Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gibraltar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:48, 6 November 2010 editWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits →Request for one-line comments on proposed changes: add← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:28, 11 November 2024 edit undo2a00:23c8:a72f:4a01:5dca:1695:e41c:6691 (talk) →Ethnic Groups: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App talk reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Calm}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{British English}}
{{Article history
| action1 = GAN | action1 = GAN
| action1date = 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) | action1date = 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Line 9: Line 11:
| currentstatus = FGAN | currentstatus = FGAN
| topic = geography and places | topic = geography and places
|otd1date=2004-08-04|otd1oldid=5008924
|otd2date=2005-04-30|otd2oldid=16335171
|otd3date=2006-04-30|otd3oldid=50688709
|otd4date=2007-04-30|otd4oldid=127175894
|otd5date=2007-08-04|otd5oldid=149140732
|otd6date=2007-09-10|otd6oldid=156655000
|otd7date=2008-09-10|otd7oldid=237226276
|otd8date=2009-08-04|otd8oldid=306019991
|otd9date=2009-09-10|otd9oldid=313012003
|otd10date=2010-08-04|otd10oldid=376687310
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{calmtalk}}
{{WikiProject GibraltarpediA |importance=Top}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Gibraltar}}
{{WikiProject Gibraltar |importance=Top}}
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography}}
{{WikiProject Countries }}
{{WPCD}}
{{WikiProject Cities |capital=y}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Gibraltar|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject UK|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Spain|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Spain |importance=Mid}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=B|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|British=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history |class=C |B1=yes |B2=yes |B3=yes |B4=yes |B5=yes |British=yes}}
{{WikiProject Phoenicia |importance=Low}}
}}
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-08-04|oldid1=5008924 |date2=2005-04-30|oldid2=16335171 |date3=2006-04-30|oldid3=50688709 |date4=2007-04-30|oldid4=127175894 |date5=2007-08-04|oldid5=149140732 |date6=2007-09-10|oldid6=156655000 |date7=2008-09-10|oldid7=237226276 |date8=2009-08-04|oldid8=306019991 |date9=2009-09-10|oldid9=313012003 |date10=2010-08-04|oldid10=376687310 }}

{{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=months|index=/Archive index |
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}} }}
{{afd-merged-from|Gibraltar in popular culture|Gibraltar in popular culture|10 March 2021}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 19 |counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(120d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Gibraltar/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Gibraltar/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}

== Parallels ==

I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:May I remind you that ] includes a section about not raking up past disputes, please stop it now. Please identify exactly what is wrong with the content I proposed, it is relevant, possibly too long and could be slimmed down but it is relevant and that is what is important. I will discuss content but if you continue to rake up past disputes per ] I will ask for the special conditions imposed by arbcom to be invoked. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Justin, I am just saying, I don't want to provoke another dispute - please don't overreact. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Focus on content, that is all I will say. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::I agree with Red Hat that the dispute article is a better place for this. I must admit I'd question whether a mention belongs in this article at all, bearing in mind that that section intends to represent Gibraltar politics as a whole and this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics. Given that, the text as proposed is certainly too long and detailed IMO. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree with all of this. Probably the best place for it is the international disputes section of ]? That's hardly got any information there at all. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Possibly but given this was brought up recently by Peter Caruana and is cited in numerous documents on the sovereignty dispute it is relevant. The more detailed text could go in another article but a slimmed down version is relevant here. It is also cited from a reliable source, it is verifiable and to avoid covering it would be to suppress relevant material. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree that it is sourced - but we're discussing its relevance, not whether it's original research. It's well written, so I sincerely encourage you to look at integrating it elsewhere on WP - ] really is its perfect home - the entirety of your addition would work perfectly there. We can also add a link to that article in the See Also section of the Gib article. How does that sound? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Please explain why the analogue of Spanish enclaves in Moroccan territory, in part only 15 km away, are not of relevance? I contend the relevance is compelling and have sources that confirm this. I have already conceded the text I initially proposed is overly large for this article, it would be more relevant elsewhere. Here, I am suggesting a brief coverage pertinent to an overview article. Please address what I actually propose. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::For the reasons stated by Pfainuk: "this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics". And, to put my own perspective on it too, what you added - even if we massively trim it down - is really an analysis of Spain's territorial disputes - ''Spain'' is the common thread amongst Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla and Oliveira, not Gibraltar, and this is an overview article of Gibraltar. Anyway, I'm obviously not going to convince you, and, I have to say, vice versa, so this will be a matter for consensus. Let's see what others have to say. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ps it is late there in Scotland - time to hit the hay?
::::::::Given this has been raised by Peter Caruana QC, Chief Minister, Government of Gibraltar, as I point out above, the relevance is actually established. And again as I point out above the analogue with the situation in Gibraltar is compelling. I have already demonstrated a willingness to dicuss content and have already changed position. Focus on content please. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:{{outdent|::::::}}I don't see that relevance to an overview article like this one is established by any comments so far of the Chief Minister. Spain's other issues are worth passing mention by him, but they aren't directly relevant. If he and other leading spokesmen in this dispute all said that Spain's other territorial disputes are all part of the same dispute, I'd change my mind, but he hasn't and neither has, for example, the foreign minister of Spain. I'd support a brief mention of this issue in the Dispute article, all or a lot of it in Foreign relations of Spain, and none here. ] (]) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry Richard, do you have a source that says it isn't relevant to Gibraltar or is that your personal opinion and/or original research - neither of which are grounds that I find are relevant to wikipedia for not supporting the inclusion of material in an article. Let us actually look at this objectively. Spanish enclave on the edge of Moroccan territory less than 15km away, that Morocco would like to see returned but the people living there don't wish to be part of Morocco, and Spain supports their right to self-detemination, a British enclave on the edge of Spanish territory but Spain denies they have a right to self-detemination and does not respect their wishes not to be part of Spain. But this doesn't merit a mention in the Gibraltar article? Such a compelling analogue and it doesn't merit a mention? Sorry but I think your argument is completely unsustainable and is based on grounds that are not relevant to the policies of wikipedia. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::It's not a matter of sourcing, nor indeed of policy - it's a matter of ''relevancy''. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Sorry but I happen to have sources that establish relevancy and seriously I don't see how it can be argued that it is not relevant. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::It isn't relevant because no legal or practical part of the case on Gibraltar would be significantly affected even if all the other parallels had never existed. They simply have nothing to say to the status of Gibraltar. I suppose we could put in a comment, probably on ] if there isn't one there already, to say that the issue has been brought up in this context. ] (]) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::On what grounds do you base that assertion? {{cquote|''Of course, Spain argues this while happily sitting on a dozen separate enclaves on another continent, Africa, including two cities, in the territory of what would otherwise naturally be the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.''
''Spain passionately believes these to be Spanish by virtue of history, the passage of time (around 500 years) and the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco did not exist at that time in the same legal form as it exists now.''
''With respect, those distinctions seem wholly insufficient to justify Spain holding and advocating diametrically opposed positions in the cases of Gibraltar and her own enclaves in North Africa just 15 kilometres away from Gibraltar across the Strait of Gibraltar.''}}
:::::: {{cquote|''In this respect, the Spanish have a convincing argument that the British occupation of Gibraltar is anomalous given its location compared to Britain. However, such an argument is undermined by Spain’s similar occupation of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa.''}}
::::::Legal opinion does consider it relevant, the latter is the work of a legal scholar. I think that the fact they're 15 km away from Gibraltar is also of great significance. And all I'm arguing for is a very brief mention. Sources demonstrate the relevance. Your assertion it is not relevant based solely on your <u>personal opinion</u> is not grounds based that I find acceptable on Misplaced Pages given that relevance can be sourced. You have not advanced a policy based objection to any of my proposals. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Your quotation is of a lawyer mentioning, in a footnote, a populist argument. Again it might do for a very small comment in ]. ] (]) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Policy based objection, please. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:{{outdent|::::::}}It's a populist point of no legal relevance and minimal notability. A brief mention might fit in an article on the dispute, in which context it has some notability. But not in an overview article. ] (]) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:Legal relevance is established above, notability is established by the source quoted - which is a speech at the UN. Populist point? There you have me, please explain how that is based on grounds ''acceptable to wikipedia''? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::Legal relevance is not established by your source, nor sufficient notability by PC's comments. Its only relevance is that it establishes some degree of inconsistency in Spanish policy and this point is popular in some quarters. In the Dispute article it might be worth a brief comment. ] (]) 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:::This you're going to have to explain. A legal opinion in a legal journal by an academic that is not legal relevance? Notability related to a speech at the UN by Peter Caruana but the UN isn't notable or he isn't? Inconsistency in Spanish policy toward Gibraltar but that is not relevant on the grounds that it is popular in some quarters? I don't see a policy based argument here at all, certainly not grounds that are relevant to wikipedia. Sorry but I really don't, so far you've reverted/vetoed any change that I have proposed but I don't see policy grounds for those at all. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a good moment to call for further opinions. I insert here Justin's edit that is the subject of this section:

"<s><b>Parallels with Spanish territories<b>

The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.

Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.

Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.

Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."</s>

And I would really appreciate the advice of anyone who can take the time to read through this section and advise on whether this text should be in the article, in the above or any form. A more formal request for comments may be appropriate if this doesn't get us anywhere. ] (]) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:May I request that you strike through the text above, because that isn't actually what I propose. That is text I plan to put elsewhere, when I have the time. The proposal is actually a brief resume of the analogy of Ceuta/Melila and its relevance to the politics of Sovereignty and that is all. Thank you. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

::OK, could we have your revised proposal then? ] (]) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

== POV Tag ==

I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

:I agree here. The paragraph beginning "Under its current Constitution," ought to represent the fact that Gibraltar's internal security and judiciary are not controlled by the UK government. For information on the police in particular, I suggest as a useful source. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
::I'm sure it can be reworded. I don't think a POV tag is warranted really, we can discuss on the talk page. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry but I disagree, the text here misrepresents the Government and politics of Gibraltar and the POV is skewed. Until that is corrected then I feel a POV tag is warranted. I will also point out, that I previously pointed the need to correctly represent the way Gibraltar is governed but that was ignored to insert the current text, which is seriously biased. It needs more than rewording, it needs to be completely rewritten with regard to the policy of ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

::::At the moment we have (omitting the references): "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government."

:::::What rewording would anyone like to suggest, bearing in mind the rather extensive discussion now happily relegated to the archives or remaining in the references? What about: "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen." ] (]) 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Looks fine to me. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:{{outdent|::::}}It is misleading thats what wrong with it. The Governor is a figurehead, he doesn't select and appoint judges, he doesn't select the chief constable or run internal security in Gibraltar. If we have this edit then that is the implication. Tell me Richard, does the Queen appoint judges in your area personally, or does she appoint the Chief Constable? So in which case why does the Gibraltar article state that the Governor as representative of the Queen does verbatim as fact. Is that really fine? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::Formally the Governor and the Queen do such things. As a matter of practice they normally rubber-stamp local decisions, possibly offering gentle guidance behind the scenes. Or am I wrong? ] (]) 06:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Excuse me but are you really suggesting that the Queen or Governor steer decisions on the judiciary? They do no such thing and were either to try and interfere, there would be the most tremendous row. The point is rubber-stamping local decisions, as a figurehead, though you'd never know that from reading this article. The article implies it is the day to day job of the Governor to hire/fire judges and run the police force. The Governor does no such thing and thats why this article is misleading. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::::We seem to agree on the facts; the present painfully-achieved wording seems to give a fairly good representation of them though I make a suggestion for possible improvement above. What do you suggest? ] (]) 09:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::No the wording doesn't give a fairly good representation, it is misleading readers implying the Governor is in charge of the judiciary and the police. The text needs to make plain that the judiciary is independent, the Governor is a figure head as Queen's representative whose function is solely to rubber stamp local decisions of an independent judiciary and not to make those decisions. Similarly with internal security, it needs to be made plain this is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with the Governor as a figure head rather than in day-to-day control. That is what I suggested long ago, it deals with the text neutrally and explains it to readers. Misplaced Pages should be about breaking down prejudices based on misinformation, as currently written it re-inforces them. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::The Governor is indeed more or less a figurehead, like the Monarch - until something goes severely wrong. See for example ]. That is when the reserve powers become obvious and real. There are analogies with the actions of King Juan Carlos I against the ] coup. Yes, I am (though a humble ordinary citizen) somewhat aware of the various unwritten conventions and expectations surrounding these things. But the present text, while no doubt improvable, is at least accurate. Could we have suggestions, rather than overstatements?

UNINDENT

Richard, it is actually unhelpful to make comments like alleging I am overstating the position. I have made a suggestion for a proposed edit, do you accept the basis or do you want to pontificate further? The present text is not accurate, it does not conform to NPOV - omitting details like the figurehead status of the governor is tantamount to misrepresenting the GoG by omission.

Only ''in extremis'' is the Governor able to intervene and in that case it would actually be the UK Government that does so, in the normal course of events it is a purely symbolic position and Gibraltar is governed by the people and for the people. And in many case the GoG has demonstrated it will act independently and in blatant opposition to the British Government, such as recent events when the Blair Government proposed to share sovereignty with Spain. So again my proposal is to explain the symbolic status of the Governor and that power is vested in local institutions such as the GPA and the local independent judiciary. As an aside I don't find the comments about the Spanish king of relevance since the Queen would never intervene in that manner.

Could we discuss my content proposal please, then move ahead to discussing text? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:The present text describes the reality accurately and briefly. I don't think that this article needs to go into the conventions of constitutional monarchy any more than, say, the ] article does. Could we have your suggested text? ] (]) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::I don't intend to write prose, if you're simply going to go "no, no, no". And yes the article does need to go into those conventions, especially when they're being used to present a misleading view of how Government works. Quit stalling please. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:::OK, but writing some constructive suggestion would almost certainly help and is better than endless nonspecific argumentation. Anyway, I can't think of any way of making my point clearer than my last comment immediately above. My suggested new text is "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen." ] (]) 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::No it needs more details than that, which I will write if there is a will to consider them objectively and not simply reject by reflex because of past issues. That is what I fear going to the effort of writing it, to hear, no, no, no. A few simple sentences shouldn't need this microscopic examination. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

== Archive ==

I have restored the archiving of this talk page after Justin's reversion. The page is extremely long - any threads that are pertinent to a discussion can be linked to on the archive page. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:Well I feel that at least some of that material is germane to current discussion so I am restoring it. Please can we focus on content of the article. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::It's there on the archive page - you can link to the threads that are relevant. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I have restored it as I said I would, it is more convenient to have the material to hand. May I suggest you read ], archiving was premature IMHO. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

== Overview article ==

This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats certain events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in ''SPAIN'' not ''GIBRALTAR'', and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as I edited tonight, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. Much as I suggested months ago before we had an outbreak of atrocity tennis. Seems to me that there is certain inconsistenty in the standards on deciding on content. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:On the reprisals sentence, I agree with you. I don't think this sits well there, and I do think it is too much detail for an overview article. On the mention of San Roque, I don't agree with you that it should go. Either way though, this text was the result of a consensus - it sat untouched for several months, so please, let's discuss in a cool and calm atmosphere, OK? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::I am happy to discuss content in a cool and calm atmosphere. But threats like and posts like and indicate to me that you intend to continue to focus on the past. Please let us focus on content as I have pleaded thus far. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but you've gone about this in completely the wrong way. You quoted ] above regarding talk page archiving, but then you fail to follow it yourself, on an extremely contentious edit which you know there is no consensus for, which you know was a major cause of us ending up at ArbCom, and which - from the talk page posts you didn't let me archive - you can see we reached consensus on. As such, I've filed a report at ] . <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::::No I have not, I made a bold edit, that you disrupted half way through. I simply compeleted it and initiated a discussion. In actual fact, there was no consensus for including this material - you and others chose to tag team edit war that material into the article. And again you drag up the past and use the threat of admin action to impose content rather than discussing. There is also a major inconsistency in your approach. Above you insist we shouldn't include material on the grounds you assert it is relevant to Spain but tangential to Gibraltar; an argument that isn't sustainable given the prominence in sources. Yet something that ''is'' tangential to Gibraltar but relevant to Spain you insist must be included and edit war to impose it. I am prepared to discuss it but if you insist on personaling this discussion as a dispute and make personal attacks and accusations as you've done at ANI I will be going to arbitration enforcement. I have given you plenty of warnings. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the last stable version. Sort it out here before engaging in another edit war please ] (]) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

:I have no intention to edit war as I stated. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::Justin, may I suggest at we break your edit into two parts - San Roque and non-San Roque. On the latter, again, I am in agreement with you and if others are too, would support the removal of that sentence. However, given the relative stability of the article in past months, let's proceed to make changes on the basis of consensus. Please? The ArbCom business was a stain on everybody, whether or not we got sanctioned (ie including me), and we should do all we can to avoid the sorts of behaviours which will have us returning there. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

::I have made no reference to arbcom or raked up the past, I pleaded that you didn't and you were out of order to do so. I gave you no cause and your post at ANI was simply needlessly provocative. If you agreed with part of my edit why revert all of it? Your editing behaviour makes no sense at all.
::Again I will discuss content with you that is all and please respect my request to stay off my talk page. Anyway I am off to bed to sleep on matters. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 01:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'' agreed with part of your edit, but I know others won't. Therefore, it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to allow removal of the bit I agree with removing and to put back the bit I don't. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::::That is a bizarre argument, if you don't agree with it, why did you side with a faction demanding atrocity tennis is included in the article. Sorry but the historical record in the archive shows you adopting a very different position when I suggested this wasn't appropriate for an overview. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review and possibly more opinions. Here is the longish-consensus text that we have at present, minus references:
"On 4 August 1704, during the ], a combined ]-] force captured the town of Gibraltar. The ] provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to ] and other ]."

and here is Justin's slimmed down version:
"On 4 August 1704, during the ], a combined ]-] force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to ]."

Justin's edit removes details of the disturbances after the conquest of Gibraltar, which Red Hat agrees might well go as too detailed for an overview article, and it also removes mention of San Roque as the destination for most of the refugees.

The consensus text on the disturbances was carefully and painfully crafted as balanced (and I think it is). However I agree that it's also too detailed and personally I'd be happy to see it go. Justin's text here also strikes me as acceptably balanced.

San Roque is an ongoing hot button because the modern town (about 7km from Gibraltar) maintains historical continuity (or identity) with Spanish Gibraltar. It is mentioned in many references as the main destination, ahead of many other details, and the ongoing claim may also be thought to give its foundation some degree of notability. The inclusion of the name "San Roque" had already been the subject of a very long argument - if I remember rightly, starting about archive 15. I haven't changed my opinion here; it should be in. It's true and highly notable in the context.

Could we have some comments on:

Whether to include the fuller version of the disturbances?

Whether to mention the name "San Roque"? ] (]) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:I must first say that this is a pivotal episode in the history of Gibraltar (the one with possibly the largest impact in the last 500 years of the Rock): the point when Gibraltar started to be under the influence of a new country, with a new population, with impact on its culture, language, ethnicity, economics, politics... That's why it is explained in a lot of detail in all modern sources when they talk about the history of Gibraltar.
:I must add that I am happy with the current version, I don't find it exceedingly long and it's quite balanced. But I would be eager to agree on a shorter text in order to make other editors happier. On the other hand, I think that even a shorter version should mention *why* "the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous" (even if in a shorter text): it was not because of fear of revenge or bombs or sickness (as the article used to explain and certain editors used to defend -without proper sourcing- in the past), but because of the atrocities that were committed by the invading forces. I find this very important, and it's very widely mentioned even in English sources (albeit, almost only since the middle of the XX century -it used to be silenced by English sources before, that's a fact if you look at the sources).
:I also think that the main destination of the population of Gibraltar in 1700 is historically relevant according to the sources -enough to be in the History section of an overview article.
:Thanks, Richard, for the suggestions. -- ] (]) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

::Richard, bear in mind our dicussion on the Timeline article and also bear in mind I suggested in something like Archive 15 the necessity of including what I call "atrocity tennis" was completely inappropriate for an overview. Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. One, is the behaviour of the troops, two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town. I personally feel that latter is the one that most stands up to logical examination as by the time of the exodus order had been restored. Personal opinion however is not the basis of my argument, which is that for any text to approach NPOV you'd have to cover all bases in that respect, which is clearly impractical in an overview which should be brief. I want to emphasise, however, that this has been my approach from <u>day 1</u>, whereby I would prefer the details to go into the Main history article with minimal coverage here commensurate with an overview. They left because they felt it was dangerous covers all bases in that respect.
::Secondly San Roque falls into the same category. The exodus was not as simple as suggested. The fishermen of the town, which by the way Gibraltar being a fishing town prior to 1704 you might expect to form a major population, settled to form the modern town of Algeciras. Initially a number settled around what is now called San Roque but then dispersed wider. The sources don't match either, 4000 left with 6000 settling in San Roque? I fear that at least some of the sources have history confused to focus on modern claims. Also why mention San Roque but not mention Algeciras or any other town that spang up as the result of the events of 1704? Also San Roque didn't exist at the time, it was founded several <u>years</u> later. The sources actually mention the population settling in what became San Roque. So if you do actually mention it, they settled at a location where the town of San Roque was subsequently founded - that is supported by sources. But then is that appropriate for an overview article, focused on <u>Gibraltar</u>
::Hence, if we are to deal with the exodus my suggestion is that the best approach is to keep it brief and deal with the details in the History article. Hence, my argument based upon ] is that it this material detail belongs elsewhere. IT is peripheral and tangential to Gibraltar, much as you're arguing above Richard on other details you consider peripheral and tangential. And again there I am arguing on the basis of ]. This is a perfectly valid argument for wikipedia and breaking my promise to myself not to go over the past, Richard your assertion that my arguments weren't valid for wikipedia was deeply hurtful and I consider an outrageous slur and still do.
:::Inclusion of the details is arguable either way. The details are an important reason for the strength of feeling behind the ongoing claim. If we do have details we need to give a balanced account, especially in a "hot button" issue, and the present text is the balanced product of a very long negotiation. ] (]) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
::::No Richard, it was in fact a solution you chose to '''impose''', tag team edit warred to force into the article and dismissed any disseting voice as "not grounds suitable for wikipedia". It was not a negotiation and that is why I contest it to this day and only why. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
::The fact that San Roque is a hot button to press in the sovereignty dispute I have consistently said from <u>day 1</u> is not grounds to exclude it. But it does make it behoven upon us to consider the matter carefully and balance whether including it is giving due coverage or by including it we tip the balance into POV territory. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
:::See the archives for details; briefly, San Roque was a hamlet and a convenient place for refugees from Gibraltar to ease their sad and weary legs. Most fled there but not all stayed, and some went elsewhere, the fishermen presumably to places accessible from the sea and with more fish to catch. (To judge by San Roque's rather dry appearance on Google Earth, few places have less fish to catch. Only a very stupid fisherman would have tried sailing there. Nipping over the bay to Algeciras would have been an obviously-better alternative.) San Roque got its royal charter a few years later, not one calculated to relieve anxiety in British Gibraltar, describing San Roque as the city of Gibraltar resident in its <i>campo<i> and so on.
:::The notability of San Roque as a destination has been fairly thoroughly established. I could trawl the archives, but, to reiterate, it is mentioned in multiple good sources ahead of many less important details. ] (]) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Justin, we have already gone over this over and over. You are wasting your (and everybody else's) time if you just repeat yourself without bringing sources. Please, don't. In fact, I am ready to accept:
:::#That villagers in part fled because of fear of revenge if you cite proper sources. Sources support the fear of atrocities ("English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day." Jackson, William. The Rock of the Gibraltarians. pp. 100-101). We have NO SOURCES supporting fear of revenge. If you have found any, please, CITE the source, author, page and if possible QUOTE them.
:::#That San Roque was not the main destination if you support it properly. There are many sources supporting that San Roque was the main destination . If you have any sources supporting the opposite, please CITE them (source, author, page, and -if possible- QUOTATION).
:::Otherwise, we will have to assume that you are indulging in ] and/or ]. Thanks. -- ] (]) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Richard, ''notability'' I conceded long ago that not being the issue and never was in my opinion, ''relevance'' for this article I questioned and still do. I long ago established that many overview articles do not feel the need to merit a mention. That of itself seems a better test for relevance than detailed historical texts focused on that period of time. I feel the place to conisgn the detail is another article focused on the history. I've not seen anything that changes my mind on that matter.
::::I would also ask that you don't mix your comments with mine, as I almost missed that you had done so. Also you did not state that it was arguable either way, that I could have conceded and agreed to differ. You STATED my reasons were on grounds not relevant to wikipedia, that was an outrageous slur and it <u>still</u> rankles.
::::Imalbornoz, your comments bear no relation to mine, so I do not feel the need to respond in detail. I noted that sources support '''multiple''' reasons and your proposed text has and always has focused on '''one'''. That doesn't seem appropriate to conform to our policy of NPOV. Focus on the content and please stop making these personal attacks. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
(Justin, I purposely didn't mention names when I made that comment, and I don't even think that I had you in mind. There had been earlier nationalist insults by other parties. I don't propose to repeat them. ] (]) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC))
::::::Richard, go back and look again and consider it from my perspective and how you would have interpreted it - particularly with my comments on your talk page of February 4. You had your chance to explain that it wasn't directed at me but didn't. You responded in terms I find dismissive. Secondly it was not a solution arrived at by negotiation it was an imposed solution. Mediators should never impose solutions, full stop. You crossed the line into participant and still claimed to be objective. No that isn't how it works. So please don't claim it was arrived at by negotiation because that does not reflect how it got there. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Justin, this is no personal attack. It just is a perfectly wikipedic request for you to cite sources.
:::::You have made some assertions as you proposed to eliminate any mention of the atrocities in the article: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…)two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town." Then you go on to say that we would have to mention all the bases, which is too much detail, and thus everything should go in the History article. Please support those statements (cite those "sources" you talk about with author, page and if possible quotation) so that we all can have a constructive discussion. Thanks. -- ] (]) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::It was full of personal attacks Imalbornoz. Both Richard and RHoPF acknowledge my proposal has merit, none of us feel this example of "atrocity tennis" adds to the article, too detailed and the issue is just too much for an overview. You appear to have strong feelings that we must tell everyone that the British did many nasty things in 1704. Well strong emotions are not conducive to writing prose that meets NPOV.
::::::Richard, can we take this as RHoPF suggested in two parts, my deletion proposal and then perhaps look at the issue of San Roque afresh. I feel we need to separate the two. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


<b>Opinions please</b>

OK, could we ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence:
"The ] provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." ] (]) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Weak oppose</b> - the circumstances described are notable and have ongoing relevance, but may be a bit too much for an overview article ] (]) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: ] (]) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - as documented many times over, San Roque was the main destination, mentioned as such by many reliable sources ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article, and the circumstances of San Roque's foundation have ongoing relevance for anyone who wants to understand the ongoing problems. ] (]) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

::Justin says that sources mention multiple reasons (fear of revenge among them) for the population leaving Gibraltar, and therefore fear of the atrocities should not be singled out, and therefore there's no reason to keep it in the overview article.
::Again, please Justin, can you provide sources for your assertion: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…) two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."
::This is the '''third time that Justin is requested to provide those sources''' (and quotations if possible) that support his proposal. Everybody else has spent lots of time and effort to provide sources for each of their proposals. The '''least that we should ask from him is to spend some time sourcing his proposals before he asks everybody else to dedicate some effort''' to reopen yet again this issue. Thanks. -- ] (]) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

{{cquote|Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.}}

I presume you're familiar with it. Wait. Theres more. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

{{cquote|When the garrison marched out on 7 August almost all of the inhabitants, some 4,000 people in total, joined them. They had reason to believe that their exile would not last long; fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. They took with them the records of the city council including Gibraltar's banner and royal warrant. The newly founded town of San Roque thus became, as Philip V put it in 1706, "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo". A small population of neutral Genoese numbering some seventy people stayed behind in Gibraltar.}}

Chris's prose, which everyone agreed was an excellent summary. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Part of the reason for keeping the talk page record intact was for the ability to refer to the discussion that took place that you claim establishes consensus. I note that Pfainuk had this to say:

{{cquote|You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that.}}

I agree the text is clearly biased and the serious inaccuracies implied by it are important. I too can't accept it as conforming to a policy of NPOV. I note that despite these reservations is was nontheless imposed. I have therefore opted to make the text more agreeable with our policy of NPOV. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:Justin, regarding Pfainuk's comment: I don't know what he finds lacking in the article to make it biased, you can clearly see in the History section that "townspeople carried out reprisal killings", like sources say. On the other hand, no source mentions any "desecration" of bodies like he says.
:Most important: you said that the other reasons for leaving were:
:#"a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains"
:#"a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."
:I'm afraid I don't see the sources mention 1) any "fear of revenge" in the Spanish population, nor 2) any expectation of "a full blooded battle in the town" (the texts you cite do mention an expectation to return soon, but nothing else). Justin, can you please help me find where exactly in the text you can find any references to "fear of revenge" or "expectation of a full blooded battle"? Someone else? Thanks. -- ] (]) 11:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::I too can find no mention of "fear of revenge" or of battle among the Spanish population in the references that Justin gives. ] (]) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::The source does mention the expected Spanish counter attack, that is the point I made. The point being there was more than reason. Are you both claiming that it does not? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Self governing in the lede? ==

I have restored the lede to the previous consensus text. I hope we can see new reasonable arguments in the discussion and are able to reach a new consensus or keep the old one. Please let us all be reasonable and follow BRD. -- ] (]) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:The section I restored had a long standing consensus, much longer than the current text. It is an important qualification to indicate the devolved Government status of BOT like Gibraltar. The edit summary in the reversion is of itself demonstrating bias claiming the edit to violate NPOV - something hardly conducive to starting of a discussion reasonably. I trust there will be no further bad faith accusations and we will focus solely on content.
:The edit itself is accurate, reliable and sourced, satisfying ] and ]. The use and abuse of the C24 list to dispute this edit is not acceptable as it ] and ]. The criteria for inclusion by the C24 is bizarre in that it bears no relationship to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The C24 criteria lists states that are:
:*A sovereign state
:*An integral part of a sovereign state
:*A state in free association with a sovereign state
:The C24 list is used to promote a less than honest view of the level of self-government enjoyed by territories such as the Gibraltar. Its used and abused to deny the status of such territories to promote the fiction that they remain British colonies. Misplaced Pages should be about explaining this to readers not promoting fiction. NPOV is not about representing all viewpoints but rather covering mainstream views.
:If readers want to know what a BOT is, then we link to a perfectly serviceable article British Overseas Territory dealing with precisely this point. If they want to know details of the self-government enjoyed by the Gibraltar, or the issue of the C24, they could refer to the Politics section of this article once the biased and non-neutral nature of the text is corrected. There is benefit in distinguishing those BOTs that are self-governing from those that are under direct rule, but no benefit in going on and on about exactly what powers are involved in each case in the lede. That is ]. The point of the lede is not to put everything into the article in all its gory detail. If it was, then there wouldn't be any point in putting an article underneath it. The lede is there to summarise the topic only.
:I also give fair warning that unlike the past where I tried to reason with people and did not as a rule report disruptive behaviour, the first time I see a personal attack, accusation of bias, accusation of suppression, attempts to use my ethnic background to paint me as unreasonable, reams of text to block discussion, forum shopping or disruptive behaviour of any kind I will take it straight to ] and ask that the special sanctions are involed.
::Please do not take any bad faith accusations. I'm sure non-NPOV edits can be made with good faith also!!
::The last consensus in the article was NOT to include that expression (since February or March). About previous consensus: There was a previous consensus to INCLUDE it (which lasted since April until July 2009). And previously, the consensus was NOT to include it (for several years). Anyway, I am sure we can work with BRD now and reach a new consensus or keep the old one.
::Regarding your arguments, I have nothing to answer that has not been previously said: your source does not unequivocally say "self governing territory", but "self governing territory EXCEPT (...)"; also, some sources say that it is "NON-self governing" (UN, consultancy firms, newspapers, Spanish sources...) NPOV should require either to explain the different positions in the lede or to only deal with this issue with detail in the body of the article. This last option was the one chosen in order to reach the last consensus. -- ] (]) 12:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::No that is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue. It was not added prior to that as the current constitution was implemented in the same year it was added. Avoid making bad faith statements if you do not wish them to be taken as such.
:::NPOV does not require all positions to be dealt with in the lede as you assert, it requires that the article treats all mainstream view points with due prominence. NPOV also does not require us to give ] prominence to fringe viewpoints based on dogma rather fact. An article promoting a less than accurate viewpoint of the Government of Gibraltar for dogmatic reasons fails NPOV.
:::The article also previously caveated that defence and foreign relations were not within the purview of the GoG. And before you attempt to claim that the judiciary and internal security are included in this, Gibraltar has an judiciary independent of the executive and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority; both institutions being under local control. An attempt to confuse governance with Government will not be acceptable. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::ADD - if your objection is solely the lack of suitable caveats then there is a readily available solution. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Dear Justin, you say that my comment (that the term self-governing was in the lede for only a few months) "is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue." You also seem to say that the UN, Spain and other sources who do NOT say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory" are just "fringe" POVs and thus need not be put at the same level as your statement (which is that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory").
::::I'm afraid that your perception is very much mistaken. I think that the best option will be to leave prejudice for a moment and look at plain evidence. To begin with, can you please tell me the start and the end date for those TWO "uncontroversial" years until my "insistence on making it an issue"? Thanks. -- ] (]) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Withdraw the accusation of prejudice please, because I am not going to tolerate accusations of prejudice. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Also I will not indulge a post mortem of past events any more than I have already. Content discussions only please, I also stated clearly positions based on fact not dogma. I made no mention of nationalities and will not do so. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Withdrawn. Let's focus on evidence. You've made two statements, which I don't find evidence for. We disagree, so let's find a solution. Please provide the evidence, or realise the lack of it:
::::::#You've said that there was a two year long consensus for including the expression "self-governing territory" before a controversy took place (you've even said that my statement that the consensus lasted for only a few months was "misleading"). Please provide the evidence: the start and end date of those two years.
::::::#You say that sources that say that Gibraltar is not self-governing (UN, commentators, etc which have been provided in previous discussions) are fringe POVs. Please provide the support for that.
::::::Thank you. -- ] (]) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::No I am not going to go down the path of raking over the past, I was foolish to allow you to sucker me into that.
:::::::On the second point I said no such thing. I have explained till blue in the face that the UN C24 list is not based on objective judgement of Self-Government in Gibraltar but other parameters and to use that to deny the self-governing nature of Gibraltar is misleading. My other point is that Gibraltar has a written constitution, holds democratic elections, independent observers have validated the conduct of democracy in Gibraltar, the Government governs within its parameters, Gibraltar has an independent ''local'' judiciary and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority. So the sources that state the territory is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations are demonstrably based on objective verifiable fact. Sources that deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons are denying verfiable objective facts to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards. Yes they can be included in the article, as the dogmatic position they present condemns itself and I would happily include those arguments for that very reason. However, they cannot be used to deny verifable facts in the lede and giving them equal prominence in the lede violates our policy of a NPOV based on the presentation of objective verifiable fact.
:::::::There is plenty of objective verifiable sources to back up what I have argued. Now if you can demonstrate any source that denies the self-government of Gibraltar that is based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation you might have a case. But continuing to claim the UN supports that position when it does no such thing is certainly not a sustainable argument, neither is continuing your previous practise of raising tension by continuously misrepresenting my argument - I'm simply not going to allow that to continue and will seek arbitration enforcement if you do so. Neither is that an invitation to derail discussions by walls of text. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I see:
::::::::*You have reached the conclusion that "Gibraltar is self-governing" based on some verifiable facts. On the other hand, sources such as the UN, Gov. of Spain, commentators, etc. "deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons (...) to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards" and therefore their PoV should not be at the same level (at least in the lede). That's your (respectable) opinion.
::::::::*I have my own opinion (like you). My opinion is not important (only reputed secondary sources' is), but I will explain it to you. I think that Gibraltar has a level of self-government. But it does not reach plain self-government: it did NOT develop a constitution by itself (it was negotiated with and granted by the UK -who did not grant all the issues that the GoG demanded), it has no right of self-determination, many powers are in the hands of the Governor who usually does not interfere with the will of the GoG but reports (indeed) to the FCA office and -under certain circumstances- has the right to override the will of the GoG...
::::::::*What WP says is that my (or your) opinion should not be imposed on a WP article. The article should just reflect what relevant sources say. And here is where I disagree with you: UN IS a relevant opinion (as much as the GoG, UK, Spain, etc) and it literally says that Gib is a "non self-governing territory". Saying the opposite in the lede is not NPOV. Also, saying that something is "self-governing" when even according to the GoG and UK it is "self-governing EXCEPT ..." seems to me something like ].
::::::::I must say it is difficult to argue with someone who says that any source opposing your position is not "based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation".
::::::::Finally, please, when you say someone is "misleading" please check before. You said that the term "self governing territory" stood uncontroversially for two years in the lede (when I said that it was there only for a few months vis a vis several years of not being there). When I have asked you for evidence, you just have avoided the issue. You just have to check the history of the article (that's much easier than deciding which international organisations are relevant and/or dogmatic). Please tell me when you have checked whether your statement was true or false. Thanks. -- ] (]) 09:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

No, I said no such thing. I have explained the position of the UN so many times now, yet you repeatedly misrepresent my comments. I say the UN opinion is not relevant for the lede as it is not based on criteria judging ''governance'' but ''statehood'' and the two are not co-incident. To use the UN position to comment on ''governance'' is <u>mendacious</u> and <u>misleading</u>. Stop it, now please.
Secondly, no that is not my opinion, it describes how the ''sources'' I quoted derived ''their'' opinion based on objectively evaluating the facts of the situation. Sources that derive their opinion from dogmatic reasons that ''deny'' verifiable facts are not the suitable basis for NPOV. I make no comment whatsoever on their national or ethnic origin, merely that they assert ''black is white''. The only person to raise concerns on a nationalist basis is yourself. No matter the origin on the source, it is the basis of their argument that is the issue here.
Thirdly, your reasoning on the status of the Governor is specious. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have Governors whose theoretical powers are identical. Yet we would not qualify their level of self-government on that basis. Similarly the constitution has evolved in consultation between the British Government and people of Gibraltar - so what. Any transfer or devolution of power would require that to take place. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any ''former'' colony has had to go through that process. So to use that as a basis to deny self-government is not a sustainable argument by any stretch of the imagination. Also Spain and Holland and a number of other countries also still have a monarchy, are we to assert on that basis, falsely, they do no enjoy self-government as in theory the monarch can take over. You do not advance an argument that survives logical examination.
Fourthly, none of this is based on my personal opinion, it is based on sourced material from reliable sources that evaluate the facts objectively and do not distort facts to assert a position based on dogma. Do not go down the route of attempting to paint me as being unreasonable when I am advancing an argument based on objective evaluation of sources, compliant with wikipedia's policies on content. That is unreasonable and a personal attack, which I have already indicated I will not tolerate.
Fifthly, no again I will state the discussion is to focus on content, I am not going to be suckered into raking over the past and taking the discussion down a blind alley. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:Actually self-government was rather conspicuously qualified in Australia in 1975. In this article we have comments that describe the reality, that of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, quite well. Namely, self-government with significant reserved powers, used in unusual and difficult situations. That is the situation of quite a lot of territories - British and Spanish, for example. It does not amount to <i>unqualified</i> self-government, self-governance, or whatever. (Nor, rather more obviously in my humble opinion, does it amount to traditional colonial status.) It may be more important to describe the reality in the Gibraltar article precisely because remarks about "la colonia" and so on are still current. But there is no sensible argument for asserting "essential truths" which oversimplify the situation and omit critical nuances, and even less reason for putting them in the lede. ] (]) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::Actually there is a good reason for qualifying it in the lede. Not all BOT are self-governing, most are to varying degrees but those with a transient military or scientific population are not. I also did not propose unqualified self-government in the lede but qualified that defence and foreign relations are excluded. I have also not argued on the basis of "essential truths" but verifiability over truth. But again unfortunately the article doesn't describe the reality of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, the omissions explaining local dominance detract from it rather seriously. More on that later when I have the time. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I'd rather not discuss my own or any other editors' opinion about the "true" meaning of the term "self-governance" or on whether a territory is "in fact" self-governing or not, because we are neither reputed experts nor relevant sources. On the other hand I am ready to discuss about what different sources "literally" (i.e. without ]) say and whether a WP article is NPOV or not.
:::Following this premise, it is undeniable that:
:::#the UN General Assembly literally calls Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (with no "or", "except" or "but").
:::#not one other source simply calls Gibraltar a "self-governing territory", not even to make a summary; even the Gibraltar Prime Minister qualifies the term explaining the exceptions.
:::Therefore, I would conclude that it would be oversimplifying the issue to just say "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" or "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". I don't find myself (or you, Justin) in the position to perform that simplification. We'd better explain the different positions.
:::To make things easier, please look (again, the nth time since last July or August) at a list of sources:
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Source
! Term used in introduction
! Details in Politics / Gvt. section
|-
| UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)
| “British Overseas Territory”
| “Gibraltar has '''a considerable measure of devolved''' government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”
|-
| UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC)
| “'''almost complete internal''' self-government” (pg. 16)
| "The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" (pg. 146)
|-
| United Nations
| "'''Non self-governing''' territory" and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” (pg. 3)
| “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” (pg. 3)
|-
|Gibraltar Chief Minister
|n.a.
|"The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance '''except defence, external affairs and internal security''' which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." (pg. 4)
|-
| BBC
| “British overseas territory”
| “self-governing in all areas '''except defence and foreign policy'''”
|-
| CIA - The World Factbook
| "overseas territory of the UK"
| "the '''UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability'''"
|-
| Encyclopedia Britannica
| “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory”
| “is self-governing '''in all matters but defense'''”
|-
| Merriam Webster
| “a British colony”
| n.a.
|-
| Encarta
| “British dependency”
| No explicit reference to self-government
|-
| British Library
| “self governing British overseas territory in all matters '''but defence and foreign policy'''”
| n.a.
|-
| PriceWaterhouseCoopers
| "a peninsula"
| "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with '''internal self-government''', the '''United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security'''."
|-
| Spanish Government
| "a non self-governing territory", a "colony"
| "The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible."
|}
:::My conclusion: let us not write a lede that "misleads" the reader into believing that Gibraltar is consider by all relevant sources a "self-governing territory". This only happened for 4 months in 2009 (from April until July, Justin, please check the history of the article) before it was questioned. The long standing consensus (for many years) has been and still is to leave this complex issue to the body of the article. -- ] (]) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

::::The Australia example is misleading because the governor-general was appointed by the Queen acting as the ] on the advice of her prime minister for Australia. ] (]) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::(It was merely to make the point that theoretical powers can become very real. Indeed the constutional details are somewhat different. ] (]) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

:::::But that is not what I'm proposing and you've done exactly what I requested you didn't do. Once again you misrepesent what the UN says to infer it is commenting on ''governance'' when it is not. And you've stuffed a great wall of text in the way (which I note by the by supports my proposed edit) derailing discussions. You also clearly didn't bother to check since encarta is broken and this source refers to the origin of the use of Gibraltar as a word not its current status. This source doesn't even mention the word colony as you claimed. This source's introduction doesn't detract from what it later says about Government. In addition, Devolved Government and Self-Government are one and the same. All of which you've posted repeatedly as a means of ignoring discussions and misrepresenting what is actually proposed. This is simply filibustering to avoid real consensus building. The proposal for the lede is self-governing with exception of defence and foreign relations - which I note even the Spanish Government source you quote supports .
:::::If you can only argue against my proposal based on misrepresenting what I propose clearly you don't have a sustainable grounds for opposing my edit. Focus on the content proposed please and cease from derailing discussions and filibustering '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::I would also add that confusing ''governance'' with ''government'' is not helping matters. The powers conferred on the GoG do not include the judiciary, internal security or defence. Gibraltar has a judiciary independent of the executive, equally internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with advice from the executive. Both are under local governance. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::And, to repeat, are subject to reserve powers of the Crown. I feel that we are now repeating ourselves somewhat and I'd really appreciate it if any so-far-uninvolved editor would wade through this page and comment. ] (]) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


UNINDENT
I apologise for not being able to make my point clear. If you allow me, I would like to try one final time, trying to make it as schematic as possible:
*I don't care about my own (or any other individual editor's) interpretation of what the sources really say or what the situation is. None of us is an expert in the field and this is a complex matter.
*NPOV means "]".
*Summarising all sources that have been provided, we can see that:
:*At least '''TWO''' relevant sources call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (the UN and Spain).
:*'''Several''' other sources say Gibraltar is self-governing in some areas but with exceptions: Chief Minister of Gibraltar, UK FCO, UK HoC FAC, PWC, CIA, ...
:*'''NO''' sources ('''ZERO, NONE''') say that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" or a "self-governing British Overseas Territory" as is, plainly, without carefully chosen qualifiers or exceptions.
*To start the wikipedia article about Gibraltar saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory" without anything else does not "represent fairly all significant views". In fact '''it represents a view supported by zero sources!!!''' Misplaced Pages would be '''the only source saying this!!!''' And it directly contradicts what the UN and Spain literally say. That's clearly '''not NPOV'''.

I hope I have been clear this time. I hope we don't get tangled with what my interpretation of the situation is (or Justin's or...) I agree with Richard: we are repeating ourselves. -- ] (]) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I thought given my brief perusal earlier found considerable inconistencies between what Imalbornoz claimed and what the sources actually said that I would go through these sources and see what they actually say, given that I've noted a number are not represented accurately. What is interesting is that I have uncovered that the sources are in many cases misrepresented, in some cases outrageously so. Whats also interesting is that none and I repeat none of these sources contradict the edit I propose, all bar the UN directly support the proposed edit.

Focusing again on the UN, the UN bases its comments on the basis of ''statehood'' rather than ''governance''. Specifically its criteria are independence, integration and free association - note devolved Government or self-government is not actually a valid criterion. Hence, to claim the UN list contradicts the proposed edit is to compare apples and oranges.

Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia. Edits should be based on ] that are ]. The sources displayed support my proposed edit, they do not as claimed contradict it.

I have summarised the sources below, apologies in advance for the seemingly wall of text but I felt it important to fully list the evidence compiled from these sources. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

'''ADDENDUM''' Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this '''explicitly'' clear. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Source
! Imalbornoz's claim
! Actual wording in the source
! Details in Politics / Gvt. section
! Comments
! Supports proposal (Y/N)
! Richard's comments
|-
| UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)
| “British Overseas Territory”
| “British Overseas Territory”
| “Gibraltar has '''a considerable measure of devolved''' government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”
|Devolved government is actual a synonym for self-government. For example the British Government has devolved powers to the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for matters concerning their respective countries. The comments about the Governor do not contradict the proposed edit as the role of the Governor is largely symbolic with internal affairs under local control.
| '''Y'''
| Devolved government describes <i>a degree</i> of self-government. It does not imply the entire thing.
|-
| UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC)
| “almost complete internal self-government” (pg. 16)
|
"Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government...."
| "The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" (pg. 146)
|
"In 1999 the Government published a White Paper, which set out a “new partnership” between Britain and its Overseas Territories, based on four principles:
*self-determination, with Britain willingly granting independence where it is requested and is an option;
*responsibilities on both sides, with Britain pledged to defend the Overseas Territories, to encourage their sustainable development and to look after their interests internationally, and in return expecting the highest standards of probity, law and order, good government and observance of Britain’s international commitments;
*the Overseas Territories exercising the greatest possible autonomy; and
*Britain providing continued financial help to the Overseas Territories that need it...."

"We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. (para 41)" P.147 (strange is it not that was forgotten to be mentioned given the previous comments.)
|
'''Y'''
| This makes a much stronger case for Gibraltar's democracy being the master of its destiny, but it still doesn't amount to full self-government.
|-
| United Nations
| "'''Non self-governing''' territory" and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” (pg. 3)
|Linked PDF is a dead link
| “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” (pg. 3)
|UN definition is based not on '''governance''' but rather '''statehood''', the presence on the list does not of itself contradict the proposed lead. See the Special Committee’s view that there are only three legitimate, acceptable and effective forms of decolonisation, namely: independence, integration and free association.

IE the UN does not define self-governance on the basis of devolved government but statehood. As the UK Parliamentary report notes this is anachronistic in the case of devolved government.
|
N/A
| The UN makes the point that self-government is not quite complete. This is not contradicted by any other sources.
|-
|Gibraltar Chief Minister
|n.a.
|Gibraltar
|"The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance '''except defence, external affairs and internal security''' which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." (pg. 4)
|
"Our positions on these issues are therefore not reconcilable, and the people of Gibraltar will never succumb to the undemocratic proposition that anyone other than we ourselves should decide our own sovereignty and our own political future, freely and in accordance with our human and political rights to self-determination." P2

...but the kicker is later in the document

"The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."P.4

Tell me why someone seeking to objectively evaluate self-governing would fail to highlight this quote?
|
'''Y'''
| It's true, Gibraltar administers itself in a democratic way. The UK / monarchy however still retain some reserve powers. Mainly, in case anything goes wrong.
|-
| BBC
| “British overseas territory”
| Self-governing part of United Kingdom, claimed by Spain
| “self-governing in all areas '''except defence and foreign policy'''”
| BBC is renowned for objectivity.
| '''Y'''
| Defence, foreign policy, and one or two other reserve powers...
|-
| CIA - The World Factbook
| "overseas territory of the UK"
|
overseas territory of the UK
| "the '''UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability'''"
|
What is more interesting if we look at what the source actually says

"The subsequent granting of autonomy in 1969 by the UK led to Spain closing the border and severing all communication links."

ie the source supports the autonomous nature of the Government of Gibraltar

"A new noncolonial constitution came into effect in 2007, but the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability."

Note the word '''noncolonial''' but the source is actually slightly in error as internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, the UK's guarantee of financial stability does not detract from the proposed edit.
|
'''Y'''
| Autonomy, devolution, local democracy, noncolonial local administration - all very true but, still, there are reserve powers, such as, technically, appointing the head of the local police authority. Which suggest to me that over-simplistic statements in the lead merely detract from the reality of self-governing Gibraltarian democracy.
|-
| Encyclopedia Britannica
| “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory”
|
Form of government: overseas territory of the United Kingdom with one legislative body (Gibraltar Parliament)
| “is self-governing '''in all matters but defense'''”
|
Interesting this one, it doesn't state that Gibraltar is a British colony. It mentions in the history section that it became a British colony ..... in 1830. This has to be just about the most outrageous misrepresentation of a source that I have ever seen.

Full text of the Government section

"Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense. Its constitution was established by the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969, which provided for a House of Assembly consisting of the speaker (appointed by the governor), 15 members elected to four-year terms, and 2 ex-officio members. (A new Constitution Order was approved by referendum in November 2006 and was implemented in January 2007; it renamed the House of Assembly as the Gibraltar Parliament and increased its number of members to 17.) "

|
'''Y'''
| Indeed EB says little of note and as a source for this issue is best ignored.
|-
| Merriam Webster
| “a British colony”
| Lets see shall we?
| n.a.
| Full text of the entry:

Gi·bral·tar
noun \jə-ˈbrȯl-tər\
Definition of GIBRALTAR
: an impregnable stronghold
Origin of GIBRALTAR
Gibraltar, fortress in the British colony of Gibraltar
First Known Use: 1776

Intersting this one isn't it, it is about the use of Gibraltar as a noun in English to mean ''an impregnable stronghold'', it is of no relevance to the actual status of Gibraltar. Its another outrageous misrepresentation of the source
|
'''Y'''
| Well, it does use the word "colony" without dating it. But, like EB, it's not any real relevance to the current issue.
|-
| Encarta
| “British dependency”
| Discontinued link says absolutely nothing
| No explicit reference to self-government
| Nice to see that the sources were checked before posting a wall of text.
| N/A
| I can't check because it's gone. I doubt it said anything very useful in this context anyway.
|-
| British Library
| “self governing British overseas territory in all matters '''but defence and foreign policy'''”
|self governing British overseas territory
| n.a.
| Supports proposed edit perfectly.
| '''Y'''
| It does. It says (cut and paste): "self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy". It depends what edit you mean.
|-
| PriceWaterhouseCoopers
| "a peninsula"
| an overseas territory of the United Kingdom with internal self government except in matters of defence, internal security and foreign affairs
| "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with '''internal self-government''', the '''United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security'''."
| So Gibraltar is a "peninsular", well yes that is how it is described in the general geography section in its lead in. It still supports proposed edit.
|
'''Y'''
| I'd have said it supports the more cautious, but definite, approach that I suggest.
|-
| Spanish Government
| "a non self-governing territory", a "colony"
|
British Overseas Territory

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). P.7 of 65

| "The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible."
| Interesting is it not, "it develops its self-government" and "remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible."
Interesting is it not that even the Spanish Government does not actually contradict the thrust of the proposed edit.

Whats most interesting is that the source doesn't even call it a colony, it calls it a "British Overseas Territory". Once again we see what the source actually says misrepresented.
| '''Y'''
| The diplomats have done a good job here even though they do still refer to Gibraltar as a colony. The constitutional position is somewhat complicated. To repeat, I feel strongly that putting an oversimplified and therefore endlessly-arguable comment in the lede detracts from the power and legitimacy of the way that Gibraltar is governed, which is best explained by a short clear paragraph in the relevant section. Putting a sufficiently-full account in the lede strikes me as lede bias. I hope this column, inserted five days after the table went in, helps. ] (]) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
|}
:Justin, I don't understand the logical process through which the UN General Assembly and Spain call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory >period<" and at the same time their support for your proposal ("self-governing BOT except defence and foreign affairs") is "N/A" and "Y" respectively.
:Also the Chief Minister of Gibraltar says "except defence, external affairs '''and''' internal security" and you only say "defence and foreign affairs". Yet, you seem to say that his statement supports your proposal.
:Anyway, I would find your proposal NPOV as long as it includes the Chief Minister's position ("self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which vest in the Governor") as well as the UN's and Spanish position ("Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory"). Anyway, I would rather have all this issue and its details only in the body of the article and not in the lede. -- ] (]) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:Another alternative would be to say in the second paragraph that the new Constitution allows for a significant degree of devolved government (it wouldn't contradict the UN and Spain's position which say Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory but agree that it has a great deal of devolved government, and it would fit all the sources no matter if the consider different exceptions such as defence, foreign reltions, internal security and/or public service -the only problem seems to be in the "self-governing territory" expression and the different "perimeters" of self-government). -- ] (]) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "'''self-governing'''" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. ] (]) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

This is getting out of order, changes I did last night gave due coverage of a political issue, they expanded a section to cover an important event and added information that was sourced, from reliable sources and changed POV text to more neutral prose. Any change I make or propose to this article is reverted. This isn't about consensus building it is ownership and it must stop or I will take the issue to ]. Final warning. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Request for one-line comments on proposed changes ==

<b>Opinions please</b>


I'd like to ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence:
"The ] provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Weak oppose</b> - the circumstances described are notable and have ongoing relevance, but may be a bit too much for an overview article ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - the events are very notable and have much relevance as the main cause for the exodus of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, leaving room for the new in-comers (with all the impact in culture, ethnicity, language,...) -- ] (]) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* I think this proposal needs to be made clearer. The proposal is that the words:
::<blockquote>On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.</blockquote>
:be changed to:
::<blockquote>On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.</blockquote>

:both with appropriate references. I '''support''' this. It retains mention of the violence that occurred without going into detail. The detail is a problem because it is a POV minefield: violence occurred on both sides and we cannot provide neutrality without going into the sort of detail provided below. Imalbornoz's point does not make sense: yes, the fact that there was violence is relevant - nobody's arguing that it isn't. But the detail of the individual acts of violence on each side would seem too much detail. It would seem difficult to argue that, had the rape and desecration occurred without the pillage, the townspeople would have remained - but that appears to be the suggestion. Our readers can perfectly well imagine the disorder created by an invading army, given as we say that there was three days of disorder and that the townspeople felt that the town was too dangerous to remain. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:<b>Support</b> Pfainuk accurately delineates my proposal above, certainly more accurately than the comment above. Further if we are to include such details, we should include more details to balance the POV. The incidents were a hindrance to the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies as it alienated the population, the perpetrators were severely punished. As it is currently written in addition to implying the evil British drove out the population reneging on promises made. It is simply untrue and not sustainable by the sources. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, per a recent bold edit, to expand the paragraph to:
" After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point.<ref>Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97</ref> Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender.<ref>], p. 98</ref> Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings<ref>Andrews, Allen, , p32-33:</ref><ref name="William Jackson p100-101">], ''Rock of the Gibraltarians'', p100-101</ref><ref>Andrews, Allen, , p32-33</ref><ref>''Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar''. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4</ref>. The ] provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished<ref>George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's chaplain Pocock went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"</ref>, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave.<ref name="William Jackson p100-101"/> They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into ]. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of ] founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles." ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

* <b>Oppose</b> - a good piece of prose but definitely too much for this overview article. ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - agree with Richard Keatinge. -- ] (]) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Qualified Support</b> This is bigger than desirable for an overview but the brief text is unsustainable according to wikipedian policies of NPOV. It is also poorly written and can have unintended interpreations that compromise NPOV. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - as documented many times over, San Roque was the main destination, mentioned as such by many reliable sources ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article, and the circumstances of San Roque's foundation have ongoing relevance for anyone who wants to understand the ongoing problems. ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Details relevant to SR only would include exactly when SR became a town as opposed to a hermitage with a hamlet, and when that town got its charter. ] (]) 07:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
*<b>Oppose</b> - agree with Richard Keatinge. Even books talking about Gibraltarian culture and ethnicity mention the exodus of previous inhabitants (and San Roque) as a pivotal event for present day Gibraltar.-- ] (]) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. No particular understanding of Gibraltar or the dispute is gained by mentioning San Roque in particular. Understanding of San Roque, yes, but this is not an article about San Roque. Worth mentioning also that the sentence is anachronistic. They didn't go to San Roque because there was no San Roque at the time. Better to say they went to the "surrounding countryside". '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Pfainuk delineates my proposal perfectly, though I acknowledge as I have always done the arguments are finely balanced. IF we must mention it, there needs to be a better explanation. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And, whether to insert the sentence:
"In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of ] and ] in ]." ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Weak oppose</b> - this is a point of no legal or practical relevance and should not be mentioned in an overview article. ] (]) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - I don't find any relevance for this article: no person from Gibraltar has had any impact on Ceuta and Melilla or vicecersa. On the other hand they indeed have lots of relevance (together with Gibraltar, Olivenza and Western Sahara) in the in the article about Foreign relations of Spain.-- ] (]) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' if San Roque remains. They are each as tangential as the other. Insist on excluding one, and the other should be excluded. Insist on including one, and the other should be included. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I disagree with Richard on the legal and practical relevance as it is a common comment on the Spanish position. A single sentence, supported by sources and a wikilink to the article on Spanish territorial disputes seems to be ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And,whether to include in the lede the comment "self-governing"? At present this is omitted, leaving the issue for the main body of the article, which presently reads "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government.". ] (]) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - the bare comment "self-governing" is oversimplified, and the main body of the article describes the situation well. ] (]) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
* <b>Oppose</b> - the term "self-governing" is ambiguous and controversial (some sources say PARTLY self-governing, other say NON self-governing; it looks like someone could choose this expression to make a point against the UN, Spain or other countries in the C24). Other expressions like "devolved government" are accepted by all sources and still make the distinction vis a vis other BOTs without governing bodies. Anyway, I think this issue is better in the body of the article and not the lede. -- ] (]) 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I believe from Apcbg who writes above: "In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)" ] (]) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks, Richard. ] (]) 13:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:I have done my very best to extract some meaning from your comments. If the above wasn't what you were proposing would you please be clearer? ] (]) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::Really? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' If someone could tell me how to make my proposal plainer I will be happy to listen. The proposal is misrepresented here. The proposal is to add a qualifier - again a compromise that I feel is not necessary. IT is supported by all sources including the Spanish Government source. Per Apcbg the lede can be qualified in the text. Secondly per Pfainuk, the BOT are both populated where the British Government devolves Government, and those that are not, where other than a transient military or scientific there is no Government. Self-Government is an important qualifier for a BOT. Thirdly the use of the UN C24 is misleading as it defines self-government per UN resolution 1541 , which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). All other sources support this edit proposal. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's try a qualified mention of self-government. Should we include in the lede a comment of "largely self-governing", "mostly self-governing", "self-governing with some reserved powers", or some other closely similar formulation, the detail to be decided later?
* '''Weak support''' I'd be happy with an accurate comment of this sort. ] (]) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' self-governing except for defence and foreign relations or some variation. Accurate and supported by multiple sources. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Pfainuk's call below for greater specificity, I ask: should we include in the lede the phrase "self-governing with some reserved powers". I would support this or any other accurate comment. ] (]) 07:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:Overly vague in my view. I'd oppose "largely" and "mostly" as being inaccurate in implication (as I believe they underplay the level of self-government that Gibraltar actually holds). I'd support Justin's "defence and foreign affairs" line (though the sentence would need rewording somewhat). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

::I'm happy to support Pfainuk's and Justin's comments, please feel free to work out some wording. I do believe that we may achieve consensus here. ] (]) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

:::First of all, it should be noted that many editors have said many times that it is not necessary to explain in the lede the kind of governance/government of an obviously populated BOT (myself, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera, JCRB, external editors like Blueboar, Peregrine Fisher ,...) But then, if we want to have a consensus, I am ready to reach some common ground if what Pfainuk and Justin want is the lede to clarify that Gibraltar belongs to the group of BOTs that democratically elect a government with a very important amount of competences, and therefore their main goal is not to mend the position of the UN, Spanish Government and several other sources (who say that Gibraltar is "non self-governing" -I don't say that they are right or wrong, I just say that this is their verifiable POV). That's what I understood that you wanted to do, isn't that so? In that case, I am ready to accept some changes in the lede. -- ] (]) 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, it is not clear at all that all sources agree about the perimeter of government: many talk about defence, foreign affairs, and internal security; others add the public service to that list. -- ] (]) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Even the Spanish source acknowledges self-government in Gibraltar, p51:
{{cquote|La reforma del decreto constitucional no modifica el estatus internacional de Gibraltar y, aunque desarrolla su autogobierno, no altera la soberanía británica sobre el Peñón, el cual sigue siendo un territorio dependiente del Reino Unido, de cuyas relaciones exteriores y defensa sigue siendo responsable.}}
::::Translates as:
{{cquote|The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar and, although self-government develops, does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense are still responsible.}}
::::And whatever terms it chooses to use for its own purposes it recognises the legal status of Gibraltar. P.7
{{cquote|Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). Está excluido del Territorio Aduanero Común y de la Política Agrícola Común (PAC), de la Política Pesquera Común y del requisito de recaudar el Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido (IVA).}}
::::Translates as:
{{cquote|Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). It is excluded from the Customs Territory and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the Common Fisheries Policy and the requirement to collect Value Added Tax (VAT).}}
::::Can we also please stop attempting to confuse the situation by confusing governance with Government. GoG has certain matters excluded by the constitution, however the remaining functions of the judiciary and policing are undertaken by independent '''Gibraltarian''' bodies. These are not undertaken by the UK. This isn't helpful and has been explained before.
::::Equally the situation with the UN is not comparable, nor do UN statements undermine the proposed lede. This has been explained more times than enough. In include a link to UN resolution 1541, the UN definition does not recognise governance but statehood. The article should explain this but it does not exclude the inclusion in the lede.
::::Given sources support it, and the UN does not contradict, I propose, supported by the BBC cite:
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a self-governing ] with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence. It is located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar.}}
::::Thank you. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::With thanks for everyone's positive contributions, I'd support that text. It's as close to absolute accuracy as we can get in the appropriate amount of space. ] (]) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I am ready to reach an agreement, like I said. On the other hand, I don't find that Justin's proposal is accurate, for the following reasons:
::::::1. ]: Many sources do not support the part of the text that says "with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence". For example:
::::::* The Chief Minister says "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security." (page 4).
::::::*The CIA says "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability."
::::::*PriceWaterhouseCoopers says: "the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."
::::::2. ]: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."
::::::3. ]: NO SOURCE talks about the government or governance in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Many of them do talk about it later on. Even Justin's source (BBC's Gibraltar profile) only talks about self-government in the third paragraph. Can anybody show any source that gives as much prominence to Gibraltar's type of government as Justin's proposal?
:::::Therefore, I do not support Justin's proposal. But I'm ready to compromise and accept a comment about Gibraltar's type of government in the lede. I just won't support a text that only reflects only ONE version of the details of government of the several different ones that different sources support. And I won't a accept undue prominence of the type of self-government in the lede.
:::::I would not have this in the lede, but for the sake of consensus I propose '''a text that has no contradiction with any source or with Justin's and Pfainuk's goal of explaining in the lede that Gib is the type of BOT with own government''':
:::::(in the third paragraph)
{{cquote|The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referendums held in 1967 and 2002. Under its new constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government.}}
:::::Comments? -- ] (]) 11:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::That may be even mnore accurate. I'd support that one too. ] (]) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

unindent

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that as a proposal, since it does not reflect what the majority of sources say. Going forward I feel it is necessary to establish a few ground rules.

# Claims that proposals violate ]. The semantic argument that any prose must follow exactly the same words in the source is not sustainable under wikipedian policies.
# NPOV does not require that we represent each and every way different sources find to say the same thing. Where there are explainable errors in what the sources say, editors can use the consensus building process to agree on suitable representation.
# Misrepresentation of sources must stop now. For instance actually states: ''"The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions."'' It is also states quite explicitly ''""The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar.""'' Selectively quoting from the source to claim it denies the proposal when it in fact supports in must stop. It is unhelpful and it undermines the good faith of any discussion.
# In the literature, there is an overwhelming number of sources to support the proposed text. Where there are differences, it is easily explained by the difference between the powers given to the Government of Gibraltar and those vested in independent Gibraltar bodies such as the judicial system and the policy authority. We should be looking to move forward, rather than endlessly discussing the same text. I have lost count of the number of times I have taken the time to patiently explain this, if there is something in the explanation that Imalbornoz does not understand he should ask for it to be amplified rather than repeatedly returning to make the same point over and over again. Because if after having taken the time to explain it, he makes the same point again, then clearly he has not listened or considered the points made. I note that once again yesterday I took the trouble to make this point again , yet again we see the same position stated. I really don't see how discussions can move forward on this basis.
# The position of the UN is dictated by UN resolution 1541 , which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). We should recognise that the UN definition is archaic and not one that would be recognisable by most people and explain the apparent contradiction to our readers.

Establishing some ground rules would help frame the discussions and cease the endless arguments over points that have been explained more times than I care to count. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:The UN definition is not archaic, but it isn't the same as all other definitions. On the one hand, some powers are reserved. That's one real definition of "lacking full self-government". On the other hand, Government decisions in Gibraltar are practically all taken through a local democratic - hence really self-governing - process. Arguing about which definition is the "real" one, as in effect we have been doing for some time, strikes me as amazingly futile, a recipe for endless quarrels. And we - or at any rate I - hope to come up with an article that will be acceptable not just to us, but to future readers and editors including those who have strong opinions either way and good information to back them. I hope we're nearly there.

I suggest that acceptable solutions would include:

* No mention in the lede - but several editors think the point is important enough and really should be in the lede. We are unlikely to achieve any consensus soon on this idea.

* "self-governing with some reserved powers", or "largely self-governing", or "almost complete internal self-government" or other similar form of words. Vague enough, and precise enough taking into account Justin's point about self-governance, to be entirely accurate, hence defensible against almost any reasonable comment. This would be my preferred solution though I'm not hung up on any one form.

* "self-governing except for (a list of reserved powers). I suppose I could live with this for the sake of consensus, but if the list of reserved powers is long enough to be entirely accurate and thus challenge-proof, it's going to be too long for the lede. Very much a second choice, and in addition getting precision will lead us squarely into the arena of conflict between definitions of self-government. On quite a lot of points, the local politicians make the actual decision but the Governor signs it. Do you want to argue definitions of self-government through every one? I'd prefer to pull my own teeth out. Let's avoid that particular self-inflicted torment, shall we?

] (]) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Just had a brief look at the above.

:::One thing that stands out is Imalbornoz's argument:

:::'']: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."''

:::That's not original synthesis. When I say that, it's not any particular judgement call or borderline case. If this is original synthesis, then practically the entire encyclopædia is original synthesis. We are not just not required to replicate the wording in the source - we are not allowed to replicate the wording in our sources because that would be ].

:::He also argues ], again based on this notion that we must follow sources exactly. So, the point is worth making again. We aren't here simply to regurgitate our sources. We're here to write an encyclopædia. I actually think that there is a far better way of getting around this, without resorting to this much detail - but Imalbornoz and Richard don't agree to it. Because compromise is required, I am willing to compromise to this extent.

:::Justin argues that there is still some misrepresentation of sources going on. And it does appear that some are being selectively quoted. I'd call on all editors to make sure that when they quote sources, they quote them with all relevant sections - including those that they may think undermines their viewpoint. Remember that we're trying to reach a mutually agreeable outcome: there are no "winners" or "losers" here. That bit that you think undermines your point might actually hold the key to agreement.

:::Finally, on the UN. ] has no government of its own. There is no separate East Anglian legislature, no separate East Anglian ministers, no East Anglian governmental institutions of any kind. All government of East Anglia is done either at a higher (UK-wide) level or a lower (municipal) level. There is nothing in between.

:::By contrast, ] is governed under its own constitution as a multiparty democracy, complete with bicameral legislature (the ]), effectively equivalent to that of the United States.

:::Which is "self-governing" according to the UN definition? The region with no government of its own or the territory with a functioning democracy that does in fact govern itself? It's the region without a government to itself that is "self-governing" and the territory that governs itself that is "non-self-governing". Why? Because even in theory the UN definition of "self-government" has nothing to do with the actual degree of self-government and everything to do with the status that the territory happens to have (in practice, of course, this is itself secondary to the C24 governments' politics). By putting a territory on the C24 list, the UN is not claiming that the territory is not self-governing, only that it does not have one of the three statuses outlined in UNGA resolution 1514 - an entirely different kettle of fish. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

::::To which I'd add my proposal <i>is</i> supported by sources. The text that Richard proposes isn't and what Imalbornoz proposes underplays what the sources actually say. The policy is ], it is verifiable and all bar one editor has agreed that it could be the basis of a concensus. The arguments produced against it don't withstand the scrutiny of our policies. I feel we are better explaining the apparent contradiction under the politics sections. I am not attracted to a fudge using vague terms, we should respect the sources - that is of itself defensible. As Richard pointed out on another article, there are some for whom the mere existence of Gibraltarians is offensive. Well anticipating their objection to text that accurately describes how Gibraltar is run and compromising the text as a results is simply appeasement. As I said all bar one editor agreed with the proposal, his objections are not sustainable on policy grounds. Effectively if he cannot produce a sustainable argument against it, we do have a consensus. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::OK, could we all agree on "self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations"? ] (]) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yes I could agree to that. Though "for reserved powers" appears redundant. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Well, the phrase "for reserved powers including " may allow us to answer Imalbornoz's objections, and those of possible future editors, and so may allow a consensus. If so it's well worth a little redundancy. ] (]) 11:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have commented on Justin's proposal and made another proposal trying to find some common ground, in line with Justin's and Pfainuk's desire to make sure that the lede indicates that Gibraltar is part of the group of BOTs with a large degree of self-government. Richard has given his (positive) opinion about it. Please, Justin and Pfainuk, could you explain what's your view about it? Do you find it acceptable? Do you find anything wrong about it? My proposal was:

{{cquote|The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referendums held in 1967 and 2002. Under its new constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government.}}

Thank you very much for your time and interest! -- ] (]) 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

:I'd be happy with that one too. ] (]) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

::Well I've already indicated that I wouldn't be happy with it and <u>stating why</u> - asking again won't change my opinion seeing as you've advanced nothing new. And Imalbornoz your comments on the other proposal are not sustainable under wikipedian policies. This is not helpful behaviour ignoring comments and arguments put to you to simply restate a position. We have a proposal that has substantive support - you are the sole objector. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Justin, I see that your objection is that "almost complete internal self-government" is not what the majority of sources say. Please, even though we have had strong differences, I kindly ask you to analyse again what they say, to see if we can reach an agreement. I can assure you that I have made a strong effort with the proposal to make it acceptable to all editors in this discussion (even though myself and most of the editors have declared at some point or another that it would be better left out of the lede altogether...) Please let's analyse the proposal again:
:::*It sets Gibraltar in the group of BOTs with the highest degree of self-government, using the words of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee itself (who is not suspect at all of understating the self-government of Gibraltar, and is supposed to be technically competent as well).
:::*On the other hand, all the sources say that self-government is not complete but they disagree in some details.
:::*All of them say that external affairs is in the hands of the UK (thus, self-government is internal at the most, not external).
:::*All of them say that defence is out of the perimeter (thus, internal self-government is not complete either) and many (at least half of them -right or wrong) also exclude other internal affairs.
:::I have tried to find the greatest common divisor but without explicitly mentioning specific areas that might be contradicted by some sources. At the same time, please bear in mind that "almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government and to include Gibraltar in it (which is your goal and Pfainuk's, if I'm not wrong). I hope I have explained myself better this time so that you are able to review the proposal again. Thank you. -- ] (]) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be squeezing closer and closer to actual agreement. We now have: Under its new constitution, Gibraltar:
either - has almost complete internal self-government
or - is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations

Or possibly both, because I have just re-read the rest of this page and I really don't see any important difference, either semantic or relating to Misplaced Pages policies, between them. I have to say that if I was trying to emphasize the degree of self-government, I'd slightly prefer Imalbornoz's version, and it's also shorter. But both are correct, encyclopedic, acceptable. Who else is prepared to accept either? ] (]) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

::Imalbornoz: I find your arguments are singularly unconvincing. For one thing, your declaration that the fact that the UK is responsible for defence means that "internal self-government is not complete". Who do you think the military would be defending Gibraltar from? Barbary Apes?

::I note that you have not followed my request to ensure that you quote all relevant portions of a given source, which is disappointing. ] is all very well, but in articles like this, it is a good idea to demonstrate your good faith. This helps to lower temperature and reduces the likelihood of a battleground mentality coming forward. I note also that your proposed edit is insufficiently referenced. You cannot expect readers to trawl through a 172-page document to try and find the single sentence the edit is supposed to be referenced from.

::I note also that your statement that ''"almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government'' does not appear to be accurate, based on what I assume is your source. In particular, I find that your use of the word "define" gives a very strongly misleading impression of the source.

::Richard: your suggestion that Justin and I are here to try "to emphasize the degree of self-government", as opposed to trying to improve the encyclopædia by including pertinent information on the subject of Gibraltar, reads as yet another violation of ]. If you want me and others to believe that you're assuming good faith here, Richard, you really need to be far more careful about your choice of words. Because, frankly, it doesn't look like you are from here.

::The proposed qualifiers are unnecessary extra words with no particular benefit. They add no information whatsoever to the text. Fact is, that the GoG governs everything in Gibraltar, apart from defence and foreign relations - which are handled based on the wishes of the GoG. Gibraltar is not governed by the UK, it governs itself. If we have to include unnecessary qualifiers of "self-governing", better that they at least carry some information. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
:::OK, Pfainuk, here is the complete quote from the source ():
{{cquote|Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government to Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands, where the Governor is the law-making authority and there are only advisory councils. In the majority of Territories the Governor has special responsibility for defence, external affairs and internal security (including the police, the public service, and administration of the courts). In Anguilla, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands the Governor also has special responsibility for financial services. In St Helena the Governor is responsible for finance and shipping.}}
:::I suppose that we can all agree that it classifies groups of BOTs according to their degree of self-government, explains that one of them has the highest level of self-government, defines it as "almost complete self-government", and sets Gibraltar in it.
:::Your argument for including the reference to self-government in the lede is: "Support - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)"
:::I hope that you will agree that the quote that has been proposed fully meets your criteria. -- ] (]) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK It boils down to this. Do we go with text that the majority of the sources reflect per ] and ], as per the text I suggest, fully in line with wikipedia's policy of ]. This is a proposal that all bar 1 editor finds acceptable. The alternative which was not supported by 3 editors relies on a single source. If there is not a substantive policy based objection to the proposal that has majority support then I propose we insert it within one week. I am disappointed that once again, as Pfainuk note, accusations of partisanship have crept in, equally disappointing is that positions are being repeatedly stated, counter arguments ignored and those accursed accusations substituted instead. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


:At this point it may help to reiterate exactly what is being proposed. Proposals have included "almost complete internal self-government", "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations", and possibly other variants that I've missed. Again, I don't see any important difference between these two, and both seem accurate and unexceptionable. ] (]) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


== Lead overload? ==
::There is an <u>important difference</u> "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations" is supported by the sources apart from the text "except for reserved powers", whereas the alternative is supported by only one. Per ] the proposal supported by the majority of sources is the preferred option suggested by wikipedia's policies. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


{{ping|Imalbornoz}}, it may be fair to say that {{u|Wee Curry Monster}} was a bit heavy-handed with their deletion but they certainly do have a point to this extent: ] says that the lead should contain a "brief summary of the main points of the article". The material you added is valid but it is not a "brief summary". You need to look at it again with a view to reducing it to no more than two or three lines.
:::Actually:
:::* the expression "has almost complete internal government" is not contradicted by any source, and is sourced by a technically competent source like the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. I am sure that the HoC producing an official paper has taken extreme care that this wording is completely accurate. I don't know who in their right mind would find that this wourding is not right or "understates" Gibraltar's self-government.
:::* the wording "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defense and foreign relations" runs the risk of not being accurate (I personally I don't understand it too well). And the source is... Justin A Kuntz himself making a synthesis of several sources. No one else uses this wording.
:::Currently, the consensus is (and has been for at least seven years, except for a period of a few months) to leave this complicated issue for the body of the article. I (and many other users) personally prefer it that way (IMHO it is too much prominence for the type of government). I (and many other users) was ready to talk about self-government in the lede if the UN POV was mentioned there as well, for the sake of consensus. Then, I accepted to exclude the UN POV and proposed the wording of a technically competent source. It seems this is not enough for Justin: he will only accept his very own personal wording.
:::I propose that if he is not able to reach a wide consensus, we leave the most stable version: type of government described in the body of the article. -- ] (]) 08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Even as it stands, the lead is too long. It should not normally be longer than four succinct paragraphs. So if you were so minded, a general spring clean of the lead would be welcome. ] (]) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Do you feel that the words "and fled to San Roque" are original synthesis as well? That precise wording does not appear to be used by any source other than Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. By your standards, it's clear original synthesis.


:OK, thank you for your comment.
::::We can go further. Perhaps you would like to go to ] and request that every article in the encyclopædia be deleted because it's impossible to write them? After all, by your standards, anything that does not violate ] is original synthesis and must be removed on those grounds. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:I have indeed tried to write a brief summary, but you have to take into account that Gibraltar sits at one of the main points of the Mediterranean and it has a long history with a relevant role in quite a few of the Mediterranean civilizations. Therefore, the History section of the article is not short: it has almost 11,000 words. The lead paragraph about history is 269 words long. So it has a scale of 1 to 40, which I would say is a reasonably brief summary.
:::::Actually this isn't an easy issue and none of us is a constitutionalist or a political theorist. It's just that -at Justin's request and against many editors' preferred option- we have accepted to include this issue in the lede, then we accepted to exclude the UN POV, then we find a technical and comprehensive source to explain what you and Justin proposed... And now it seems that the HoC summary is not enough for Justin; he has to put it in his very own words.
:On the other hand, in order to have a vision of what is a reasonable length of a lead section, I have taken a look at the leads of a sample of equivalent countries or territories: the current length of the Gibraltar lead is 481 words vs Bermuda 531 words, Faroe Islands 618 words, Jersey 482 words, Marshall Islands 591 words, Monaco 772 words, Northern Mariana Islands 742 words, Tuvalu 669 words... Therefore, I don't think we can say that the current lede of 481 words is unreasonably long.
:::::Well, I'm getting tired of this and I'm starting to feel tempted to just leave the version that has proved to be most stable and uncontroversial for years: not to include any summary in the lede and explain all the details in the corresponding section. -- ] (]) 09:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:But of course I am ready to try and abbreviate the historical part of the lead a bit further. Let me take a look at it.
::::::This would be my preferred solution also. However, for the sake of consensus I am prepared to accept a variety of compromises, so long as they're accurate/NPOV and within reasonable length. ] (]) 10:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks. --] (]) 10:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::That we have been unable to write the history section with appropriate ] is not a reason to make the lead section excessive as well. The expanded paragraph is 15 lines, almost doubling the length. I'm not seeing how much of the addition is particularly due either, the lead doesn't need to generally cover the history of the Iberian peninsula. ] (]) 10:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::I've reduced the size of the lead paragraph. Now the lead is 420 words (much much shorter than Jersey, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Tuvalu, etc.) --] (]) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::The lead, but specifically the history para, is certainly better now. I removed one line (about 711 beach-head for Arab invasion) since the body text says that the location is unknown but was probably not Gibraltar. --] (]) 11:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks. I thought it was important because some sources say it has to do with the name Gibraltar, but it's ok with me to remove that if it is not a historical fact supported by most sources. I have left another point that is relevant to the history of the population of Gibraltar.--] (]) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


:::::<big>] Bold Edit, when Reverted, Discuss</big>
::::::Well, yes, the entire point of writing the encyclopædia is that we do so in our "very own words". Your entire argument against Justin's wording is that it isn't a direct quote of a source. Fact is, in cases where this is relevant, it works the other way around: a direct quote of a source is rather less likely to be acceptable than a paraphrasing thanks to Misplaced Pages's policies on ]. When your only argument against a proposal is this bad, don't be surprised when other people don't accept it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I add emphasis, because frustratingly, it seems Imalbornoz still feels it appropriate to revert to his preferred edit and insist other editors justify removing it. What was added was not a material improvement to the lede and I don't think my revert was in the least heavy-handed. I thank other editors for recognising my concerns and explaining and amplifying them. I have further summarised the text but I have to note I don't see a need to change the pre-existing lede. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::Wee Curry Monster, there are important things that happened in the history of Gibraltar that you have reverted for the second time. The things you have reverted affected (i) the most single issue that Gibraltar was known for in Ancient times for several centuries (]) and (ii) the destiny of almost all the population of Gibraltar of 1704 (1,200 households according to most British and Spanish sources). The lead is still much shorter than the ones about similar countries or territories, so there should be no need to further summarize it.
::::::As a side comment, I don't think that a second revert is a very appropriate use of ] in an article that has seen quite a few topic bans (especially, some attempts to remove the destiny of those 1,200 indigenous families from the history section were something that caused lots of discussion and topic bans). Please, do not revert again and discuss. I am very eager to read your opinions and exchange sources and ideas in the talk page. Thank you very much.--] (]) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have no desire to waste my time going over the events of a decade ago, I strongly suggest you let it go. Please take my reply as a ] warning that you should stop edit warring and discuss content in a calm and rational manner. I disagree that this belongs in the lede, the aftermath of the capture is but a footnote in history, it is in the article; it doesn't need to be in the lede.
:::::::I request that you apologise for the accusation I am suppressing material, its been going on for over a decade and I cannot discuss content with an editor who is doing so on the basis of this bad faith accusation. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 19:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


:::::::You are correct that your repeated reversions are not an appropriate use of ]. Having realised this, one would have thought that you would stop reverting, but apparently not?
:::::::May I just point out that the current proposal is a compromise from several editors and is not my preferred option. I feel it is important to bring that to everyone's attention, since it seems that yet once again matters are becoming personalised and I am being blamed. This I do not find acceptable.
:::::::Furthermore, this is not just my request it reflects what the majority of the sources have to say about Gibraltar and makes an important distinction for the populated BOT. There is no controversy about this proposal except perhaps it may be offensive to people holding extreme nationalist opinions, for whom the mere existence of Gibraltar is an affront; those opinions are not relevant to writing wikipedia.
:::::::May I also point out that consensus is not a veto or requiring unanimity and where a proposal conforms to wikipedia's policies of ], ] and ], stamping your foot and saying ] is not acceptable or amenable to building consensus. I don't find the latest proposal acceptable as it seems an attempt to derail consensus than to move the discussion forward.
:::::::May I finally note the request was for comments on the proposal to be strictly limited to policy based objection rather than personal opinions, further posts attacking individual editors are not acceptable and I would expect all editors to move forward on that basis. Talk page discussions should not be about filibustering to stall proposals that individuals don't like. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


:::::::The lead is already unbalanced toward history compared with the rest of the article. I don't think unbalancing it further will help anything. This is an article on all aspects of Gibraltar, not just history. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Coming back to the phrase "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations". I'm quite happy with it, but Imalbornoz, whose English is excellent, says that he doesn't understand it too well. Perhaps it could be clearer while preserving the meaning? What about "is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations"? Does that make the comment clearer? ] (]) 17:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:I have no objections, though to be honest it seems needlessly verbose. We should also remember that en.wikipedia is intended for those whose first language is English and write accordingly. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
::That sentence is much more understandable (at least the "reserved powers" part). What would the global proposal for the lede be? -- ] (]) 22:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Here's one possible version:
Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.


FWIW, I found the original edit to put too much detail in the lede - dates and people, for example. But I agree important parts of the history were not summarized before. I find the current version to be a great distillation of material that was missing before. I like it. If it were to be trimmed anymore, I would take out the details of the Strait's military significance at the end.
An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping. It is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.


As for the metadiscussion, I did find the original reversion to be heavy handed in that it wiped out with a single click a significant effort to improve the article; a lighter hand would have tried to find some value in that edit and maybe keep at least part of it. Sweeping reversions evince the attitude that the reverter is in charge and supplicants must find something exactly to his liking for it to be considered. ] (]) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002.
:Bryan I really resent the inference of that comment, it is most unhelpful. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you, Bryan.--] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:The discussion and the edits seem to be more constructive now, so thank you everybody for that.
:Regarding the point we were discussing, I think that the destiny of the civilian inhabitants would be relevant for the lead: they turned from around 5,000 or 6,000 (1,200 households) to almost zero in 1704, and grew during the next two centuries resulting in the current unique mix of British, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, other Mediterranean (Sephardic Jews among them), and Asian origin.. A brief reference to that could be fit in the lead. What would be the opinions of other users on the matter?--] (]) 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


::I think you have been trying to push this point into the article by any possible means for well over a decade, irrespective of ] and ], arguing at times that it should be given more weight than the Treaty of Utrecht. The point is sufficiently explained by the article. Putting it in the lead as well would demonstrate only lead fixation. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to put that in, or quite a few other variants. Indeed I propose to insert it within the next couple of days, unless anybody really objects. ] (]) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


:::I think there are far more important topics that could be covered in the lede:
:I'd rather go with the majority who preferred to leave any mention of government to the corresponding section (]). Also, I'd rather use the wording of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee which is technically accurate and doesn't go into the details of which powers are reserved and which are not (], ] and ])...
:::# ] noting the significance of Gibraltar in their study.
:BUT, for the sake of consensus, I could accept this text in general. I'd only suggest:
:::# Impact of desalination plants - Gibraltar long had a problem obtaining enough fresh water, which was a major brake on population growth.
:*to include the word "Gibraltar" (otherwise, it's not clear at the beginning who is self-governing; e.g. the economy?)
:::# ], which is the longest siege in British Army history
:*to include the word "some" before "powers": "except for some powers reserved to the UK Government" (otherwise, it looks like the only reserved powers are foreign affairs and defence).
:::# ] and the self-governing nature of Gibraltar
:*also, for style and continuity, I'd include a transition between the previous sentence (which talks about Gibraltar's past and present economy) and the sentence in question. Maybe something like "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government."
:::# ]
:*Finally, again, I wouldn't mention any specific reserved power, IMO "some" is enough (in order to avoid controversy). But if you want, you can use your sentence: ", including defence and foreign relations."
:::# ]
:Thank you, Richard. -- ] (]) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::# ]
:::# ] and the far more recent ]
:::# ] and the expulsion of the Jews under Spanish rule. I don't think we should discuss the Spanish claim of the violation of the Treaty of Utrecht by allowing members of the Jewish faith to live in Gibraltar, which might be misconstrued.
:::# ]
:::# The closure of the border
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# ]
:::# Little bit of trivia, ] derived his stage name from the ]
:::# The significant role of Gibraltar in defeating ] and the ]
:::I don't see it as particularly helpful to relitigate endlessly the same discussion, punctuated with bad faith accusations to raise tension. Because this is already going down the route of past discussion eg ] including the same threats of seeking topic bans and arbcom sanctions. Editing is supposed to be collaborative, it isn't supposed to be about winning by imposition of your content choices.
:::Having made some content suggestions I intend to step back and allow others to comment, I suggest Imalbornoz does the same. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Regarding WCMonster's list: Usually, leads of countries or territories talk about the most outstanding facts about their geography, population, history, government/politics/diplomacy and economy. Therefore, I would include things among the topics that you mention like the Neanderthals, the Great Siege, the Moorish Castle... as long as you also include a mention about the history of the inhabitants of Gibraltar as a whole (which should really be the main characters in this article). both before AND after it became a British territory. That is why I proposed to mention the 5-6,000 inhabitants pre-1704 and the successive waves of migrants from Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Sephardite Jews, etc., mainly in the XIX century. I understand from your proposal, WCMonster, that you think that there is not a lead overload.
::::The importance of Gibraltar's Military History is already mentioned in the lead.
::::I don't really think that Rock Hudson's name should be included in the lead, or the cuisine, etc. (maybe in a Popular Culture section)
::::In fact, it would be very interesting to understand WCMonster's criteria to include Rock Hudson in the lead and exclude the almost total outward migration in 1704 and inward migration in the XIX century. Can you explain your criteria to include Rock Hudson and exclude the migration of the practical totality of Gibraltarian population from the lead?--] (]) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


:::::There is a difference between ''these are topics that would go in the lead before your proposal'' and ''these are topics that should go in the lead''.
::I will make a couple of observations:
::# Repeatedly stating the same point, when there is a consensus and a stated reason for adding this material is unhelpful
::# Alleging ] etc when that has already been '''COMPREHENSIVELY''' rebutted is unhelpful.
::# Insisting on your preferred wording, rather than wording achieved as a consensus contribution is unhelpful.
::# Insisting on using a ''single'' source, rather than reflecting the majority view in the literature is contrary to ] and ] and also unhelpful.
::# There is a consensus to add the text, seeking to pick at the text to change it to your preferred text, ignoring the previous comments is unhelpful.
::As previously stated, we should reflect the majority of sources per ] and ]. We should be moving forward on the basis of the prose that has majority support, not seeking to obstruct moving forward by not moving in position.
::May I suggest a slightly modified version of Richard's text, moving things to the first paragraph and trimming a few words that are superfluous.
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.}}
::Thanks, '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


:::::Those of us who have been around for a while will know your POV. They will know your history of pushing this point as though it were literally the most important thing that could ever be said about Gibraltar. However, Misplaced Pages's job isn't to show off individual editors' hobby horses, including yours. The lead should be aiming to introduce and summarise the article. We already have too much history there, we don't need more. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors have insisted that this get longer and longer and longer, until we get to the point where a distinction that could perfectly easily be expressed in a single word is now a sixteen-word sentence. No, we need to come up with something quite a lot shorter than this. As I pointed out on Imalbornoz's proposal, there's no point in adding loads of words that don't add any meaning or clarification - which is what is being done here.


::::::For the record, I don't think this is the most important thing that could ever be said about Gibraltar, at all. What I do think is that the historical fact that almost all inhabitants of Gibraltar left the town in 1704 and settled nearby, while most of the current population is a very diverse group that migrated to Gibraltar during the following 3 centuries is very relevant, but some other editors think that it isn't, thus the discussion.
:::Let's remember that we have a link to ] here, which editors can go to if they want to know what a BOT is. It doesn't imply that Gib is a self-governing BOT as opposed to a BOT under direct rule, but it does imply just about everything else that's being discussed here. Let's remember that exacting detail can be included later in the article, allowing us to summarise the situation in the lede. Let's remember that we are allowed - nay, required - to summarise our sources and thus let's see an end the absurd claims that anything that isn't a direct quote from a source is original synthesis. And let's try and get a way of distinguishing self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule without resorting to adding words that do not add meaning. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::I understand the difference between "would go in the lead before" and "should go in the lead". That's why I asked {{ping|Wee Curry Monster}} why he thinks Rock Hudson's name would in the lead "before" the exodus of all the population of Gibraltar. Him explaining the underlying criteria would help to understand his position and understanding is important for consensus. Thanks.--] (]) 12:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024 ==
::::Oh I agree totally "self-governing BOT" is more than adequate but I have tried to compromise to meet the concerns as expressed. "self-governing BOT except for defence and foreign relations" is also acceptable. The latter is supported by the sources. ''including'' the Spanish Government paper. I'm leaning to the view that we have compromised more than enough yet have seen nothing in return. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::As we've done to death, the trouble with "self-governing" tout court is that it isn't quite accurate. If we have it in the lede we need it qualified for accuracy and comprehensibility. I do like Justin's trimmed suggestion:
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.}} Alternatively we could have the shorter formulation: "Gibraltar is self-governing except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." Can we settle for one or the other? I'm happy with both. ] (]) 08:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::Actually it is accurate Richard, self-governing as a term reflects internal matters, so the caveat is actually quite <u>superfluous</u>. We used to have a wikilink to ] that reflected that but that article was altered to remove the reference to internal matters. I am nontheless prepared to compromise and caveat the term if it allows the article to be improved. My preference is for the former, rather than the latter, as it does reflect what the <u>majority</u> of sources say. So please can we not have a return to previously stated positions and move forward. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)
Moving on, and taking Justin's point about other minor improvements to the lede, how about this one?
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated area with city status, which is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.}} ] (]) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:Acceptable to me, lets move on. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::First of all, Justin and Pfainuk: the current consensus is NOT to mention the type of government in the lede. Myself, Richard (tell me if I am wrong) and many other editors would rather have it ONLY in the body of the article. The only reason to include it is to include YOU (Justin and Pfainuk) in the consensus. I hope that you guys are able to recognise that compromise from the MAJORITY.
::That being said, I think that you guys should accept some things, otherwise it will look like you don't just want to explain to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs, but that you want to make a point (which is not the purpose of wikipedia) by including the term "self-governing" in the first paragraph of the article no matter what. My comments about the proposal:
::*the proposal does give ] prominence to this issue: as Richard first proposed, it is better in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is about "what is Gibraltar", not how it functions. The vast majority of sources (Britannica, CIA, PWC, UN, BBC, ...) do not talk about the system of government in the first paragraph.
::*it does not reflect what the vast majority of sources say. In order to include the vast majority of them (including the Gibraltarian Chief Minister, the UK House of Commons, the UN) the following sentence is better: "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." If you want, you can add ", which include defence and foreign relations." (although it makes it longer).
::This sentence has the merit of explaining to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs (your ONLY stated reason for including this issue in the lede), it does not contradict ANY source, and it does not use the controversial terms "self-governing" or "non-self governing".
::If you really want to move on, then let's put this text in the article. (Otherwise, tell me what's wrong with this proposal, according to encyclopaedian criteria). Thanks. -- ] (]) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Gibraltar|answered=yes}}
:::Your views about majorities are basically irrelevant, I'm afraid. Consensus is not, and never has been, about majorities. The point of this is to find the widest possible consensus, including as many people as possible. In other words, we're trying to find a formulation that we can all agree to.
Please remove the duplicate paragraph in the intro section:


Since Brexit, Gibraltar is not a member of the European Union but negotiations are under way to have it participate in the Schengen Agreement to facilitate border movements between Gibraltar and Spain. As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked.
:::I do not consider it to be undue prominence to distinguish between different kinds of British Overseas Territory in the lede. This is a matter of "what is Gibraltar", as you put it. Such distinction does not require us to divert entire paragraphs into long-winded explanations on the exact amount of self-government that Gibraltar has - indeed, IMO the words "self-governing ]", with the link included, are entirely sufficient to do this. The initial proposal along these lines was only marginally longer than that. If there is undue prominence in the proposals currently being made, it is due to the large amounts of detail that you have insisted on adding.


Since Brexit, Gibraltar is not a member of the European Union but negotiations are under way to have it participate in the Schengen Agreement to facilitate border movements between Gibraltar and Spain. As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked. ] (]) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Your suggestion that the point made is not backed up by the sources is plain wrong. It is backed up by the sources. It isn't a direct quotation of the sources, but that's no bad thing.
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


== Lede Fixation ==
:::But you announce that anyone who doesn't accept your positions is acting in bad faith. This is a very unhelpful position to be taking and is liable to make it rather more difficult for consensus to be achieved, and I strongly suggest that you withdraw that remark. The fact that people disagree with you is not evidence of bad faith.


I note that the lede has come in for a lot of attention; particularly around the economy. May I remind editors the lede is supposed to reflect the article and provides a summary of what is in the article. Whilst the edits have introduced a new source, which is helpful, the lede no longer reflects what the economy section of the article says. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 11:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Now, compromise is needed and I think I'd better declare my position here. I'm willing - reluctantly - to accept Richard's current proposal. As I've said, I find it altogether too long, but the impression I'm getting is that it's the most likely compromise here. On your proposal, Imalbornoz, I find it awkwardly worded and open to serious misinterpretation. It appears, for example, that the "except" clause is modifying the word "approved" - implying that elements of the constitution concerning reserved powers were not approved. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


:My objection to the text previously in the lead was twofold:
:#While four sources were presented, the only one that seemed to contain any information on the subject was a Spanish government piece written in 2010, specifically to support its sovereignty claims.
:#When the source was replaced (with the CIA World Factbook), it was clear that the original claim ({{tq|Gibraltar's economy is based largely on tourism, online gambling, financial services, and ]}} did not match the source.


:The quote from the CIA is this:
::::OK, try this, three well-organized and slightly shortened paragraphs, the first on what's there, the second on history, the third on political argument:
:{{tq|The financial sector, tourism (over 11 million visitors in 2012), gaming revenues, shipping services fees, and duties on consumer goods also generate revenue. The financial sector, tourism, and the shipping sector contribute 30%, 30%, and 25%, respectively, of GDP. Telecommunications, e-commerce, and e-gaming account for the remaining 15%.}}
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.


:So, we have 85% shared between financial services (30%), tourism (30%), and shipping (25%), with three other industries - including online gaming (which is larger than gambling) - accounting for the rest (15%).
An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.


:Based on these numbers, I still think calling out gaming over telecoms and e-commerce probably overstates the significance of e-gaming. However, based on the source that Asqueladd added, I am happy that the current description is backed by an appropriate source.
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. Under its current constitution Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.}} I do hope we don't need to argue about exactly where things go in the lede; I'd suggest that good organization takes precedence over any such issue. ] (]) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


:I don't propose to provide any rebuttal to Imalbornoz's comments, I've previously indicated my reasons so I don't see the point in reiterating them. