Talk:History of Gibraltar

Comment

This is really good. Much better than before.--78.105.250.78 (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing after 1801?

Why does this article on the History of Gibraltar end at a battle in 1801? Doesn't Gibraltar have any nineteenth or twentieth century history? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It does and it is something I would dearly love to address but any improvement on Gibraltar articles is virtually impossible. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue is well and truly resolved now. :-) Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Gibraltar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I finished my read-through. Impressive work, Gibraltar's history must have been hard to distill into an article of this length. It looks pretty good, not a lot of concerns. I have a few minor comments, I'll try to get them all posted this weekend.

Thanks, appreciate it. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraphs

• I suggest the lead be condensed to four paragraphs.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• You might want to look into condensing paragraphs in "Barbary pirate raids", as well.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

• I see that you rely heavily on Jackson, but I don't think that's problematic. You might consider using more page ranges though instead of consecutive single-page cites. Just a suggestion.

• I'm not sure, what would be gained by doing that? Prioryman (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• No concrete benefit, but there will be an overall smaller (but less precise) reference section. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• This book might have some useful information for the early history, and this book might be helpful for later history. Just suggestions though.

• Thanks for pointing those out, I'll see if I can obtain them. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should add retrieval dates for the web sources.

• Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, try to be consistent about providing locations for publishers.

• I have done so, other than for Oxford and Cambridge University Presses - I've been told in the past that that's unnecessary as they are located in those cities. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh Ok, I didn't realize that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Consider adding OCLC numbers for references without ISBNs.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• The script I use is giving me a "bad ISBN checksum" warning for "987-0-7509-3331-5". Might want to double-check that.

• Thanks, there was one digit too many - fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you should standardize whether you use dashes with the ISBNs or not. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've been getting the ISBNs off Google Books and WorldCat - what you see is what I got! I wouldn't want to mess around with the ISBNs and risk breaking them... Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Merely a aesthetic issue, but you might consider one large image instead of two small ones.

• I assume you mean the painting and the map? I rather like the painting, but I thought the map was a necessity; as people have pointed out to me on several occasions, Gibraltar is a rather small place, and not everyone knows where it is or its geographical relationship to the other places mentioned in the article. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslim rule

• "Abu al-Hasan refortified Gibraltar "with strong walls as a halo surrounds a crescent moon" in anticipation of renewed war" Who is being quoted here?

• Now attributed. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Castilian and Spanish rule

• " It had some minor economic value with wine and tunny-fishing industries" What is "tunny-fishing"? Is there a good place to link that to?

• See Tunny. It can mean several different species so I can't disambiguate it further.

War of Spanish Succession

• " Various territorial exchanges were agreed, among them the cession of the town, fortifications and port of Gibraltar (but not its hinterland) to Britain "for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."" It's not clear which citation supports this quote.

• Both of the citations at the end of the paragraph, from sources which discuss the terms of the treaty. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)" I think the MOS recommends "1701–14". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you're right. Changed this. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Second World War

• "Three Spaniards being run as spies and saboteurs by the German Abwehr were caught in Gibraltar in 1942–43 and hanged." I'd prefer to avoid the easter egg link here if you can. Maybe spell out a little more about Capital punishment in Gibraltar. Also, is "being run as spies" how you say it? It sounds strange to me but I very well may be wrong.

• Yes, it's the correct term. You "run" a spy or an agent. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The British Government feared that Spain would also enter the war and it was decided to evacuate the entire civilian population of Gibraltar in May 1940,[140] mostly to the United Kingdom but also to Madeira and Jamaica, with some making their own way to Tangier and Spain." Kind of a long sentence, might want to break it up.

• Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Hitler eventually abandoned Felix to pursue other priorities such as the invasion of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.[146]" Should this be "invasions"? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted - fixed. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-war Gibraltar

• "the frontier was closed completely and Gibraltar's communications links with the outside world were cut" (also in lead) I'm a bit confused here, did they really have no way to communicate with the outside world?

• The telephone cables went through Spain but were cut when the blockade was implemented. Gibraltar today has invested heavily in satellite communications and set up microwave links with Morocco on the other side of the Strait to prevent this situation ever recurring. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern Gibraltar

• "By 2007 Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister, was able to boast that Gibraltar's economic success had made it "one of the most affluent communities in the entire world."[163]" So, is this just Caruana's opinion, or something well attested to by independent sources, as well? Perhaps add a mention of international ranking in development index or something.

• There are some rankings out there, but I'll have to do a bit more digging to work out which one is best to use. I think it comes out at perhaps the 20th highest territory in the world by per capita GDP, or something like that. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, might want to add the current population, since there are some population numbers earlier in the article.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "land reclaimed from the sea now accounts for a tenth of Gibraltar's land area" Just a thought, but it would be wonderful if we could get a map showing this like a few of those on the Land reclamation article.

• It already exists (though apparently only in Spanish) - see File:Gibraltar map (reclaimed land)-es.svg. I don't think there's enough room to work it into this article though. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Check for consistency with date commas, I see "By 2011, Gibraltar was attracting up to 12 million visits a year" and then "By 2007 Peter Caruana". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barbary pirate raids

• You might consider re-titling part of this section, since it departs from the Barbary threat.

• Fair point, I've added "and wars with other European powers" to the section title. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "the Spanish king Philip IV" I can never recall if "king" should be capitalized here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It shouldn't; the word "king" is being used here as an adjective, not a title. Thus "King Philip IV said..." versus "the Spanish king Philip IV". Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, hopefully I can remember that :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar as a colony

• "Gibraltar instituted the practice, which still continues today, of relying on large numbers of imported Spanish workers" Could we avoid the use of "today" here? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken out that clause altogether; it's not really needed. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Images

• Are all licensed correctly etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

• EL look fine, one dab (Tunny) added during the review. I think the Tunny link might be Ok, but future reviewers may not agree with me, so use your best judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can't disambiguate any further since the source doesn't say what species was fished. It's a generic term covering multiple species, so it may well be that they did in fact fish multiple species. Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• 2, 167, 170, 171, and 172 spotchecked, so issues found. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• So = no? Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, that was an unfortunate typo :) No issues found, that's it. I'm satisfied that this has reached the GA standards and I'll pass it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Medina Sidonia

I've moved this bit added by Ecemaml, as I think it's a bit too much detail for the purposes of this article, which is supposed to be an overview (I'm trying to reduce the length anyway - it's nearly 10,900 words at the moment and I'd like to get it down a bit). However, I'm looking to do a spinoff article on the history of Spanish and Castilian Gibraltar so I'd be happy reuse it for that article. Prioryman (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, in 1474 the Duke of Medina Sidonia, sold Gibraltar to a group of Jewish conversos from Cordova and Seville led by Pedro de Herrera in exchange for maintaining the garrison of the town for two years, after which time the 4,350 Jews were expelled by the Duke. Their fate is unknown. It is likely that they returned many returned to Cordova where they had to face the persecution of the Inquisition under the infamous Torquemada from 1488.

I don't think I agree with you. Do you think that the fact that the whole Gibraltar population was removed and replaced by a new contingent of people and two years later removed again is "too much detail"? In fact, such a specific incident is mentioned in the Gibraltar article. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you make a good case. I'll put it back in, but let me do a bit of research myself on this first, as I'd like to see what the English-language sources say about it. Prioryman (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding here is that this is a relatively recent finding (I don't remember Hills or Jackson mentioning it, but Harvey does). I'm not at home now so I cannot confirm or deny it, but the Spanish language source I've provided seems to me the most detailed source and I'd dare to say that it's the source of Harvey's mention. I don't think a single sentence will unbalance too much the article but at some point in the past it was considered so important as to be included in the main Gibrartar article. On the other hand I'll go on reviewing the article but I wonder whether the actual details of the Anglo-Dutch takeover are so important as to be described in so detail. Just a thought. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Verified. Harvey is the only one that mentions it (page 51) accurately pointing at the reference I've provided by Diego Lamelas. In fact, Harvey does not mention the Inquisition at all. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Years

I've removed the mention to 2,900 years in the lead section as it's really misleading. Why is the starting point the Phoenician presence and not the Neanderthal one? On the other hand, what does "recorded" mean? Is the Phoenician presence "recorded" somehow? Is it an archaeological evidence? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

History is by definition written; anything before that is prehistory. That's why the starting point is the Phoenicians and not the Neanderthals (or the Stone Age cavemen who lived there). Their presenced is recorded in writing by the Greeks. Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to Greek texts from 900BC? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, much later, obviously, but the Greeks and/or Carthaginians plainly had access to Phoenician sources - that's how we know the Phoenician name for Gibraltar, for instance. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So, it's known that it was 900 BC? Sorry, but the figure does not add anything to the lead? In fact, it is a WP:SYN. Moreover, if the article talks about the history of Gibraltar according to what you define as "history", why does the article talks about the Neanderthals? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the lead, it says 950 BC. It mentions Neanderthals (and Stone Agers) because its human habitation long pre-dates its history. We shouldn't give the impression that nobody knew about Gibraltar before the Phoenicians. It's absolutely not a WP:SYN to state the difference in years between an ancient date and the present day - it's just another way of saying the same thing.

One other thing, when editing the article could you please take care with the references - I'm finding that they are repeatedly getting broken. Prioryman (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that I haven't been able to determine from the text what your mention to "recorded history" mean. I assume that there aren't any records by the Phoenicians from 950 BC. I assume that the source clarifies that, but I haven't been able to understand when and what was recorded.

One other thing, my English language skills are poor and I don't know if I understand what "repeatedly" mean. I assume that it means "several times" and, to my understanding, I've got one of the references broken just once. I haven't said yet anything about the repeated mistakes the article contains, as I assume that they've been done in good faith. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any surviving records from 950 BC that I know of, but the Greeks certainly had access to Phoenician and Carthaginian writings - after all, the Greek alphabet is adapted directly from the Phoenician alphabet. The Phoenicians settled Carteia nearby around that time and named Gibraltar as Calpe, which was passed on to the Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans in turn. The Phoenician naming of Gibraltar is the earliest event for which we have a written record, so it's conventionally treated as the start of its recorded history. See e.g. [1].

Yes, repeatedly does mean "several times". There is a broken reference right now (no. 29), AnomieBOT has fixed at least one other broken reference and I've fixed others. If you don't have User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js linked from your monobook.css, I'd strongly suggest adding it to help you pick up on these breakages (this is what you need to do to implement it). Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes

Besides breaching WP:WEIGHT (and this making the article non-neutral) am I free to add other interesting anecdotes? I have plenty of them.

