Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar

The following is an archived discussion of Political development in modern Gibraltar's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Political development in modern Gibraltar

(

)

... that civilian government in Gibraltar (Gibraltar Parliament pictured) only emerged in the 20th century because its governors gave priority to its role as a military fortress?

Reviewed: Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections.

Created/expanded by Wee Curry Monster (talk). Self nom at 10:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Fix the nomination adding the proper links. Cambalachero (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you actually want fixed? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The current hook is fine, but File:The Evacuation of the Gibraltarians.jpg does not mention the authors of the statue itself (or a freedom of panorama claim). File:Joshua Hassan.jpg seems a bit suspicious: it is a low resolution image of a politician inside a room, seems likely to be taken from somewhere else. Same for File:Joebossano.jpg. As for the article itself, it is about Gibraltar (which I have seen that is a very controversial topic, even with people requestion a ban of Gibraltar-related articles), and more, it is about politics. I don't really know anything about Gibraltar, so someone else should check the neutrality of the content, to prevent dramas. For the moment, clarify the copyright status of the images I pointed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: According to his talk page, the nominator has retired, and may not reply to the requests formulated here. Cambalachero (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on the History of Gibraltar, so I'm happy to take this on. I'll have a look at the article and see what issues need to be fixed. I suggest putting this nomination on hold for a few days while I do so. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The image of Joshua Hassan was taken by Gibmetal77, Joe Boassano was taken by Gibnews who I know personally. Both images have the appropriate caveats and there is no reason to suggest there is anything problematic about either in terms of copyright. Both editors are in good standing and there is no evidence of copyright violations by either. I see the raising of copyright as a red herring here that shouldn't prevent the nomination proceeding. I do pride myself on writing for a NPOV and rather resent the implication otherwise. The article is not about politics per se it is about the emergence of civlian Government and how it was hampered by the role of Gibraltar as a military installation.

I have retired but I do respond to talk page messages as I get an email prompt. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright compliance is not a "red herring", it is part of the eligibility criteria (and in fact, a standard for ALL articles, regardless of anything else). See Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria. Photos of statues must have either a copyright license involving the author or a claim of freedom of panorama, just the photographer license is not enough. I'm admin in Commons, I know what I'm talking about. The image of Joshua Hassan appears here as well, a blog written in 2007, a year before the upload. A as it is a blog and the image has only the upper part of the one uploaded here, it seems clear that the original image is taken from somewhere else. Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that both images were actually originally uploaded by Gibnews. The Hassan one looks a bit odd - it looks more like a capture from a video. WCM, given that you know Gibnews personally, do you think you could ask him to verify that he did actually take both pictures himself, as opposed to simply uploading them? Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I already have done so, Gibnews is a political journalist in Gibraltar and has access to the GoG. He took both himself, he has offered to comment here but I'm afraid he feels his honesty has been questoned on the basis of an article reprinting some of his photos without acknowledgement and that didn't do his temper much good. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If he took the original photo and published it somewhere else, it was uploaded in internet, and then he provided it to commons or wikipedia under a free license, then things are a bit more complicated. He should mention that publication, disclose his real identity in a OTRS permission, and clarify that the copyright belongs to him and not to the publication, as to be able to re-license it (or clarify if it was published under a free license to begin with). Cambalachero (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen

I've given up on Wikipedia because I'm really fed up with the attitude of a cabel of editors who seem to want to have a go at anything or anyone from Gibraltar, and me in particular.

As a photographer I've created a large number of images since the fifties with a box camera, and as technology advanced, I kept up.

I chose to donate some images, in low resolution, to the Wikipedia Commons in order to illustrate pages about Gibraltar. At the time I filled in the licence specifications - the earlier ones were PUBLIC DOMAIN and the later ones CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION, not that I've ever seen a photo credit when they are used.

MY images of Sir Joshua and Joe Bossano have been used in countless publications, websites and blogs subsequently because they have been copied from Wikipedia Commons. The image of Sir Joshua on that blog was published in 2009 and is a derivative work of the commons one I posted WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL.

Yes its a crappy picture, He died in 1997 and I did not have a multimegapixel Nikon D800 then, in 1991 I had a VHS camcorder which had a resolution of 320 x 240 pixels. No doubt someone has a better pictures of the two, but they have not contributed it to Wikipedia. It was originally uploaded to wikipedia and later to the Commons, but its been around for some time. Originally there was no facility to specify ownership properly.

