Talk:Gibraltar

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 Wikipedia 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?

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 [here]: "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 Wikipedia 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 ['gibraltareños' in the original text] and to its inhabitants as the descendants of the original and real Gibratarians [same comment] or the legitimate Gibraltarians [same comment]. 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):

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

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

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 [1]. 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)

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 wikipedia 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 [2]". Other encyclopedia(s), or Britannica, to be precise, have no bearing in Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia." 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 Wikipedia 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 your 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 "Wikipedia 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 fortress 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)

In fact there are many differences between the Britannica Gibraltar article and the Wikipedia 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)

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[3], 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)

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)