On the other hand, I found it really interesting not knowing key issues of the Gibraltarian history such as the language mostly spoken in Gibraltar during most of its history under British sovereignty, the number of alien workforce that worked in any time in Gibraltar (quite significant, since it was equally sized to the Gibraltarian native workforce) but knowing that a soldier (simply garrisoned there) "receiving 30,000 lashes during his 14 years stationed at Gibraltar".

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We should decide on the basis of consensus. Personally I think that this anecdote may be worthy of inclusion because it does illustrate the boredom and brutality of garrison life, but there may well be many more relevant facts and even anecdotes. Ecemaml, could you list a few suggestions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't agree that it breaches WP:WEIGHT or that it makes the article non-neutral. On the contrary, not including it would mean that it would obscure the reality that for much of its history Gibraltar was frankly a pretty nasty place to be - hot, squalid, crowded, disease-ridden and for the garrison, boring and brutal. As a historian I think it's a good idea to let the people you are talking about speak in their own words. History isn't just about dates and events but the personal experiences of individuals. In my other featured historical articles (some of which are among the all-time most-viewed FAs on Wikipedia), I've adopted the same approach without anyone complaining - see for instance Battle of Vukovar, Inner German border, Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, Sinking of the RMS Titanic. If you don't like my approach to writing articles, I'm sorry about that, but I would ask you to accept that everyone has their own style. In my case, I am actually a trained historian and have worked professionally on writing history, so I can genuinely claim some expertise there.

The specific anecdote that you object to, the most-lashed man in the British Army, is highlighted by the Gibraltarians themselves in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve. The Gibraltar Heritage Trust has even created a life-sized tableau at the City Under Siege exhibition showing the man being lashed and other aspects of garrison life (see [2]). Mentioning it in the article not only highlights the brutality of garrison life but helps to tie the article to physical exhibits in Gibraltar itself - I might see if I can add the photo to the article. If you have suggestions for additions to the article, let's hear them, but please be aware that it is already quite long. Prioryman (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the anecdote you added here is a pretty good find - well done. (I'll fix the spelling.) Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I quite like adding illustrative anecdotes to articles (it makes for more interesting reading, and can help readers understand things), but agree that this should be kept to a minimum in high-level histories such as this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rosia Bay

When was the mole built and was it to Rosia Bay that Victory was towed after the Battle of Trafalgar?Pieter1963 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It was Rosia Bay that Victory was towed to, construction of the Old Mole began in 1620, when Gibraltar was under Spanish control. WCM_email 11:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't see any sign of a mole on the 1799 map in the article.Pieter1963 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This map? It is on there. Vieux Môle is the Old Mole whose construction began in 1620, Nouveau Môle is the New Mole whose construction began in 1750. I presume from reading the Rosia Bay article it would have been the New Mole the Victory was towed to. WCM_email 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for being cryptic. I should have said... When was the Rosia Bay mole that we see today built? It isn't shown on the 1799 map but can be seen on the Rosia Bay 1909 postcard for example, just sticking out at the left. The nouveau mole appears to be at the site of today's Gibdock. Rosia Bay says Victory was towed into Rosia Bay (ie immediately south of nouveau mole) which is mentioned as a deep water anchorage, not the harbour it became when it got its own mole some time (when?) later. My original question was prompted by wondering if the handful of silt I still have was taken from the location where Victory sheltered and I guess it was. As a snorkelling 13 yr old I scooped it from the bottom (33ft) of Rosia harbour where I spent summers at the Rosia Swimming Club, 1962/3.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Paging Gibmetal77 who has more expertise than me but I believe it was 1812. WCM_email 22:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Wee Curry Monster. Pieter1963 I don't have specific information on the Rosia Mole itself, but I believe the current structure would have been constructed during the period 1799 to 1812 when Giovanni Maria Boschetti's design for the new Victualling Yard was completed. Since we know that Rosia Bay was harbouring ships the size of HMS Victory by 1805, there is a possibility that either an inferior mole already existed which was later upgraded by Boschetti or that the mole was constructed during the early stages of the project. However, that is my own guess; I have no sources other than those used in the article. Seeing as you've spent some summers here, this news may be of some interest... --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Gibmetal77. 50 years ago there were 2 swimming clubs at Rosia, Rosia Swimming Club on the mole, with a changing room block with ice cream counter, and a club opposite for families from the Dockyard.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1960 photograph

I have an aerial photo showing the north end of town in some detail, eg Glacis and Waterport Rd in foreground, Montagu? swimming pavilion, flying boat hangar, sports grounds on Queensway Rd, etc.

If anyone thinks it would be a valuable addition of historical interest in a Gibraltar article let me know. There is no stamp on the back identifying it's origin so no copyright details.Pieter1963 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pieter, The main issue is that you own the copyright or the person who did own it died 70 years ago. Sadly if the photographer/owner is unknown then it just messes up the copyright position. Are you the owner? Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the photograph was taken from a Shackleton, and would be an official R.A.F. photo. Official R.A.F. prints have a stamp on the back giving details such as the negative number as well as "R.A.F. Official Crown Copyright Reserved". My print has no such stamp, for some reason, but despite that I think it would be truthful to state that it is "R.A.F. Official Crown Copyright Reserved". It is a standard R.A.F. print size and high quality. Without the stamp I'm obviously not 100% sure, only 99.9%.User:Pieter1963|Pieter1963]] (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

painting "View across Gibraltar 1883"

Are we able to establish the location of the painter, ie do any of the buildings shown exist today? Thanks.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section too long?

I was surprised to see a six-paragraph lead section in a FA. Lead sections typically have a maximum length of 4 paragraphs. sst✈ 10:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ironically the lead came out of the FAR if I remember correctly. I have reviewed it again but I have to say I think its about the correct length and covers the main historical periods appropriately. WCM_email 19:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It is long, but then again Gibraltar has a lot of history. It would be be impossible to condense the lead any further without omitting major aspects of Gibraltar's history. RedCoat10 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Still a FA?

The article lost some of its quality since the review, as it isn't full sourced now. Eleutheure (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious historical inaccuracies in this article

So, there are a couple of mistakes in this article which I have corrected. For one, I have just added as per source that the Conversos which were evicted from Gibraltar returned to their home towns. This is what the Spanish language cited source given says so simply saying they were "expelled" sounds like they were kicked out of the country. Jewish converts to Catholicism were never expelled from Spain at any point in time.

The second and most ludicrous statement is that the majority of Muslims left the Kingdom of Granada upon conquest in 1492. I think perhaps since this article is edited by people who are very unaware of Spanish history my edits may have been reverted in good faith, without knowledge of what a ridiculous statement this is. In any case I have provided a couple of adequate historical sources for the revised statement and can provide as many as required in whichever language is required.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Except of course they're not mistakes. First of all without even being aware of the source you dismissed it [3], then when made aware it is well known historical work you insist its wrong [4]. You have a chosen a cite that doesn't reflect the predominant view in the mainstream history and are removing cited content, replacing it with your own version. This you've achieved by edit warring, I've tagged the text for POV editing, since that is very much what we're seeing here. You insist everyone else is "ignorant" and only you are right. Wikipedia works by reflecting the range of views available in the literature and that isn't what you're doing here. You're currently at 3 reverts on two articles, I do hope another wikipedian will intervene to restore the text you've removed by edit warring.

Its WP:BRD, thats Bold, Revert, Discuss, you've simply forced your opinion on the article with no attempt to discuss. WCM_email 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

W I don't really know very well how to engage with you. You do understand that Spanish Conversos were never expelled from Spain right? You do understand that the source (which I didn't include) specifically states that the Conversos returned to Seville, Cordoba or went to Granada. You do understand that Spain had to fight a war with the predominantly Muslim inhabitants of Granada in the 16th century in what was known as the War of the Alpujarras? You do understand that there are hundreds of books written and dozens of wikipedia articles covering this topic? I am simply in one case writing what is written in the source and in the other correcting gross historical mistakes and reinforcing with historical sources. You are confusing your own (frankly surprising) ignorance/prejudice with what you consider to be mainstream history (unsubstantiated of course). Note, I am not arguing with anyone else. The accusation of ignorance is very much restricted to you. I'm sorry to put it bluntly but it takes you 5 minutes to read up on the matter and realize you are wrong. It would save both of us some of time.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Took me all of 30s to reach across, pull Jackson from the shelf, p.66 refers to the expulsion of the Jews and the religious bigotry that accompanied it. And of course this is an FA class article, which has had multiple editors crawling all over it, checking for accuracy. You're not seeking to engage, you're seeking to impose your views and they do not reflect what mainstream historical references suggest. WCM_email 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Curry Monster, you understand that Converso means Convert i.e. convert to Catholicism, not Jewish? You understand that no mainstream historical source claims that Conversos were expelled from Spain. I would recommend you start with Henry Kamen or Joseph Perez, who are the two most respected British and French experts on this historical period. Also, I have understood that you don't speak Spanish, all I am doing is writing what is says on page 25 of the given source.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Expulsion of the Conversos from Gibraltar and other recent changes

Some changes have recently been edit warred into the article [5],[6],[7],[8]. Asilah1981 alleges that Jackson a well known and respected authority on Gibraltar contains serious historical inaccuracies and has insisted on an edit that:

1. Replaces the reference to the expulsion of the Conversos with WP:WEASEL words such as "evicted".
2. Completely changes the text on the expulsion of muslims, now claiming the majority remained.

Any attempt at discussion elicits an argument from authority response that editors are ignorant and prejudiced[9] and presuming that they don't speak or understand Spanish [10]. I have referred to Jackson, which confirmed the previous claims that were in the article. Of further concern is the same changes have been edit warred into Gibraltar. Starting an RFC to get wider community input. WCM_email 12:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, as per ALL historical sources which touch on the matter, the statement you are attempting to include is false and I still fail to understand why you are incapable of understanding the difference between conversos (who were not expelled from Spain) and Jews, which were. Deleting historical sources which contradict your false understanding of history is evidently not a way forward. I suggest you find a historical source which states Conversos were expelled from Spain in 1492. If they were there would hardly have been the need for a Spanish inquisition - an institution established to ensure the religious orthodoxy of the hundreds of thousands of New Christians in the Kingdom of Spain. Evidently, the majority of Muslims of Granada remained since they even waged a war against the Spanish state in the following century and were eventually dispersed throughout Castille, after which they were eventually expelled in 1604, although all recent historical sources (starting with Trevor J. Dadson among many others) conclude that even then, a good number remained. Frankly, taking the time to inform yourself on the very basics of Spanish history should be enough to end this discussion. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous version of the article does not actually say that conversos were expelled from Spain. It says they were expelled from Gibraltar. The new version says they were evicted. Evicted–expelled, means the same thing: they were forced to leave. So say that.

The previous version of the article stated that Jews were expelled; the new version says they chose exile rather than convert. Well, the second version is a whitewash: the usual English-language term is expulsion. So say that.

The new version of the article says the vast majority of Muslims remained in Spain and converted, while some of its aristocracy left, a few going to North Africa. The previous version says some converted, while the majority left. Both views are sourced, so the only viable option here is to find a middle path, not select one set of sources over another. So say something like: "Two years later the Muslims of Granada were ordered to convert to Christianity or leave. Those that did not convert left for North Africa, some of them travelling via Gibraltar". DrKay (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

References

DrKay Thanks for your input. Regarding the Muslims, I understand that you think a "middle path" is the way forward, but don't you think that it would be rather foolish of us to create a false balance between A) a rather dismal mistake made by a military historian who decided to write a book about Gibraltar and B) The ENTIRE body of English and Spanish-language academia addressing this period of Spanish history? It is not two sources conflicting each other, it is a misinformed source contradicting every single other source out there. Also, the majority-Muslim population of Granada was not converted to Christianity until much later, their religious rights being initially guaranteed by the Treaty of Granada in 1491, so even your proposed correction doesn't cut it. Regarding the Jews, I think you (understandably) misunderstood what the argument is about. It is not about the use of the term evicted or expelled. It is about the article implying that the Conversos were Jews who were expelled from Spain under the Alhambra Decree. Such a decree did not apply to Conversos and these Gibraltarians were not expelled from Spain. The article making this clear with a sourced study on this matter is what has not been accepted and the point of contention. I don't mind the term "expelled" being used, so long as it is clear they were not expelled from Spain.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

DrKay: I just realized, you say "The previous version of the article does not actually say that conversos were expelled from Spain. It says they were expelled from Gibraltar. The new version says they were evicted. Evicted–expelled, means the same thing: they were forced to leave.". You understand I am getting slightly frustrated about this. Conversos were not given the choice to convert or leave since they had ALREADY converted and thus never had to leave. This is why they were never expelled. Could we just make sure we are all aware of the terminology and the basic historical events around that time, since this is an RfC? Asilah1981 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981, can we take this one thing at a time, the first part of your edit claims that the 'conversos', were ejected from Gibraltar, but that they returned to various parts of Spain. Are you now saying that 'conversos' were/were NOT ejected from Gibraltar. I agree in part that Jews/conversos could be made clearer later, since 'conversos' are still Jews ethnically, if not religously. btw evicted=expelled, but evict is more commonly used of a house/building, expelled from a city, country region etc.Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said conversos were given a choice nor that they did or did not convert, but I did and do say they were expelled (or evicted). You are wrong to say that they never had to leave. They were expelled from Gibraltar after their lease expired. Not given a choice, not converted, just told to leave, which they did. Even your own source says so; it even uses the word expulsión in the title. DrKay (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete yes, Gibraltar was rented out to Conversos from Cordoba by the Duke of Medina Sidonia. After two years, they were kicked out and returned to Cordoba, some moving on to Seville, Granada etc... The point I'm making is that all this happened at around the time of the Alhambra Decree, during which Jews were ordered to convert or leave. These guys in Gibraltar had already converted, so this did not apply to them. This whole argument stems from User:Wee Curry Monster not making the distinction between Jewish Converts to Catholicism and Jews, which is crucial here. The POV he was pushing is that these Gibraltar Conversos were expelled from Spain along with other Jews. That is what the article seemed to state, and this is where the problem is. DrKay I'm fine with either expelled or evicted so as long as it is clear that this was an expulsion from a town which the Conversos had rented for two years. I think the term "evicted" is less likely to lead to confusion in the light that Jews (NOT conversos) were expelled around that time, but either word is fine as long as what actually happened remains clear and the distinction between the fate of Jews and Conversos is patent to the reader. I hope that made sense! 21:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

I don't think it's necessarily a PoV, I think in part it's possibly an ambiguity in the use of 'Jews', and two distinct 'expulsions'. If the conversos were expelled from Gib, are you saying that there were no Jews (practising or otherwise) in Gibraltar by the time the Alhambra decree happened? btw, the article is about Gibraltar, and only tangentially about Jews or conversos. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I object to Asilah1981 misrepresenting my comments, I have never made the comment they attached to me, my comment is clear above that I objected to the substitution of weasel words such as evicted. This wasn't making things clearer and can easily be interpreted as white washing history. You're also editing on wikipedia systematically changing wikipedia to claim that muslims weren't expelled from Spain. There is POV editing going on but its not my editing thats at fault here. WCM_email 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. Please see the instructions at WP:RFC. A question must be proposed neutrally, not as an attack-piece making WP:ASPERSIONS about another particular editor or alleged camp of editors. To the extent this pseudo-RfC should be answered at all, I'll just answer in the abstract, about standard operating procedure: It is not Wikipedians' job to decide whether we agree with a particular cited source; that's original research and PoV-pushing. Rather, our policy-given duty under the core content policies is to see what other reliable sources say about that source. "I don't think this source is accurate" is insufficient to suppress its use as a source here. "These other sources say that one is inaccurate" is reason enough to note a conflict between sources in the article. "This enormous list of sources say that one is inaccurate, and hardly any can be found to support it" is probably enough to suppress its inclusion, per WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not of course going to disagree with SMcCandlish about WP:OR, but it did seem to me that this disagreement could be partly about clarity of phrasing. There appear to be possibly 3 or 4 distinct expulsions sitting in close proximity to one another. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so. I'm declining to analyze it that far, because the thread is mired in interpersonal fist-shaking to such a degree I'm not comfortable taking any of it at face value. A clean slate is needed; do again, calmly and neutrally, I would suggest. I have no idea why I phrased that like Yoda. Maybe I just feel wrinkled and green today.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you could give me some tips on how to write this in a neutral manner I would be very interested (I was torn between an RFC and an RFCU). The facts at the moment is the article reflects Asilah1981's personal views and does not reflect the range of opinions in the literature and he's achieved this by revert warring. When you point out sources contradict him, he simply dismisses the source and isn't prepared to discuss - he's misrepresented what I said several times now. WCM_email 12:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster, the fact is the article now reflects academic consensus among all historians specializing in Spanish history. It reflects the entire range of opinions. One evidently misinformed source by an obscure historian who clearly knows next to nothing about Spanish history (we are dealing with Spanish history here) is contrary to WP:UNDUE. I.e. just as the flat earth theory is not included in Earth, Jackson's frankly ludicrous statements directly contradicting every single historian published should not be included here. If you were to find one other single academic source which backs his statements, then you would perhaps be able to convince me. Until then, as some other editor has mentioned here, these wrong statements should be supressed as per WP:UNDUE.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The academic consensus according to whom? You? Seeing as every source whose opinion you don't like you dismiss as misinformed. I'm utterly bemused why you think that the editor's who have commented support you. They don't, they said as I did that its necessary to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. I'll be blunt, your edits seem more concerned with whitewashing history and toning down what the Spanish did in what were some very dark periods in their history. WCUser talk:Wee Curry Monster_email 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

W I am not going to engage in this nationalistic chest-beating, particularly considering I'm Canadian. Please use coherent arguments and present some sources so we can begin to take you seriously. I recommend again you read again comments above and WP:UNDUE. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have found another awful mistake by Jackson claiming Spain's "entire population of 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain, many passing through Gibraltar." Firstly, the maximum estimates of Moriscos expelled from Spain is of 350,000 with recent studies finding that the number was probably significantly lower. In Andalusia and Granada the number was particularly small, being among the regions where most Moriscos remained. Certainly few passed through the town of Gibraltar which was an irrelevant backwater at that time, certainly not a major port of transit. The largest contingent of Moriscos involved in piracy, the Hornacheros of modern day Extremadura, were transported (fully armed) to Morocco directly from Seville, where they immediately founded the pirate Republic of Salé. I am increasingly convinced that Jackson is not an adequate source for this article, at least in what concerns Gibraltar history while it was still part of Spain. It is evident he did not bother to read about Spanish history but relied on hearsay when writing his book.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that, you need a secondary source to point out its inaccurate. Like so many things it appears you pick your sources to support your own POV and not the range of opinion in the literature. Please take this as notice, since you refuse to discuss this without arguing from authority I will be reverting this article back to the state where is was before you altered it and we can then discuss your proposed changes one by one. User:Wee Curry MonsterCM_email 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster Are you honestly asking me to draw out a bibliography for you? When I say every single historian who examines this period of history I mean EVERY SINGLE HISTORIAN. Jackson doesn't represent a revisionist or a minority view. It is quite simply a gross error in his book. Are you going to make me waste my time adding 25 or 30 sources of specialized academics contradicting Jackson just for your obstinacy on this matter? Isn't it enough that entire wikipedia articles with dozens of sources directly contradict the statements you are trying to push? I honestly would rather be doing something else. But if you are determined to push this matter, I will have to do so. It will be pretty pointless. As I said, like adding 50 sources stating the earth is round. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster: I will start off with a few sources regarding the statement that "All 600,000 of Spain's Moriscos were expelled". The highest estimates of Moriscos expelled are based on Henri Lapeyre's examination of crown documents in his now classic study Géographie de l'Espagne morisque, París, 1959 (see p.218. according to which 270140 Moriscos were expelled. Antonio Dominguez Ortiz gives a figure of 300000 as does John Lynch (Spain under the Hapsburgs) and Henry Kamen (Spanish Inquisition=. All of them give low figures of Moriscos remaining in Spain after 1609 expulsion of around twenty five thousand. However, more recent studies such as those of Trevor J. Dadson , Francois Martinez and Bernard Lugan have concluded that numbers of those permanently expelled were much lower and that even a majority remained or returned to Spain, particularly due to local resistance to the edict. Dadson considers that the expulsion was effectively a failure all over Spain due to their high level of integration. The only exception was Valencia, the only place where the measure had popular support. Regardless of the varying views, the last large scale prosecution of Moriscos for crypto-Islamic practices by Moriscos in Spain was in Granada in 1727, over a century after the expulsion. The permanence and mass return of Moriscos to Seville, one example among many, is attested by French historian Miche Boeglin, to the point that in 1628, 14 years after the expulsion, the Inquisition ordered local inquisitors to no longer prosecute the growing Morisco population of the city. I hope this is enough for now to start a reasonable discussion.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

@Asilah1981 and Wee Curry Monster: Is this issue settled? We are dealing with a Featured article here and stability is not optional in order to keep that status. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this one is. We have both given this article a break for the summer. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't, at the moment we have changes forced into the article by edit warring and an editor refusing to discuss that there are a RANGE of views in the literature, which it is necessary to represent. The article is also misleading now, it uses weasel words to refer to the expulsion of the Conversos. WCM_email 07:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the state before this started, we can now discuss each change as required. Its also back to where it was at the GA review. WCM_email 08:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No. This section simply reflects the only source on the matter and quotes it literally. You cannot delete it. This is contrary to WP:OWN.

I didn't delete it, I'm bringing it to talk for each change to be discussed. Currently it reflects only a subset of sources - and it was a change to the established consensus. So the onus on you is to actually discuss the changes you wish to make. WCM_email 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No valid reason has so far been provided for deleting the only existing detailed source/ information on this obscure period of history. I await a coherent explanation for why the article (which has been stable for a month on this topic) requires this source and its content to be deleted. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WCMThere is not a "range of views" on Conversos not being Jews and not having been expelled from Spain. Conversos were not expelled from Spain and were baptised Catholics, full stop. No source says anything to the contrary. There is an editor who wishes to impose this misinformation by deleting the only available academic source on the Conversos of Gibraltar, misconstruing a sentence to make it seem as if they were expelled from Spain when they returned to Cordoba and Seville as per source. Deleting a source without explanation and WP:OWN arguments are not acceptable. Whatever issue you have with the content of the paragraph and sentence, please explain here because so far no argument has been provided. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact you're insisting on a subset of information and only Spanish information is a valid reason to revert and request you discuss your changes. The article has only been stable as I refused to continue your edit war. The Conversos were expelled from Gibraltar - that is a fact. Please self-revert and discuss your changes. WCM_email 12:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

W So your only argument is that the only detailed academic study on this topic is in Spanish (makes sense since it relates to the history of Spain and a community of Spaniards). That is not a valid argument and Wikipedia policy is very specific and clear about this.13:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Nope, that is not my comment at all. You insist only Spanish information can be used, dismissing English language sources as wrong. You're misrepresenting my comment, which is that the range of views in the literature must be respected, not just the ones you personally consider to be correct. WCM_email 13:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WCM Just to be clear on what your exact issue is. Do you believe that your "English-language source" claims that Conversos were expelled from Spain? We have already both established that it was written by an individual who was highly ignorant of Spanish history (see above - about where I provided you with hard evidence and you stopped engaging and edit-warring), but I doubt that even he would want to imply something as ridiculous as that.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Conversos were clearly expelled from Gibraltar as even your Spanish language source acknowledges. You assert that Jackson is ignorant of Gibraltar history, you haven't established it, then you proceeded to remove any comment sourced to Jackson. I disagree, the work is well respected and comments from Jackson should be included. You didn't provide "hard information", you edit warred to ensure your changes were in the article, I stopped and resorted to an RFC in order to elicit outside opinion. And what little outside opinion I managed to get confirmed what I said - reflect the RANGE of views in the literature. Now again I am requesting you to self-revert and discuss the changes you propose for the article to ensure the range of views are reflected. I find it intensely frustrating that instead of discussing content I am defending myself against your accusations and putting straight what has actually gone on. @EdJohnston: could I request that a lid be put on the confrontational aspects of any attempt to discuss matters with this editor. WCM_email 16:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[11] "I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions. It is not all about this stupid territorial dispute!!!!!!" FYI Ed, still resorting to personal attack rather than discussion. WCM_email 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We have established quite firmly that Jackson is deeply ignorant of 15th and 16th century Spanish history (including Gibraltar) and of the range of historical views on this matter here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Gibraltar&diff=728169514&oldid=728168916. When I demonstrated this to you, you let the matter go since you had no way of refuting the entire historiography in English and French language, which flat out deny the statement by Jackson. Now you are coming back on the matter of the Muslims acting as if you had never read the arguments or sources provided. Regarding the Conversos, I agree that Conversos were expelled from the (then Spanish) town of Gibraltar after renting it out for a few years. They were not expelled from Spain as your version implies. The discussion is above, you read it and you know Jackson, a non specialist writer about military history, made a passing comment totally contrary to historical academic consensus. This, together with copying my attempts to engage with you in your talk page here, makes it really hard for me not to suspect you are acting in bad faith. I also have the impression you are pretending not to understand hoping I will desist out of boredom. I have repeated the same clear cut facts over and over and over again and you do not seem to want to engage with them with a rational argument. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No we haven't established that at all and no I hadn't agreed with you. As regards the matter of the expulsion of Muslims we need to explain that historians consider a range of estimates not simply the ones you consider correct. Ie we reflect the range of views in the literature. As DrKay noted "The previous version of the article does not actually say that conversos were expelled from Spain. It says they were expelled from Gibraltar." You've had two English speakers tell you this and yet you're still stubbornly refusing to accept it. It doesn't matter what rational argument I try to engage you with or speak to you in a calm and reasonable matter as your basic presumption is that anyone who reverts you is acting in bad faith. I'm beginning to wonder if your competence in the English language is commensurate with the edits you're trying to make. WCM_email 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow on from RFC: Conversos and Granada Muslims issue

WTell me exactly what it is you don't like. I swear, I don't even understand the issue. If you edit this as you did to the Gibraltar article I can live with it, the only thing I want is to avoid confusion with the Alhambra Decree. Just explain it here again because I think you think my editing is again politically motivated when its not. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not say your editing was politically motivated, though it is clearly POV. Please stop the personal comments, last time I will ask you this before going back to ask an admin to invoke the special measures on this page. WCM_email 13:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do go back to the admin, I would like as many people as possible to be involved in this issue.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not that admin (or any other admin for that matter) but now that I've gotten involved, and surely a fresh pair of eyes is needed here, I might as well present my opinion. In my opinion, we should fall back to how the relevant parts of the article appeared when it was approved as FA. The FA process reflects a very strong consensus, and takes POV, factual accuracy, and broadness of coverage into account. Indeed, the relevant parts of the article have remained stable since only recently. If someone wants to impose a (controversial) change after that, clearly a strong consensus is needed. This isn't the case here, when two editors have been at loggerheads for two months. Let's fall back on previous consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop did the FA reflect a consensus by various editors that Conversos were expelled from Spain, contrary to what every single Wikipedia article discussing this matter says and to what every single historical source on the matter says? Was there any discussion leading to a consensus directly addressing this topic? Was it discussed and agreed that "the vast majority of Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1497" contrary to what every single related Wikipedia article says on this matter and what every single historical source included in Wikipedia says? That is what the FA version says. It is a gross, almost embarrassing, historical error which contradicts the rest of the project and its well sourced articles. By what I see from this talk page, the specific source I do not want to be deleted (regarding the Conversos of Gibraltar) was discussed and its inclusion reflected a consensus back in 2013, well before I got involved in this article (see above). As far as I'm aware, all this tells us is that this article does not meet the criteria to be a FA and there has been insufficient peer review and discussion on this article over the past year. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the sources or the historical matter. I'm simply trying to facilitate consensus. What I think should be done is to get some expert attention, but I leave the choice of process (RFC, Third Opinion, FA Review...) to you. But I do strongly suggest that we employ some means of getting more eyes on this. I stand by what I said above: two editors at loggerheads does not imply consensus to one way or the other in comparison to previous consensus seeking methods employed on this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop I definitely agree with the need for expert attention. We are dealing with a period of Spanish history and experts in history of Spain should be involved to break the deadlock. Is there a way of having an RfC which would attract the attention of a sub-set of editors who are knowledgeable of the subject?21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Well, not really. The most precise category is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. You can try the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. An "expert peer review" is admittedly a missing feature of Wikipedia. The closest equivalent is {{Expert needed}} but that tends to do little more than sit there for ages without any input. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank for your intervention but I fear the comments above are misleading you, in fact, having had to repeat myself so many times now I am beginning to suspect this is deliberate. The issue is not as claimed the expulsion of the Conversos from Spain but in fact refers to an incident in Gibraltarian history in which a group of Conversos were expelled from Gibraltar. If you look above I did start an RFC, DrKay picked this up straight away and this is exactly the very first comment he made. What he is claiming to be a gross historical error is a well known fact from Gibraltar history; one that even the source he claims to be using confirms; it even uses the Spanish word expulsión in the title. I fully agree with your comment that this article should be restored to the text from the FA review and that is exactly what I have been politely asking for and to be able to discuss this is a calm and reasonable manner without the silly accusations being bandied around eg [12]. WCM_email 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop I find it hard to find an adequate topic for the RFC which is not long, confusing or deemed POV. | These are the two versions which we are arguing over (I have not bothered including all of the host of sources which support the prior version - they are countless). If you have any idea on a proposed title for the RfC I would be grateful. As you can see there are two matters of contention: 1) Whether it should be made clear that the Conversos who were expelled from Gibraltar returned to their home towns and had nothing to do with the non-baptised Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 and 2) Whether it is correct to state that the majority of Muslims of Granada left for North Africa in 1499. (I should mention that Spain fought a war fought against rebels in Muslim-majority Granada between 1568-1571. Any title you can come up with would be great.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, as you know full well I have no issue with the use of the word "expulsion", just with the version concealing where they went to, back home to Córdoba and other parts of Spain (and Granada).Asilah1981 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK as suggested by Nick-D contacting a variety of users involved in the GA review. @Prioryman:, @DrKay:, @HJ Mitchell:, @HueSatLum:, @Nikkimaria:, @Tim riley:, @Dr Blofeld:, @Dank: Pinging all those involved in the GA review to comment. Prioryman, would appreciate your comment on the allegation that Jackson contains gross historical errors. Pinging @Gibmetal77: as a Gibraltar resident. WCM_email 12:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, your version of this article quotes Jackson as saying that, "although a few converted to Christianity, the majority of Muslims in Granada went to North Africa in 1499". This is a gross historical error, period. I don't have this Jackson book so I don't know if the error is in the book, or if he has been misquoted on Wikipedia. Could you perhaps double check in the book, since you have mentioned before that you have it at home? I would very much hope that he has been misquoted.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I will endorse what others have said. There is quite clearly no consensus for the text proposed by Asilah1981, so we should retain stability at the most recent version to attain consensus. If a new consensus can be reached in the future, then that's a different thing, but it has not been.

Asilah1981's behaviour in trying to force his preferred text in through edit warring undermines the consensus process, is entirely inappropriate. Kahastok talk 18:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok By "Others" I assume you mean you and Wee Curry Monster, who are party to this dispute since the beginning, both of whom edit primarily articles related to British possessions disputed by Hispanic countries(i.e Falklands and now Gibraltar) ? Are you even different editors? You have both yet to present an argument which goes beyond "This article is ours and we don't like it"?

Both of you have consistently displayed a refusal to discuss either sources available nor the actual subject matter which is being contested. Both display extremely similar patterns of behavior. i.e. pretending not to hear arguments or see evidence, refusing to engage in actual discussion and falling back to an imagined consensus between nonexistent editors. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't consistently done anything here, I've been involved less than 24 hours. Indeed, despite the accusations and insinuations in the above, I have at no stage made a case for or against this proposal, nor even formed an opinion on its merits. I don't know what your case for it is because the only thing you've done since I got here is abuse me. The only conclusion I've reached is that based on the above there is clearly no consensus for the change. In fact, while I may have missed someone, I can't see anyone else here who supports the text.

That said, I will note that per WP:UGC, Wikipedia articles (such as the below) are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles because anyone can edit them.

My position is that the change - whether good or bad - shouldn't be being made until and unless consensus is reached for it. That's as per the standard rule on Wikipedia. That rule applies to all articles: nobody - not me, not you, not anyone else - has a right to force text into this or any other article if it cannot attain consensus. The status quo remains until and unless there is consensus for a particular change. But particularly on a featured article, where stability is a must and the rules have to be rigorously enforced to keep quality standards high. Your edit warring puts featured status at risk.

Your claim that the standing consensus is "an imagined consensus between nonexistent editors" badly misunderstands what we have here. The current consensus is based on the Featured Article process during which this article was scrutinised by several independent editors - whose names you can easily find. The process is deliberately tough and it passed. This is actually a far stronger and more persuasive consensus than we normally find on articles.

Unless a consensus is forthcoming here, the text that you insist on trying to force on us is going to have to be reverted again, because the article at present does not reflect the standing consensus. One would hope that when that happens you will accept that you have to do more to persuade enough editors of your case to form a consensus. Kahastok talk 17:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Could you please discuss the material below instead of constantly referring to this imaginary "standing consensus" between you and another editor involved in this edit conflict? I will be happy to discuss with you why you think your version of the article is better in a constructive manner.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

With an edit like that I wonder if you even read my post.

Let me put it this way. If the version passed at FA and that has been stable in the article for at least three years before you started edit warring is not the standing consensus, the status quo that you propose to change, what is the standing consensus in your view? There has to be one and I can't see any other candidates. Consensus can change - but as several editors have pointed out, no consensus for any change has been reached so far.

If you are unwilling to accept basic Wikipedia policies and practices - such as the rule that the status quo remains until consensus is reached for a change, in the same way as for every other user on every other article - then you are not engaging in a constructive manner. Just as it's no good claiming to assume good faith if at the same time you're accusing people of bad faith, it's no good claiming to be engaging constructively if aat the same time you're refusing to do so when it actually comes down to it.

You want me to argue for what you call "[my] version of the article". I don't have a version of the article. I never edited this article or this talk page before this week. I am not here to defend a position, other than the basic policy position that I have outlined. If you want my comment on the text below, I find it unpersuasive because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Kahastok talk 08:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok The relevant statement and entire Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1499-1501) article are well sourced. As is the article on the second war between Spain and Granada's Muslim / Morisco population 70 years later: War of the Alpujarras (1568-1571). Do you need me to list out the sources here? I will if required, including page numbers. I will assume you are acting in good faith with me and just missed the sourcing, reason for which you brought up Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you have any other arguments for which this article should claim that Spain expelled all of Granada's Muslims in 1499? And is this "basic policy position" of yours that errors on the article should not be corrected with proper sources because a consensus not to do so exists between you and Wee Curry Monster? Asilah1981 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that there are errors on this page, you need to persuade a consensus of editors that they exist, and agree a change that addresses them. Otherwise there is no change. The burden of consensus is with you: if you want a change - including a change to corrects an error, however justified you believe you are in your belief that an error exists - you need to persuade people to support the change.

WCM opposes the change. He does not need to form a consensus against it. He needs only that there be no consensus for it. No new consensus means the status quo remains.

This is really basic stuff and it is frankly astonishing that you've been here nearly two years and apparently do not understand it. Kahastok talk 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok: Your and WCM's approval (the only editors involved in this "consensus") is not a requirement to edit this page as per WP:OWN. I'm astonished you have been so long on wikipedia and still don't understand this yourself.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nor have I ever so claimed. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. But that doesn't mean you don't need consensus to change, as I have now pointed out repeatedly.

The irony is that I was certainly not involved, in the process that (so far as I can tell) most recently affirmed the standing consensus that you want to change. Neither - again, so far as I can tell - was WCM. The fact that you persist in this sort of rubbish instead of actually making the case for your edit rather implies to me that there is no case for your edit and so I should be opposing rather than keeping an open mind as at present. Kahastok talk 17:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Extract from Wikipedia Article "Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1499-1501)

Quotation from article

Uprising in the Alpujarra An Alpujarran village in 2012, retaining many features from the time of Muslim inhabitants - narrow streets, flat roofs, "bowler-hat" chimneys. The uprisings took place in such villages. Although the uprising in Albayzin appeared to be put down and Granada was nominally transformed to a Christian city, the rebellion spread to the countryside. The leaders of the Albayzin uprising fled to the Alpujarra mountains. The inhabitants of the mountains, almost exclusively Muslims, had only accepted Christian rule reluctantly. They quickly rose up in revolts against what they regarded as the violation of the terms of the Treaty of Granada, and because they feared they would suffer the same forced conversions as the residents of Albayzin. By February 1500, eighty thousand Christian troops were mobilized to put down the rebellion. By March, King Ferdinand arrived to personally direct the operations. The rebels were often tactically well led and made use of the mountainous terrain to conduct guerrilla warfare. However, they lacked a central leadership and coherent strategy. This was partly caused by the previous Castilian policy of encouraging and facilitating Granadan upper class to leave the country or convert and be absorbed into the Christian upper class. The rebels' lack of strategic command allowed the Christian forces to proceed by defeating the rebels in one area separately, then moving on to the next. The rebelling towns and villages in the Alpujarra were gradually defeated. Ferdinand personally led the assault on Lanjarón. Rebels who surrendered were generally required to be baptized in order to keep their lives. Towns and villages which had to be taken by assault were treated harshly. One of the most violent episode occurred in Andarax, where the Catholic forces under Louis de Beaumont took 3,000 Muslims prisoners and then slaughtered them. Between two to six hundred women and children who took refuge in a local mosque were blown up with gunpowder. During the capture of Velefique, all the men were killed and the women enslaved. At Nijar and Güéjar Sierra, the whole population was enslaved except children who were kidnapped in order to be brought up Christians. On 14 January 1501, Ferdinand ordered his army to stand down, because the uprising seemed to be suppressed. However, further unrest occurred in Sierra Bermeja. An army under Alonso de Aguilar, one of the most distinguished captains of Spain marched to put down this rebellion. On 16 March, the army's undiciplined troops, eager for pillage, charged the rebels. However this was met by a fierce counter attack. The result was a catastrophe for the Catholic army, and Aguilar himself was killed in battle and the army were nearly annihilated. However, the Muslims soon sued for peace, and Ferdinand, aware of the weakness of the army and the difficulty of mountain warfare, declared that the rebels must choose between exile or baptism. Only those who could pay ten gold doblas were given passage, and the majority who could not pay had to stay and be baptized. The insurgents surrendered in waves, beginning from the middle of April, since some waited to see whether the first insurgents who surrendered were safe. The emigrants were escorted under guards to the port of Estepona and given passage to North Africa. The remaining were allowed to return home after converting, surrendering their arms and forfeiting their property. Honestly, how much more evidence do we need that the version the Falklands editors wish to impose is contrary to historical fact??Asilah1981 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

References

References

Extracts from Article Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568-71)

Quotation from article

Fall of Granada and the 1499–1501 Muslim revolts Forced conversion under Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros was one of the main causes of the rebellions. Main article: Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1499–1501) The Kingdom of Granada was the last Muslim-ruled state in Spain. After a long siege, the city of Granada fell to the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabel, in 1492. The Muslim population was initially tolerated under the terms of the Treaty of Granada: they were allowed to stay in their dwellings, to be judged according to their own laws, they would not be obliged to convert to Christianity.

However, they did come under pressure to convert to Christianity, and growing discontent led to an uprising in 1499 in Granada city, quickly put down, and in the following year two more serious revolts in the mountain villages of the Alpujarra—the region below the Sierra Nevada. Ferdinand himself led an army into the area. There were also revolts in the western parts of the Kingdom. Suppression by the Catholic forces was severe; with the most violent episode occurring in Laujar de Andarax, where two hundred Muslims were burnt in the local Mosque. This revolt enabled the Catholics to claim that the Muslims had violated the terms of the Treaty of Granada, which were therefore withdrawn. Throughout the region, Muslims were now forced to choose between conversion to Christianity or exile. The vast majority chose conversion and became known as "Moriscos" or "New Christians", though many continued to speak Andalusian Arabic and to maintain their Moorish customs. References Extent of the rebellion When the rebellion began, the Kingdom of Granada counted barely 150,000 inhabitants, most of them Moriscos. The exact number who rebelled is unknown, but the ambassadors of France and of the Republic of Genoa at the Madrid count estimated that there were 4,000 rebels in January 1569 and 25,000 by the spring of 1570, of whom some 4,000 were Turks or Berbers from North Africa who had come to support the rebellion. On the other side, the royal army had at the beginning 2,000 foot-soldiers and 200 cavalry under the command of the Marqués de Mondéjar. The number increased substantially when Don John took charge: in the siege of Galera he had 12,000 men, while the Duke of Sesa at the same time commanded between 8,000 and 10,000 men. From its start in the Alpujarra, the rebellion spread to the plains and to other mountainous regions on the edges of the Kingdom. An particularly dramatic conflict took place on the ridge (penon) above Frigiliana, in the Axarquia, where entire families of Moriscos from all around had gathered: the siege lasted from June 1569 till September, when Spanish reinforcements were brought in by sea. Moriscos living in the towns—including the capital, Almería, Málaga, Guadix, Baza and Motril—and their surrounding areas did not take part in the uprising, although they sympathised with it. This distinct attitude of the towns can be explained by the presence of a greater number of "Old Christians" and better integration of the Moriscos in these communities. On the other hand, in the Alpujarra and other regions, where the rebellion caught on, there were villages where the only “Old Christian” was the parish priest. Dispersal and resettlement After the suppression of the revolt, a significant portion of the Morisco population was expelled from the former Kingdom of Granada. First rounded up and held in churches, then in harsh winter conditions, with little food, they were taken on foot in groups, escorted by soldiers; many died on the way. Many went to Cordova, others to Toledo and as far as Leon. Those from the Almería region were taken in galleys to Seville. The total number expelled has been estimated at some 80,000, or roughly half of Granada's Moriscos. The deportations meant a big fall in population, which took decades to offset; they also caused a collapse of the economy, given that the Moriscos were its main motor. Moreover, many fields lay uncultivated, orchards and workshops had been destroyed during the fighting.

Muslims of Granada in 1499: Majority left and a few converted?

I am asking for the last time for a revert to the original GA class content and for one change at a time to be discussed. I'm also going to request that this talk page is not refactored again, there has been so many changes and so much material copied from other articles I cannot make head nor tail of it. WCM_email 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done it, and I agree that the talk page should be simplified and not refactored after the event, as far as possible. I've reduced the extremely long title on the section formerly called "WEE CURRY MONSTER" to "Follow on from RFC", which describes what the section is (it is not a new discussion on a different topic).

I note that I have found it very difficult to tell what arguments are being made in favour of the changes proposed. It might help if we were clearer if editors proposing change made it clear on talk what changes they propose. Kahastok talk 17:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok You understand full well that 21 historical sources provided above directly contradict the version of the article that you are pushing. Pretending you don't understand this is acting in bad faith yet a strategy that can only take you so far. Btw, so far no editors involved in this "GA consensus" of yours have come in your support.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since Kahastok edited the article to a version claiming that a majority of Muslims were expelled from the Kingdom of Granada in 1499, contrary to every single academic source on Spanish history available in any language. 21 sources sources with page numbers have been provided above. Since no argument has been forwarded in the last 24 hours in favor of this claim and since no editor involve in the FA has come forward to defend this statement, I am reverting to the corrected (and evidently correct) version.Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please do as asked, just stop the constant bad faith attacks, accept that there is an existing consensus, that this article is a GA class article. We would like to maintain that status. The reason you are being reverted is the article content is currently sourced, you are simply stating this is wrong. Now start by explaining what you believe needs to be improved, focus on content not editors. Use the talk page please. WCM_email 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not pushing any particular version of the article (still - I have pointed this out to you several times now) except insofar as I feel the consensus from the Featured Article nomination should remain until there is consensus to change it. I have no idea whether those sources directly contradict the consensus version or not.

However, I won't support you if I'm not clear on what change you want and why. By which I mean, I want to know - civilly and without accusation or edit warring - what the change is you want to make, why you want to make it, and what sources are backing up each section (and that needs to be clear, so that I can easily work out for myself why you feel the source backs the text). I can see the edit history, but I want to know what parts of it you feel are important and what parts are not. I'm not getting that so far.

If you are unwilling to make a case for the change you wish to make, but instead continue with the ad hominem I will be forced to assume that there is no case for it and thus oppose the change on that basis. Kahastok talk 17:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok now that the article has been protected, obviously at the WP:WRONG version, perhaps it will give an opportunity to actually have that discussion. WCM_email 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article, has a patent error, which is the claim that a majority of Muslims were expelled/left to North Africa from the Kingdom of Granada in 1499. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I have provided 21 historical sources to support the existence of this rather embarrassing error for an GA article. The evidence is above for all editors to read. Again, as per WP:JDL, demanding a consensus is not a valid argument to revert a correction of a mistake in an article. Particularly, when the members of this "consensus" against change is limited to two editors. I will attempt to assume good faith one last time: Kahastok Do you believe, as per the version of the article you are supporting, that a majority of Muslims left the Kingdom of Granada in 1499 and only a few converted to Catholicism? Do you believe this is a historical fact? Asilah1981 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you try rewriting that without making any comments about other editors. If you can remove them, perhaps we can start this discussion. WCM_email 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok: Do you believe it is historical fact that 1) A majority of Muslims in Granada were expelled to North Africa in 1499, with only a few converting? Do you believe 2) that 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain in the early 17th century? Do you believe, as per the current version of the article, that these statements are correct? Do you believe that they are supported by historical sources on this period of Spanish history?Asilah1981 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you manage to make a comment without any reference to other editors please. WCM_email 17:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry MonsterI don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean I can't address you personally? Would "a user" like me to address him in the third person. Could "a user" please answer my question so we may focus on the content of this article?Asilah1981 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to address another editor to discuss content, simply state what you believe is an error and what you propose to replace it with. WCM_email 17:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster I am addressing the user who is blocking the correction, as is customary on Wikipedia. The errors are that 1) All historical sources on Spanish history claim that only a small minority of Muslims were allowed to leave the Kingdom of Granada in 1499, the vast majority converting 2) No historical source claims that more than more than 300,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain nor does any historical source claim that all moriscos were expelled from Spain. The article currently claims that the majority of Muslims of Granada were expelled in 1499 with only a few converting and that "all 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain in 1609. I have provided the sources above. Does the editor who has been involved in this edit conflict, has reverted these corrections and who does not want to be addressed directly disagree with these two points?Asilah1981 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok: I am waiting for content-based arguments on why you believe the article should state that 1) A majority of Muslims of Granada were expelled in 1499 and 2) "All 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain in 1609". Please refrain from using the argument that "there is no consensus" (with you) for correcting mistakes on the article as per WP:OWN and WP:JDL.EdJohnston can perhaps help guide this discussion? Asilah1981 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It is you who needs to persuade other people of the merits of your change.

I have no idea what happened. Haven't read the sources you've provided - how can I? They appear to be mostly books that I don't have access to or links that don't work. I came here with an open mind, but also understanding the basic rule here which is that the standing consensus applies until consensus is found to change it.

You haven't made a case for your change. You've asserted that you're right, but you haven't made the case. Or at least none that I can find without spending ages trawling through personal attacks and walls of text. If everyone agrees, that's not a problem, but they didn't. There was opposition to your proposal, and you haven't made a case as to why anyone should support it.

How can I or anyone else support your position without knowing why? Saying it's right and pointing vaguely at dozens of sources that you claim support you is not going to persuade people. Abusing people is not going to persuade them. What you need to do is make it easy for me and others to support your position, including changing it as needed to address concerns raised. You haven't done that. You haven't even tried to do that. Kahastok talk 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OK guessing at what the first thing you're objecting to is, I'm guessing because you haven't actually told me. I'm guessing its this sentence:

“ Two years later the remaining Moors of Granada were ordered to convert to Christianity or be expelled. Although some did convert, most left for North Africa, many of them travelling via Gibraltar. ”

Which is sourced to Jackson, p.71. Is that what you're objecting to? WCM_email 19:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That is a mistake and denied by the entire body of academia on Spanish history. I have already provided you enough authoritative sources and have tried to explain why the statement is ludicrous from a historical perspective. The other mistake is the assertion that "all 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain in 1609". No historical source gives a figure anywhere near that number and no source asserts that all Moriscos were expelled from Spain. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

One thing at a time please. So you say it is ludicrous, why? WCM_email 20:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Because All academic sources claim that A) The vast majority of Muslims in Granada converted to Christianity after the 1st Muslim rebellion in 1499-1501, only those who could pay 10 doblas (a huge amount of money), were allowed to emigrate B) Because all academic sources state that by the time the Muslims/Moriscos rebelled again in 1568, they constituted the majority of the population of the Kingdom of Granada. C) Because at the end of this long war between the Spanish State and Muslims of Granada, 80,000 of Granada's Muslims were deported to other parts of Spain, this is the figure given by all sources. the Kingdom of Granada's population before this second rebellion is estimated at 150,000 a majority of which were Muslims/Moriscos according to all available academic sources.

Therefore, the statement given in P. 71 of Jackson is a mistake and contrary to all other available sources -contrary to all authoritative and specialized sources. It is an understandable act of sloppiness. The writer is not a specialist in Spanish history but intended to write a book about Gibraltar. It is a mistake nonetheless, which should be corrected.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster Let me know if you need to me list out the sources here. I thought the pasted material above with the relevant sourced statements highlighted in bold was enough. Is it difficult for you to understand? Maybe I can assist you somehow?Asilah1981 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OK then you'll be able to provide sources and quotes to back that up then. WCM_email 21:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So what it sounds like is that it's a question of numbers. Let's avoid hyperbolic language like "ludicrous". You say that some were expelled but most remained, the text says that most were expelled but some remained. Have I got that right?

If so, could you provide some quotes - ideally from texts we can see online, with page numbers so that we can easily see the context - so that we can see what exactly you are basing this conclusion on? Kahastok talk 21:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I can, but as an act of good faith, could you please read the highlighted sections of the Wikipedia articles posted above? And also check the sourcing? It will be much less laborious than for me compiling a bibliography here (although I could compile a much more detailed one).

Just so you understand what I'm saying: A) Jackson claims the vast majority of Muslims of Granada emigrated to North Africa in 1499 with only a few converting to Catholicism. B) It is historical fact that in 1571 the Spanish state deported over half of the total population of the Kingdom of Granada to other parts of Spain (80,000 people out of 150,000) as a result of the Muslim rebellion and consequent 3 year war in the region of Granada (1568-1571). Do you see a contradiction between Statement (A) (1499) and well documented historical event (B) (1571)? I hope we can move forward on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Question 2, no I don't necessarily. I mean, given those two as assumed facts, we can posit plausible scenarios. People have babies, and a mass-relocation of people still in Granada in 1571 doesn't mean that most didn't already leave in 1499. If the vast majority of people leave a place, that doesn't mean that the remainder can't then rebel against something. Moreover, if we're saying that the 1571 population were Muslims, that would in principle be quite difficult if they'd all converted to Christianity 70 years earlier. But it's not our job to posit scenarios. We don't come to our own conclusions, we go based on the sources.

Question 1, I'm afraid I can't check the sourcing because the citations mean nothing to me and the links don't work for me. So far as I know, I don't have access to the relevant books. Kahastok talk 21:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok The Henry Lea Charles source specifically says the vast majority of Muslims converted to Christianity in p.65 and the Carr source says so specifically in p.35. They both specifically say that only a tiny minority left for North Africa. This is contrary to what your version says. Do I have to scan the books and mail them to you so you allow for the change? I can do that if you like if you provide me with your email address. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

KahastokBy the end of 1501, the rebellion was put down. The Muslims were no longer given their rights provided by the Treaty of Granada, and were given the choice of: (1) remain and accept baptism, (2) reject baptism and be enslaved or killed, or (3) be exiled. Given the expensive fee exacted for passage out of Spain, in reality conversion were the only realistic options for them. Therefore, only a decade after the fall of the Emirate of Granada, the entire Muslim population of Granada had nominally become Christian.

KahastokIs this not enough for you? Here is the bibliography. Do you want me to scan the relevant pages for you so you are assured that they are correct? I'm not sure if this is what is normally required but I can make the effort if you ask me to. However, if you look below, I think some of these you can access online and confirm yourself.

• Carr, Matthew (2009). Blood and Faith: The Purging of Muslim Spain. New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-361-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Coleman, David (25 September 2003). Creating Christian Granada: Society and Religious Culture in an Old-World Frontier City, 1492–1600. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-4111-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Harvey, L .P. (16 May 2005). Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-31963-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lea, Henry Charles (1901). The Moriscos of Spain: Their Conversion and Expulsion. Lea Brothers & Company. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Asilah1981 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I for one would like to know exactly what the sources say, we found in Talk:Gibraltar that the sources you quoted didn't always match with what you were citing. WCM_email 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, are you saying that if I don't mail you a scanned copy of the relevant pages in the book you will accuse me of lying? These citations are already present in Wikipedia and were not included by me. I can send mail them to you but don't you think this is abusive behavior, making me spend money? I will do so if required, but somehow I'm sure this is not against wikipedia policy. Mike V, Bbb23, EdJohnston; Could you explain to me whether I have to scan a copy or find some other way to demonstrate that cited content present in wikipedia (not added by me) is not incorrect or just me lying? I have come to a dead end here. I don't know what else I can do. I have offered to scan and email them the books. Is there any other way?Asilah1981 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No that isn't what I'm saying at all, I am asking for you to share excerpts from the books that support what you're claiming. I have never asked you to scan anything or accused you of lying. But Talk:Gibraltar#Language section here for example, we have found that the stated citation didn't back up the claim attributed to it. I just looked at an overview of one of the books you claim support this and in that it states that Spain ethnically cleansed its muslim population. I don't think its unreasonable to ask what element of that book contradicts Jackson. WCM_email 23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster:Spain did indeed attempt to ethnically cleanse its Muslim population between 1609-1614. To what extent the expulsion was successful in expelling the Moriscos is subject to academic debate (see below), but yes Islam was broken as an indigenous religion. But the issue here is the timeline is wrong. It did not attempt to do so in 1499. After the 1499-1501 war it made emigration of Muslims impossible except for the extremely wealthy. That is why Granada became a majority "Morisco" region. Priorly it had been majority Muslim, then the Muslim masses were baptized en masse because they had no other option. (Morisco a nominal Christian/Recent convert from Islam) If only a few Muslims has remained to convert to Catholicism, they could hardly have taken on the Spanish Army in a three year war 70 years later! (They would have lasted longer or maybe even kicked out the Spanish armies with better leadership!) You understand what I mean by it being sloppy history? So if I just copy the excerpts from the books here you will take it for face value, Wee Curry Monster?Asilah1981 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A later revolt is not, as Kahastok noted above evidence that those who remained were the majority. I will take things on WP:AGF but I may have further questions. In addition, the sources you quoted do seem to quite emphatically come down on the side of an expulsion. WCM_email 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank youW. It is honestly appreciated. I do not deny there was an expulsion. There was, but 110 years later. That expulsion together with some early episodes in the discovery of the Americas were perhaps the biggest stains in Spain's history. In Valencia it was particularly brutal and completely destroyed the economy of this coastal region by depopulating much of the rural areas. This was due to the bad blood the Catalan-speaking midle-class had against the local Muslims, which boiled over a few years earlier in the Revolt of the Brotherhoods. But we are discussing an expulsion that was the early 1600s - what we are simultaneously discussing below.01:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

For god's sake. Anyone with the slightest idea about the topic knows the bulk of the Morisco expulsion took place in the early 17th century, not the late 15h century. Period. This mixing of "forced conversions of muslims" and "expulsion of moriscos" is flat out ridiculous.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd: Apparently not. I continue to assume good faith (I have no other choice really) but this is my most surreal exchange on Wikipedia ever. Could we bring other editors into this discussion who are knowledgeable of Spanish history.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm following on from my previous comment here to some degree, I've read the above, but it is sufficiently unclear that I would like to make sure that I understand what we're talking about.

The point at dispute is whether the majority of the Muslim population were expelled in 1499 (currently claimed), or whether a minority were expelled and a majority remained.

To my mind it is not sufficient to provide links to entire books without telling me what I'm supposed to find where. Can we have a quotation from a source that makes the latter point please? If you copy it out into the talk page with the name of the book and a page reference, then we can easily see it and we're attributing properly. There may be questions (and an online link in addition would be useful), but it would help us move on.

If this is as well known a historical fact as is claimed, this should not be too difficult to do, I hope. Kahastok talk 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Extracted quotes from Jónsson, Már (2007). "The expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609–1614: the destruction of an Islamic periphery". Journal of Global History. 2 (2). Cambridge University Press: 195–212. ISSN 1740-0228.:

“ In the last days of 1499, the Muslim towns people rebelled, joined by inhabitants of the Alpujarra mountains, but the rebellion was quelled by February 1500. Thousands of Muslims fled to North Africa, and many more were baptised en masse (...) Those who remained as nominal converts to Catholicism were known as Moriscos (Jónsson, 2007, p. 198) ”

“ The Moriscos were nominally Christian after enforced conversions at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but they mainly clung to their Islamic ancestral faith, and they were expelled from Spain in 1609–14. This was a huge operation, as 300,000 Moriscos were expelled, most of them in the space of a few months (Jónsson, 2007, p. 195). ”

 Question: Happy now? Do you deal fine with thousands and hundreds of thousands? I learned about it at the kindergarten. Talk about people wasting the precious time of editors here, sigh.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A major reason why this has taken so long is that the above conversation has been marked by remarks like that, frankly. If there had been fewer insults, less shrillness and less edit warring and more actual good faith discussion about what the issues are and why people think the status quo is incorrect, this whole thing would have been done much more easily.

I find, as described above though, that we haven't yet demonstrated the key point. Per WP:SYN, we are not allowed to combine sources and reach conclusions that neither source reaches. Per WP:NOR, if it's the same source, similarly, we can't reach a conclusion that the source doesn't reach.

The question is the comparative. Was it a lot more who remained or a lot more who fled? "Thousands of Muslims fled to North Africa, and many more were baptised en masse" doesn't tell us either way. The text about later events is a separate issue, not relevant to a discussion specifically about 1499; linking them to draw a conclusion the source doesn't make is WP:OR.

We could, of course, try to find a text that that doesn't provide any comparison in numbers at all on this point, e.g. that simply reports that "thousands" fled and many more were forced to convert. We don't have to adopt the precise text previously proposed, we can formulate a new one that reflects all sources presented. Kahastok talk 18:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok I think the point that Asqueladd is making is that this is very very basic history and there isn't a "range of views" which must be presented. Anyone who is acquainted with Spanish history will find this entire discussion completely insane and will have the tendency (as I did) to get annoyed/angry. There is the entire body of academia agreeing and a mistake in a passing comment made in the introductory section of a book about Gibraltar by Jackson. Allowing his mistake to be accommodated gives it undue weight. See: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight Frankly, you would find many more sources denying the holocaust than supporting the statement you are trying to keep here. There is a reason why a range of views on whether the holocaust happened is not presented on wikipedia. Even WCM, who can't be accused of taking my side on things, has decided to accept the content of reliable sources and has assumed good faith. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, just when I think we're getting somewhere we're back to square one with aggressive name calling, very, very uncool. I'm going to copy a suggestion above from DrKay as a text proposal.

“ Two years later the Muslims of Granada were ordered to convert to Christianity or leave. Those that did not convert left for North Africa, some of them travelling via Gibraltar ”

This being an article about Gibraltar I don't believe detailed information on this subject is required. Do you think you comment on the content only. My final comment, this being the English Wikipedia editors rely on what sources say on the subject, so when there is a conflict it is better to explain what is wrong in a calm manner, if you charge in like a bull in a china shop shouting its WRONG, all the English editors are IGNORANT and you have to speak Spanish to understand, well arguing from authority never goes down well. WCM_email 19:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

How you have to speak spanish, mate? I have just presented you a source in english. In any case, for what is worth you can have your glaringly wrong featured article as it is, WRONG. I am gone for good.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, we need a source that actually makes the comparison, or we can't make the comparison. If Jackson is wrong, there's no problem with that, but we need that to be demonstrated. We can't just declare him wrong without evidence.

Of course we don't have to make any kind of comparison at all. I would accept WCM's quote from DrKay - that's fine. That's supported by the quotes provided.

But it has to be said that for what you say is such a basic point, covered by all academia, that anyone acquainted with Spanish history will consider obvious, it is astonishing how difficult it is proving to find a source for it. Kahastok talk 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement in Article that "All 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain in 1609-1614"

The article currently states that Spain expelled "all of its 600,000 Moriscos" between 1609-1614. Apparently it is based on the Jackson book p.78. I do not have that book so I cannot confirm the book makes that mistake. I can confirm it is a mistake and contrary to the entire body of academia which assesses this period of history.

The highest estimates of Moriscos expelled are based on Henri Lapeyre's examination of crown documents in his now classic study Géographie de l'Espagne morisque, París, 1959 (see p.218. according to which 270140 Moriscos were expelled. Antonio Dominguez Ortiz gives a figure of 300000 as does John Lynch (Spain under the Hapsburgs) and Henry Kamen (Spanish Inquisition). All of them give low figures of Moriscos remaining in Spain after 1609 expulsion of around 25,000 or 10-15% of pre-existing Morisco population. However, more recent studies such as those of Trevor J. Dadson , Francois Martinez and Bernard Lugan have concluded that numbers of those permanently expelled were much lower and that https://books.google.es/books?id=g2LPBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false much larger nuumbers remained or returned to Spain, particularly due to local resistance to the edict. Dadson considers that the expulsion was effectively a failure all over Spain due to their high level of integration. The only exception was Valencia, the only place where the measure had popular support. Regardless of the varying views, the last large scale prosecution of Moriscos for crypto-Islamic practices by Moriscos in Spain was in Granada in 1727, over a century after the expulsion. The permanence and mass return of Moriscos to Seville, one example among many, is attested by French historian Miche Boeglin, to the point that in 1628, 14 years after the expulsion, the Inquisition ordered local inquisitors to no longer prosecute the growing Morisco population of the city. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

“ "In April 1609, King Philip III of Spain signed an edict denouncing the Muslim inhabitants of Spain as heretics, traitors. and apostates. Later that year, on threat of death, the entire Muslim population of Spain was given three days to leave Spanish territory." "In the brutal and traumatic exodus that followed, entire families and communities were obliged to abandon homes and villages where they had lived for generations, leaving their property in the hands of their Christian neighbors. In Aragon and Catalonia, Muslims were escorted by government commissioners who forced them to pay whenever they drank water from a river or took refuge in the shade. For five years the expulsion continued to grind on, until an estimated 300,000 Muslims had been removed from Spanish territory, nearly 5 percent of the total population. By 1614 Spain had successfully implemented what was then the largest act of ethnic cleansing in European history, and Muslim Spain had effectively ceased to exist." ”

“ Picking up at the end of his earlier classic study, Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500— which described the courageous efforts of the followers of Islam to preserve their secular, as well as sacred, culture in late medieval Spain—L. P. Harvey chronicles here the struggles of the Moriscos. These forced converts to Christianity lived clandestinely in the sixteenth century as Muslims, communicating in aljamiado— Spanish written in Arabic characters. More broadly, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, tells the story of an early modern nation struggling to deal with diversity and multiculturalism while torn by the fanaticism of the Counter-Reformation on one side and the threat of Ottoman expansion on the other. Harvey recounts how a century of tolerance degenerated into a vicious cycle of repression and rebellion until the final expulsion in 1614 of all Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula. ”

That's from your own sources listed above; it seems clear there was an "ethnic cleansing" to quote one of the authors. I also noted [13] which gives a figure of 500,000 expelled. It seems there is quite a wide variation in the estimates of numbers. I don't accept your assertion that Jackson is "wrong" as it seems there is a quite a disparity here. I'm unsure what weight to apply to it but I also found a source on the scattered Morisco population that suggested that the numbers were downplayed in Spanish texts. We should resolve this by presenting the range of numbers not just the lower estimates. WCM_email 00:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: Thanks for your feedback. Could you have another look at your source? It gives a figure of 500,000 Muslims present in Spain in 1492, not 500,000 expelled. It quotes Carr, I believe. No acadamic source claims 500,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain. I should also mention that the source you use is an Islamic blog. Asilah1981 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: And yes the Spanish Monarchy attempted to implement an ethnic cleansing - an awful crime. However, its success is the source of academic debate with recent authors such as Trevor J. Dadson among many others pointing to the edict of expulsion being systematically ignored at a local level, particularly in the Kingdom of Castile/Andalusia. In any case, there is no doubt that Moriscos remained in Spain since they continued to be prosecuted by the Inquisition well into the 18th century. The main issue I have is saying that "all 600,000 Moriscos were expelled" since neither all were expelled nor is the figure of 600,000 present in any academic source on the matter.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Its present in Jackson though isn't it, I simply did a search to test your assertion and I straight away picked up sources that indicated there were higher estimates. Islamic scholars also assert that Spanish scholars downplay the numbers. I don't believe its our job to decide who is right but simply to reflect the range of opinions. WCM_email 00:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster I don't know which Islamic scholars you are referring to but I would beg we avoided slipping into the realm of science fiction. We are talking about world-class peer-reviewed academic studies. The entire body of academia focused on 15th an 16th century Spanish history. The seminal works which are studied in British and American top-level Universities: Henry Lapeyre, Ortiz, Henry Kamen, Bernard Vincent, Michel Beoglin, John Lynch, Trevor Dadson, Joseph Pérez..... None of the the studies I have cited were published by Spaniards, (who incidentally have the historical tendency to exaggerate the number of Moriscos expelled, not minimize them). The authors cited here are mainly French and British among other nationalities. They are or were the top experts in this specific field we are discussing. I don't want to appear disrespectful, but misquoting what is written by some kid in a blog (Islamic or not) is just not good enough to support Jackson's passing assertion which, together with his other comment on the Muslims of Granada in 1499, demonstrate he should have read more thoroughly about Spanish history before writing those statements in that introductory section of his book. Wee Curry Monster Honestly, I know we have been in a confrontational mindset. I don't want to "beat" you. But these are two historical errors on a wikipedia article. There is no reason not to correct them. Maybe I have been POV on other matters. But on this its clear-cut historical fact. Asilah1981 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, in this link you will find a book which is a collection of articles written by academic experts in the field of the Expulsion of the Moriscos. They discuss estimates on numbers expelled and on numbers expelled and on how many remained (among many other questions related to the expulsion of the moriscos. The writers refer to the entire historiography on the matter. As you will confirm, estimates are below the 300,000 mark and all authors discuss the significant numbers which remained and were assimilated. how many remained (among many other questions related to the expulsion of the moriscos. The writers refer to the entire historiography on the matter. As you will confirm, estimates are below the 300,000 mark and all authors discuss the significant numbers which remained and were assimilated. https://books.google.es/books?id=g2LPBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Asilah1981 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd Do you have any feedback on this part of the dispute. I am trying to explain that no source says 600,000 Moriscos were expelled (that this is a ludicrous figure, particularly for a country of 5 million people), nor does any academic source say that all were expelled. Furthermore, all recent studies such as Dadson's (the most well known currently) also point to a much less thorough and efficient endeavor than prior historians had assumed, particularly in Castile and Andalusia, where there was generalized local resistance to the decree. Dadson estimates that around 40% (or 200,000) never left the country and about 70,000 managed to return (see p.184 https://books.google.es/books?id=RtDCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=Dadson+expulsion+failure&source=bl&ots=ydqTY5Ai17&sig=LooWt224rhhgINOcueD9pz3Ddw8&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV1bOf2NXOAhUIrRoKHYNwCz4Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Dadson%20expulsion%20failure&f=false). Ortiz's and Lapeyre's earlier estimates were much lower, with an estimate of only around 25,000 evading the expulsion. No need to go into details since the article is about Gibraltar, but wording should be changed in the sentence as per historical consensus. i.e. something on the lines of "A majority/significant portion of Spain's hundreds of thousands of Moriscos were expelled". Asilah1981 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 your own sources state that there was an ethnic cleansing that removed the muslim/morisco population from Spain. Are you now saying that the sources you supplied are wrong? WCM_email 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster. I repeat, maybe I haven't been clear enough the last 35 times I have had to repeat the same thing. Maybe if I use bold and caps it will be easier to follow. 'The article claims ALL Moriscos were expelled from Spain which is WRONG. It claims 600,000 Moriscos were expelled from Spain which is WRONG. No one is denying ethnic cleansing here. My own ancestors were subject to ethnic cleansing by the Spanish state FYI. Again Wee Curry Monster, I have to assume you are editing here in good faith. But taking a step back and looking at this thread objectively, it looks very much like a strategy of pretending not to understand sources or what is being written so as to wear out other editors. I'm not saying this is the case but it is what transpires. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

“ Picking up at the end of his earlier classic study, Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500— which described the courageous efforts of the followers of Islam to preserve their secular, as well as sacred, culture in late medieval Spain—L. P. Harvey chronicles here the struggles of the Moriscos. These forced converts to Christianity lived clandestinely in the sixteenth century as Muslims, communicating in aljamiado— Spanish written in Arabic characters. More broadly, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, tells the story of an early modern nation struggling to deal with diversity and multiculturalism while torn by the fanaticism of the Counter-Reformation on one side and the threat of Ottoman expansion on the other. Harvey recounts how a century of tolerance degenerated into a vicious cycle of repression and rebellion until the final expulsion in 1614 of all Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula. ”

The source supplied by Asilah1981, which I have accepted in good faith, with emphasis added. Are you Asilah1981 now saying this is wrong? Because I could take this source now and add this to the article as citing the current text. You keep shouting WRONG but when your own source confirms it, well I really don't know what to think.

I also looked at other sources, they seem to indicate that there is a fairly wide estimate of the numbers actually expelled. Now whilst I could readily accept an edit that reflects the range of estimates (reflecting the range of opinion in the literature) and equally well I could accept that given that is tangential to this article perhaps we don't need to put a number on it. But what I do have a problem is your proposal they weren't really expelled after all - the sources simply don't support it. WCM_email 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I don't currently have access to Harvey's last chapter "aftermath", I will try to get it and quote it so we don't have to rely on a review. As I mentioned, I do not propose that the Moriscos were never expelled, how could I possibly propose something as stupid is that? I make it clear that there are different views on what proportion of them were expelled (ranging from 90% to about 50% among the main academic authorities). As you say, (thanks for reading my sources) there is also a range of numbers proposed on how many were expelled, but the highest we come across is 350,000 (only in an older Spanish source). By what I see the real divergence is not on the number of expelled but on the number of Moriscos present in Spain prior to the expulsion, which ranges from one million to numbers based on the total orders of expulsion which are recorded to this day ( around 275,000). If we discussed in good faith we could find neutral wording which would correct the error. Do you know that if you just removed the word "all" and the actual number given, I would drop this one and we would save ourselves a lot of time? As you say, this is about Gibraltar so no need to go into details.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So if the text were changed from:

“ The problem worsened significantly after 1606, when Spain expelled its entire population of 600,000 Moriscos – Moors who had converted to Christianity. ”

To:

“ The problem worsened significantly after 1606, when Spain expelled its population of Moriscos – Moors who had converted to Christianity. ”

You would drop this? WCM_email

I would indeed drop it. Would you agree tweaking it to this? The term "Moors" feels outdated for 17th century Spanish Muslims and can be interpreted as slightly racist.

“ The problem worsened significantly after 1606, when Spain expelled the Moriscos – Muslims who had converted to Christianity. ”

Asilah1981 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK if Kahastok is onboard. WCM_email 22:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok that is a breakthrough. Lets take a break for now.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Kahastok talk 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I believe there is now consensus in this section to replace

“ The problem worsened significantly after 1606, when Spain expelled its entire population of 600,000 Moriscos – Moors who had converted to Christianity. ”

with

“ The problem worsened significantly after 1606, when Spain expelled the Moriscos – Muslims who had converted to Christianity. ”

in the section "Barbary pirate raids and wars with other European powers".

The words "its entire population of 600,000" are replaced with "the", and the word "Moors" with "Muslims". Kahastok talk 19:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done As this page is no longer protected, it does not require administrators to update it. Please ensure that contentious changes have been discussed and established consensus here on the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003243/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

'Tower of homage'

This term in the caption to the photograph at the head of the section 'Moorish rule':-

"The 14th-century Tower of Homage, the largest surviving fragment of Gibraltar's Moorish Castle."

It is essentially a literal translation from Castilian Spanish and somewhat misleading. Rather than being an colourful, mediaeval remnant, unique to Gibraltar, torre de homenaje is the standard Spanish term for what would be described in English as the castle 'keep,' or donjon from the mediaeval Anglo-French, which I believe is the preferred academic term.

I see that the same translation has been used in the 'Moorish Castle' article linked. While 'Tower of Homage' may be Gibraltarian usage, reflecting the particular cultural and linguistic mix of that community, as well as being an attractive label for tourist purposes, perhaps the name should briefly be set in context.

SEE: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Keep JF42 (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

JF42 (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that in the structure referred to as the "Tower of Homage" has been referred to variously as the "Moorish Castle' and also the "Torre de Calahorra" which indicates that the current label may well be of comparitively modern date. JF42 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See [14] I don't dispute your translation but that's what its called in the official guides. It may originally have been a mis-translation but the name appears to have stuck. WCM_email 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Section header

The section header entitled "Umayyad rule (711–1309, 1333–1462)" is factually incorrect. Umayyad dynastic rule is but an early subperiod of Islamic rule.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)