quantity of references to the San Roque episode is pretty relevant).

I therefore propose that a new argument be added: "The San Roque episode is well above the notability standard of the History section of the article. It is overwhelmingly more notable to historians than other events that are recorded in this section and are not under dispute (in spite of the length of the article)."

On the other hand, I don't think that it has been argued by the "pro-inclusion side" that San Roque is (or is not) notable to Gibraltarians and Spanish (nationalists or not); it has only been argued that it is notable to secondary sources dealing with the History of Gibraltar (most of them neither Gibraltarians nor Spanish, but British Islanders).

Thank you again for all you effort. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We have other examples of relative notability of San Roque vis a vis other issues in the History section. I have compared 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've quickly counted more than 20 of them describing the historical episode of most inhabitants going from Gibraltar to San Roque)
• San Roque: 15 books (with the word "History" in the title, as well as the word "Gibraltar")

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
• Pedro de Herrera: 1 book
• HMS Arethusa: 1 book
• HMS Hunter: 1 book
• Deutschland: 13 books
• Guernica: 4 books
• Endymion: 6 books
• Jose Luis Diez: 6 books
• Sikorski: 6 books

I think this would be enough evidence to support including the argument of San Roque being much more notable for historians than at least 9 other events currently (and undisputedly) included in the History section, wouldn't it? --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Its known as selecting the evidence to fit the desired outcome. All you've done is illustrate there are a lot of books on the Spanish claim to Gibraltar sovereignty. Gee whizz batman. Justin talk 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You can count more than 10 History of Gibraltar books describing the episode (independently of the Spanish claim). That is more than 10 times more notable for historians dealing with Gibraltar than Arethusa, Hunter or Pedro de Herrera; or +/- twice as much as Guernica, Endymion, Jose Luis Diez or Sikorski. I don't need to talk about the Spanish claim, but about the History of Gibraltar (the Spanish claim is probably an additional argument for the notability of the episode, but I'm not talking about it in this point). --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A more pertinent question would be: "How many overview articles on Gibraltar in encyclopedias mention San Roque?" But then the answer won't be to your liking. Try it, its illuminating. Justin talk 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As it has been said before, WP is not other encyclopedias. Anyway, how many encyclopedias mention many other things that are currently included in this article? For example: Pedro de Herrera, Arethusa, Endymion, Guernica, Sikorski, Jose Luis Diez, Deutschland...? I am not saying that we should delete those items. I am saying that the following argument be added to the pro-inclusion list: "The San Roque episode is much more notable for historians than many other issues included in the History section". --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, something that is a reasonable proposition but contradicts you is airily dismissed, with it has to be said no real justification. And you'll also ignore the flaws in your own argument when they're pointed out with no attempt at counter argument. Interesting. Justin talk 23:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the purpose of this process not to comment on opposing arguments? Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed but if you ask a question, don't be surprised if you get an answer...oh the irony. Justin talk 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this process, all questions about arguments were understood to be directed to Richard Keatinge until the 21st. Mine surely was (and is). Sorry, Justin, if I let you understand otherwise (maybe I should not have answered you either). On my discharge I must say that I didn't want to be too direct to a person who is making the effort to help us out, out of pure altruism. Apologising in advance, and not wanting to be too annoying to him, I will state it more clearly now: Richard, what do you think about the argument I propose? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I must admit I haven't payed much attention to the "encyclopedic argument", given that it is a criteria currently and evidently not applied in this article: Gibraltar in WP is 2.8 times larger than in Britannica (e.g.); I've preferred to take an empirical approach and compare the notability of other events currently mentioned in the History section of the WP article vis a vis the notability of the San Roque episode.

If you're going to rubbish an argument I will reply to defend it, this isn't a blank cheque to provide knocking copy. You can either remove it or I will rebut it. Rubbishing an argument after admitting you hadn't actually considered it isn't helpful either. Justin talk 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Thanks Imalbornoz for doing the research. I'd rather not comment on your argument just now, but I hope we can all agree that it and the counter-arguments have been adequately summarized in my now-numbered list. I do have opinions on which arguments are relevant to our encyclopedic task, and which are of decisive importance. But before I express them I'd like to ask for a consensus that the arguments for and against inclusion are well-represented, and then for comments on which arguments should be excluded as not relevant to an encyclopedia, and which are of high importance. Before anyone starts on my biases, let me say that despite one grandfather born in the County Cork and another in Mumbai I'm British and nobody's ever questioned my patriotism. My Spanish is limited to what I picked up on a cycling trip in the Andes in 1984; the perra gorda, for example, was news to me and I can merely read Spanish with some difficulty. I will however do my very best to achieve a neutral point of view and I hope a consensus on the original issue. Please follow here with reasons why some of the numbered arguments are, or are not, relevant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

(Numbered purely for convenience, no further implications intended)

1. The town of San Roque is no more than a fairly close neighbour of the modern British territory of Gibraltar, the actual subject of the article.

2. San Roque is described as the most important settlement to result only because the administrative functions were transferred there, but many of the residents dispersed elsewhere into the Campo de Gibraltar, founding Algeciras and San Roque, some going even farther afield.

3. The people who left Gibraltar played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any significant repercussions from their departure.

4. The article is too long already and the facts surrounding the founding of San Roque could be trimmed for brevity in what is an overview article. Other encyclopedias do not mention the facts.

5. The facts belong in the History of Gibraltar article not necessarily an overview article.

6. The facts are only notable to people who want Spain to have sovereignty over Gibraltar.

7. San Roque's claim to be the real Gibraltar is irrelevant to Gibraltarian, UK, or international law. Such claims can be offensive to Gibraltarians.

OK, that's my summary of the arguments. Edit away please, aiming for a better summary of the arguments. Just, for the moment, what the arguments are, with links if required. Comments on their value we may leave for later. last update by Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat distracted by having to give my partner intravenous antibiotics for her inexplicable thigh abscess, sorry to impose on your collective patience, but she is now on the road to recovery and I hope that our list of arguments is now tolerably complete. I have some suggestions about which should actually be accepted as relevant to an encyclopedic article, and which should not. But I would like your comments first on the relevance of the above numbered arguments, please insert them here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, editors involved in this dispute are currently observing a moratorium agreed here to cool the air over the festive period. I'm sure you'll understand if there is no comment from these editors until 27 December, when the moratorium ends. While I'm not formally signed up to the moratorium, I will also hold off on any substantial comments until then.

I'm glad your partner is getting better and wish you (and everyone else) a very merry Christmas (or other holiday). Pfainuk talk 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd dispute "legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar and is within its former limits. For some purposes, it is part of Gibraltar. This is notable to both Spanish and Gibraltarian nationalists."

Replace with "The Spanish assert that the people of San Roque, being the decendents of the Gibraltar population of 1704 are the real 'people of the territory' " - This is offensive to the Gibraltarians.

There is NO legal connection between SR/GIB. Its not part of Gibraltar. Not sure if I should directly edit the above, if so please replace the wording and/or edit this comment accordingly. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gibnews. I have tried to incorporate your ideas into what I hope will be an agreed statement of the arguments. Please tell me if the results above are something that you can accept. And keep on suggesting, everyone. Remember, this is an exercise on agreeing what the arguments are. Right, wrong, or factually incorrect are aspects to worry about later. I'll be particularly pleased if anyone can come up with a really good summary of an argument they don't personally agree with. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For some purposes in Spanish law, it is part of Gibraltar. No, haven't seen that anywhere. The only common thing is the "Gibraltar - San Roque refinery" and they have dropped the Gibraltar in its name. --Gibnews (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion of legal and demographic continuity depends on a specific definition of "Gibraltar" based on the administrative divisions of Spain prior to 1713 (the Campo de Gibraltar). I would note that this is an article on the Town and British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar (generally now known as "Gibraltar" as opposed to the "Campo de Gibraltar"), ceded to the United Kingdom in 1713, and recognised as British territory by Spain.

This is an important point that I think a lot of people miss. Spain considers Gibraltar to be British territory. It disputes the location of the border and it disputes the extent of British sovereignty as regards territorial waters and airspace, but that's it. Spain fully accepts that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory and is not part of the Campo de Gibraltar.

Under Spanish law, I believe there is legal continuity between the former administrative division of Gibraltar and the modern Campo de Gibraltar. But there is no legal continuity between the former administrative division of Gibraltar and the modern British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar (the subject of this article). There is some demographic continuity, as San Roque was founded by some of those who fled the Town of Gibraltar in 1704. But this only applies in one direction: it is possible for Gibraltar to be important in the history of San Roque without San Roque being important in the history of Gibraltar. I would contend that this is the case. (last two sentences added Pfainuk talk 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Now, on to my argument, which I do not believe is represented above: that the circumstances surrounding the foundation of San Roque are not directly relevant to an article on the Town/BOT of Gibraltar (as opposed to the Campo de Gibraltar), as they have not had a significant impact on the important events in the later history of the Town/BOT of Gibraltar, or on the modern Town/BOT of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But Pfainuk, this article isn't about the BOT of Gibraltar, it's about the territory of Gibraltar which happens to be a BOT as of 2002. Perhaps the approach Taiwan/Republic of China might have been more sensible, but the current article hasn't such a focus. Cheers. --Cremallera (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this process is to not comment on opposing arguments... Justin talk 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is - we'll come on to comments next week. I hope to rescue the actual arguments from the wrangle. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing the Border

"Motorists, and on occasion pedestrians, crossing the border with Spain have been subjected to long delays and searches by the Spanish authorities. Spain has closed the border during disputes or incidents involving the Gibraltar authorities, such as the Aurora cruise ship incident and when fishermen from the Spanish fishing vessel Pirana were arrested for illegal fishing in Gibraltar waters."

Could this be expanded to show that, in an NPOV, that the Spanish border guards hold up the traffic on purpose for no apparent reason using this source?. The source holds a lot of info so could probably be used to add/reference quite a bit of other stuff too. Just my thoughts. Wouldn't want to destabilise the page by starting an edit war - imagine that!! :P Willdow (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the source, Willdow. The link doesn't work for me. --Cremallera (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I've seen what the problem is, and edited your comment accordingly. I hope you don't mind. If you do, just feel free to revert this edition of mine. Cheers.

Well, it can't say it for certain, just that it is the opinion of the Foriegn Affairs Select Committee. There is some fun detail in there (Such as suggestions for Article 227 proceedings), but they might be more suited for the disputed status page rather than the general. I'd have no objection to a single sentence on this page though, or an addition to existing, laying out that parliament finds the delays to be illegal/without merit. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its really something that belongs in the history of Gibraltar article, as currently the malaleche seems to have been shelved and the Guardia would rather hospitalise Spanish protesters trying to obstruct the frontier than stand by and watch it happen as they did with the fishing dispute. In fairness current delays are more due to the increase in traffic as people come to believe there will be no delays than the seven hour manufactured ones from the past. --Gibnews (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its more historical than anything else, the main issue is the traffic problems as Gibnews notes. Even mentioning the traffic problems caused an edit war with certain editors. Ho hum. Justin talk 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with possibly including the little mention of 227 in the disputed status page. I notice that the Committee cite references throughout. If it is the case that edits were undone that referred to this report, can anyone see how to view what the Committee is refering to at the bottom of the report? ie. "FCO statistics setting out hourly delays clearly demonstrate the problem." refers to: "HC 366, Ev. pp. 53-60." with no forwarding link... Good thing they're not writing that on Misplaced Pages or it would all get reverted for not linking to their sources! Willdow (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I believe that HC refers to a specific report of a House Committee, it is the publishing number. For example, the government response to the Report on Biofuels being Sustainable or not is HC 644. We probably have a digital copy available in the office if you want me to have a look next time I'm in? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe if you're near London you can visit the House of Commons library to see such reports. Some are published online and they're going through the backlog. Try http://www.parliament.uk/. Regards, Justin talk 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Although delays currently have more to do with the inadequate infrastructure at the frontier. Traffic engineering is not rocket science and its all too easy to believe that the current situation is a reflection of a strategic desire by Spain to restrict movement in and out of Gibraltar rather than the tactical delays and 'go slows' of the past. --Gibnews (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps that 'Spain' has better things to do with the tax-money than improving the infrastructure of a 6 square km piece of land which isn't Spain. Like building hospitals or high speed railway to France or Portugal. Don't ya think? Cheers.--Cremallera (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A helpful comment? Justin talk 09:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a quite civil way of telling Gibnews that vilifying *any* government here in the talk page is pointless. He has done that before, but he shouldn't do it hereinafter. Any more questions? --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK if you think it was civil and helpful and in no way retaliatory, fine. Simply...marvelous. Justin talk 10:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly civil. We do share some history here already, thus possibly you read my words with a preconceived idea. But the response has been largely more considerate than the statement it is replying to. Tell me, do you approve Gibnews' comment? Because I can't understand why you are engaging me instead of both of us, if you have to. And last but not least, I can't see how our little dialogue is in any way helpful at all either. --Cremallera (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Gibnews who persuaded him to try mediation? No I don't appreciate everything Gibnews says and have told him so on many occasions. We've known each other long enough to know each other's position and to be honest I doubt he'll change much. But at least he is direct and honest in his opinion, even if I don't share them. And given the way Spain has treated Gibraltar over a period of time, his attitude while not entirely acceptable is understandable. On the other hand you were the one preaching at AN/I about not ratcheting up tension, yet here you are doing just that. I haven't seen Gibnews being preachy at any point. No I don't see this little dialogue as helpful in any way at all either but its been interesting. The old deflect attention from my conduct onto someone else's defence? Interesting. Justin talk 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and although its[REDACTED] policy to assume good faith from editors, the Government of Spain is not an editor or so I hope. On any topic editors will disagree and hopefully achieve consensus, Justin does what he feels is right and so do I. We don't have to agree on everything. In relation to improving the frontier, freedom of movement of people is an EU obligation and it has been suggested that the traffic situation is bad for la Linea. But this is not the place to discuss such things. --Gibnews (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to intrude on your conversation, but why has this section turned into another bickering episode? I have been away for five days and have come back to see what progress had been made on my initial comments (closing the border if you have forgotten). Instead I come back to see more discussions which seem all too common on this talk page. I don't pretend to be perfect or even overly academically gifted, but honestly?? I feel like a teacher telling off naughty school children!! I'm pretty new here and therefore consider myself to be more of a neutral outsider looking in on things. Please please please don't think that I am having a go at anyone, but on this section of the talk page, I notice that what Gibnews and Justin say could potentially be interpreted as having negative bias towards Spain. Yes? But at the same time, Cremallera's comments don't seem the best way to go about pointing this out... As I said, I don't want it to seem that I'm singling anyone out, or for anyone to think that I'm having a go at them; there are some very good contributions from all three people I have mentioned amongst others, but enough with the counter-productive bickering!! For the sake of the article!
If anyone thinks I've got the wrong end of the stick, or am missing the point, please let me know... Willdow (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can get them to stop, you are a better man than I. I'm at the stage of just giving up and going to find something more productive to do like slamming my head into a large wooden structure while imbibing neurotoxins. So, want to come for a pint Willdow while everyone else argues on the internet? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan Narson!! I feel that perhaps by the time the arguing finally stops, the slamming of one's head into a large wooden structure may be rather involuntary considering the amount of pints that will be consumed waiting!! Willdow (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I notice that what Gibnews and Justin say could potentially be interpreted as having negative bias towards Spain". What I say? Pray tell what exactly? At the risk of giving Narson a headache... Justin talk 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are both right. And I apologise for rising to the bait. It's just that I am already tired of this particular editor constantly maligning a country or its government pointlessly. The above comments aren't even the last time in this row (here are some diffs to illustrate my statement). Am I really expected to just endure this forevermore? Are there any alternatives to it? I am sincerely open to suggestions. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the things I say are unfounded, you would be right. But the Spanish position is as stated in a research paper thus:

The first inevitable step in resolving the Gibraltar issue as is the case with any problem is to state the terms. These terms, from a Spanish perspective are basically to; recover sovereignty over the territory of Gibraltar by means of negotiations between the two interested governments according to UN resolutions.

With due regard to existing Spanish-British commitments over the disputed territory and the proposals as tabled by Spain, to; satisfy all requirements of both negotiating sides, and to have due regard to the greatest extent possible to the interests, aspirations and legitimate wishes of both the populations affected by the problem in the local areas; the inhabitants of the Rock and of the Campo de Gibraltar.

The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary.

Where Spanish governments have done bad things, there is no harm in Misplaced Pages saying so. UEFA ! --Gibnews (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I agree that the UEFA thing was a bit below the belt. As was the veto by Spain against Gibraltar in the Single European Sky initiative... _Will 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs)

I appreciate that it's easy for me/us to mock, having not really been involved in the nitty gritty of it all. I respect you for standing your ground and I can only imagine the frustration from both sides. As a relatively new person, I can only hope that the procedures put in place to deal with things like this will eventually succeed in making a breakthrough. I prefer to stay neutral and not take sides, but if I see discussions getting a little off track, I can butt-in and try to add a voice of reason in proceedings. I'm not watching all the pages that are subject to these disagreements (relating to all things Gibraltar), but if someone would like to pop them on my talk page I could have a look. That's not to say that I will look down upon you all and be the voice of God...!! Haha, but hopefully a voice of reason amongst others. Willdow (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to drop in at any point, I'm prepared to listen to an independent viewpoint always. But if I disagree I'll say so. Justin talk 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started on RFC on these articles here . Justin talk 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Please see this section for a suggestion. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Cremallera (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting Discussion

The mother article. So what troubles the Gibraltar page?

1. Scope of the term Gibraltarian; Does it include pre-conquest persons? What guidelines should we use to decide who is notable in either cas?
2. What level of statistics are acceptable for this page?
3. Perhaps attached to the above, do we need to create a subarticle for the Economy of Gibraltar?
4. The article in genera has become very large, do the above ideas help?
5. Should San Roque, the spanish town on the other side of the border, be included due to its links with Gibraltar?
6. The border closures: Are they important? To what are we attributing them? Is this sourced?

--Narson ~ Talk • 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

I read somewhere that Gibraltar had a very high CO2 per capita rate (because of water desalination?). I checked List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita but the latest worldwide data is from 2007, and Gibraltar ranks high but under the US. Is it relevant enough to be mentioned? --Error (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No and you're walking into a minefield. The US has published some flawed statistics which calculate CO2 per capita on the basis of fuel imports, ignoring the fact that a lot of fuel purchased in Gibraltar is for Spanish vehicles (its cheaper in Gibraltar) and Gibraltar being a port has a lot of fuel for bunkerage. As a result it produces a meaningless statistic but it has been used to malign Gibraltar for having a high CO2 output. Regards, Justin talk 21:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Error, you can read the whole story in the archive. The US statistics are not flawed or meaningless at all. That's simply the way they calculate them. And that's sensible given the fact that although not "emitted" in Gibraltar, such fuel is sold by Gibraltar and therefore, it's responsible for it. It's simply that, given that it gives a "bad view" on Gibraltar, it must be carefully hidden. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The study is flawed, the DoE admit that. Gibraltar sells on the bulk of the oil imported - its ludicrous to say Gibraltar is 'responsible' for it any more than the country it is bought from from. If anything its the end consumer. But this simply presents an excuse to engage in cheap Gibraltar bashing, and that is not what Misplaced Pages is for. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"The DoE admit that" Where? When? How? How can happen that we're arguing and the DoE has admitted that his own statistics are flawed? Sources, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, your statement "its ludicrous to say Gibraltar is 'responsible' for it any more than the country it is bought from from" seems interesting. It could be explained to the US DoE in order to change their way of producing statistics. Up to then, there is no problem with providing the information and letting the reader decide. The text was this:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Gibraltar were 4.551 million metric tons in 2007. Due to its relatively small population, Gibraltar had in 2007 the higher per capita carbon emission in the world: 159.063 metric tons. However, upon the publication of the statistics in March 2009, the Gibratar-based Environment Safety Group heavily criticised the report as it could suggest Gibraltar is "a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" and linked the figures to both the small population and the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars (fuel is less expensive than in Spain) and to the bunkering service for international shipping. Therefore, they explain that Gibraltar does not emit such high carbon dioxide levels locally.

Good to see we are so focused on content. Ecemaml? Don't make such obvious barbs. Justin? Don't respond to them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove them after thinking better of it. Justin talk 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The mention to "bad view" ("bad light", in fact) is not mine. However, I apologize for having mentioned it. However, the issue remains. Information about the CO2 emissions is not available. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Information on CO2 emissions is NOT available. There are no figures for it. --Gibnews (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (second edition ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. p. 225. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):

   “

   The open frontier helped to increase the Spanish share, and naval links with Minorca produced the small Minorcan contingent.

   ”

2. Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire. Routledge. pp. 42–43. ISBN 9780415347969.
3. William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 143. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.. British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; Portuguese: 25

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gibraltar articles
• Top-importance Gibraltar articles
• All WikiProject Gibraltar pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Spain articles
• Mid-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class national militaries articles
• National militaries task force articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment