Talk:George of Hesse-Darmstadt

Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt conqueror for the british ?
It´s false and dishonest. The Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt conqueror Gibraltar for the future Charles III, king of Castile and Aragon not for the British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's just say "conqueror of Gibraltar" in the lead and explain the beginning of British rule in the body of the article, piping it to the subsection of History of Gibraltar dealing with this detail. It's Prince George's biography, and I would say that other things (such as his being the Viceroy of Catalonia for 3 years or the head of the Austrian Army in the WOSS) are more relevant for the lead than the details of Gibraltar's history after its capture (whether for Archduke Charles or the British). In any case, what is sourced about those details is the following: Poor Jordi conquered Gibraltar for Archduke Charles in 1704 and, after he left, there began a progressive (in fact, Archduke Charles landed in Gibraltar in 1705, this being the first Spanish soil he stood on) de facto control of Gibraltar by the British which led to a formal transfer in 1713. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The prince do not conquer Gibraltar for the british. The príncipe de Hesse sent to the people of Gibraltar a proclaim stating that the attacking force was acting on behalf of the King of Spain, Ok thank you for the correction. Regards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

De Facto Control
As you are no doubt aware Imalbornoz, the sources are far from in agreement as to the point at which the British established de facto control. As sources are in conflict such a simplistic statement though sourced is utterly misleading as to the weight of opinion in the literature. You could equally well source an utterly contrary opinion eg Hills, Jackson. So why not wait until there is an independent third party opinion on this before restoring yet again. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have just removed a sourced edit, reverting it to your own previous edit. As per WP:BRD (which you have supported several times in your discussions with other editors), please return the article to the previous consensus (reached by myself with Narson, if you look at the history of the article) while we discuss this. The accuracy of the source is being discussed (you seem to call it misleading while other editors support it), and our mediator will soon post a question in the noticeboard. We should wait for the third opinion before you make any changes. You have been sanctioned several times for your disruptions. I strongly encourage you to self-revert. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed an edit that I consider doesn't accurately reflect the views of a number of sources. If you can provide me with extensive quotes from the source you have cited, so that we can better consider the evidence then we may both reconsider.  I asume of course that you actually have the source you've just quoted.


 * But as other sources indicate there is a considerable difference of opinion to whit:


 * Jackson, p 113


 * “ As the ink dried on the Treaty of Utrecht, which turned Gibraltar from a Hapsburg into a British fortress and city... ”


 * Hills p202:


 * “ The record of the salutes fired shows clearly one point of importance. From 1705-1712 the garrison commander recognized Gibraltar to be "the King of Spain's". Right from 1705, however, there were men in London, Lisbon and elsewhere anxious to make it the "Queen of England's ”


 * So in this case given there is a disparity of views, so that attaching it to the departure of the Prince, which only reflects one of them I am not inclined to self-revert but of course prepared to work with you to construct an edit in talk that accurately reflects the multitude of views in sources. You have yourself acknowledged there are multiple relevant viewpoints  and I'm sure you wouldn't want to mislead wikipedia's readers would you?  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, those cites you mention do support that Gibraltar was "de jure" or nominally Habsburg (which is mentioned in the removed text), but they do not contradict a "de facto" British control. The cite you have just removed explicitly mentions de facto British control:


 * "Prince George had been killed in the fighting at Barcelona in 1705 and there was nobody in Charles's entourage to take an interest in Gibraltar. The fortress was kept going by supplies and reinforcements sent by the British Government and Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, although it only became so dejure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713."


 * In any case: 1) this is being discussed in MEDCAB and 2) BRD should apply while we are discussing. Narson and I exchanged some edits in January 2010 and finally found a consensus version. I will return the cited text while we discuss. Please, do not revert war. It is disruptive, and you have been warned before. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You yourself have acknowledged that the historical record is not as black and white as your edit would suggest. Simularly the article is on the person and Gibraltar as such is tangentially relevant.  Whether it should be in the article at all is a matter for discussion.  And things can change.  Taking an issue to the talk page and offering to work on an edit is not disruptive.  I am offering to work on this, please respect that.  Please also do not continue your practise of threatening me with admin action.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, I request that you provide me with more evidence from your source so that we can better evaluate what the source actually says. I only ask because, for example, you claimed Andrews p.55 was about 1707, whereas in fact it was discussing the period 1713-1727.  And of course, several other examples where the source wasn't fully quoted or selectively quoted and ignoring contrary information.  You of course appreciate the need to properly evaluate the information from sources. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We are expecting some third opinion about this issue. Your removing sourced text while we are discussing with the help of mediation is very disruptive. I don't want to enter a revert war. I am more interested in your behaviour than in getting you sanctioned again. You have just come out of a sanction, which was lessened from a topic ban to a 0RR thanks to Richard Keatinge's and my own acceptance; you breached the 0RR once, and neither Richard nor myself reported it, we instead chose to warn you . I am warning you again. Please self-revert. Let's try to focus on the discussion and not on edit wars. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never breached any editing restriction ever and I would appreciate an apology for that accusation. Nor do I have any intention to edit war over this.  Just for your information Imalbornoz, you have in the past often breached 3RR and I have never reported you.  I am asking you do discuss how to properly treat this in a manner appropriate to the article and which reflects the multitude of views that are apparent in multiple reliable sources; you have acknowledged that there is more than one opinion on this issue.
 * I really do not understand your position on this. You acknowledge [here that there is more than one opinion in the literature.  Is that what you really want me to do, to put erroneous and misleading information into an article?
 * Now, I've asked if you could perhaps share some more extensive quotes from the source so that we can better evaluate the source you're using. Are you prepared to do that? YES/NO.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I restored your text and added additional opinions to reflect the range of opinions in the sources, edited the text to make plain this is the opinion of the editors involved. Now again could I ask that you supply rather more than you have in terms of evidence, as although you have provided a google snippet I do find this does often prove to be rather misleading unless you can see more of the context of the discussion in the literature.  Thank you.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)