Later pictures I took of:

Ándalus first flight to Gibraltar.jpg
Iberia_plane_at_the_Gibraltar_Airport.jpg

Have been arbitrarily deleted.

So I am asked to Publish my real identity for the benefit of a bunch of anonymous editors? Since when is that a pre-requisite of contributing images to Wikipedia Commons? Who else does this??

I see there are currently around 40 low resolution images I've added to Wikipedia Commons, my current images archive contains 40,000 high resolution images amounting to 150Gb of data growing daily, but no more here !

Yes Gibraltar is a 'very controversial topic' so put it on the front page of Wikipedia every day until the Spanish give up their outdated sovereignty claim, or sweep it under the carpet, as they would prefer.

Should anyone want to claim MY WORK as theirs, I'm interested to hear from them, but nobody has done to date. BUT I do not intend to enter into a protracted debate here - I have a life and intend to use it taking photos not arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet as its a fools game --Gibnews (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Still needs two full reviews as a Gibraltar hook: BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My copyright comments have not been adressed Cambalachero (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have, you can't force someone to provide their identity on wikipedia. As the original copyright holder he had the right to upload the image, the blog you find is using that image without permission. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The question remains unresolved: authorized or unauthorized, how did the blog obtain the photo before it was uploaded to Wikipedia, if it wasn't published somewhere else before? And if it was published somewhere else before, the orginal source must be identified, and his relation to it must be proved. Otherwise, I can also claim to work in some newspaper and upload all their photos claiming that I took them. In any case, I opened a deletion request on the file, and this discussion may be continued on Commons Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you know that the blog published the photo before it was uploaded to wikipedia? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the assertions made by Cambalachero above about "his relation to it must be proved", it is necessary to mention here that the discussion on Commons ended as Keep, with only Cambalachero arguing otherwise; in that discussion, Wee Curry Monster suggested that Cambalachero should "Check your facts more carefully next time". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Review 1: New enough (at time of nomination), long enough (and then some). Hook fact is referenced via inline citations to Dodds, Klaus (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: 18–21., which I will AGF as an offline source. (It would've been nice for the nomination to mention where to find the hook fact in this quite long article!) I have no issues with the neutrality of the article and I do not believe it is unduly promotional. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Review 2: This is, overall, a very good piece of work and I can see it getting to Good Article status in the future. I've corrected a few minor typos. There are however some outstanding issues that I'd like the nominator to address: (1) the lead is definitely too short; it needs to be longer and to summarise the article, per WP:LEAD; (2) there are three referencing errors - refs 16, 31 and 32 don't point to any citations; (3) what makes spainexchange.com (ref 6) and historyofnations.net (ref 7) reliable sources? (4) several refs do not include any information on the publisher - refs 6, 7, 12, 51, 53, 54, 63, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75; (5) ref 73 is a dead link; (6) ref 75 is a bare URL which needs to be expanded into a proper reference. These issues should be fairly straightforward for the nominator to fix. As for the images, that's evidently been resolved on Commons, so I don't think we need to worry about that here. Prioryman (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why "civilian Government" is used instead of "civilian government"? Fram (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd suggest replacing "as" with "because" in the hook, because I think it's a bit clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will take those comments on board and respond over the next week. Many thanks for your review. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OK changed hook as suggested and expanded lede, will work on the rest soon. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for help on the problems with the citation templates, I can't see why they're not working. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The citations appear to be working now; what is the status of the rest of the issues I raised? Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Working on the publishers. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Working through them, most of the ones you raised are hyperlinked to the source. Is there something more you want? Not sure what your issue is there? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are still some sourcing issues: as I said above, what makes spainexchange.com (ref 6) and historyofnations.net (ref 7) reliable sources? They appear to be personal websites. Also, ref 73 is still dead. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

spainexchange.com is a commercial not-for-profit organisation promoting educational and cultural exchanges with Spain, its not a personal website. Ref 7 looks to be a personal site compiled from US State Dept publications. Do you think I should change the cites to a different source, I could quite easily for Ref 7. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough for spainexchange.com, do you think you could find an alternative for ref 7? If it's compiled from State Dept publications then it should be easy enough to dig up the original source. I wouldn't be inclined to trust a personally hosted version because we don't know how faithful it is to the original, whether it's been edited, etc. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, give me a chance please, I've had a little over a week, that was very premature. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And its done, you know some people have to get the book out of the library again. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think we are good to go now. Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)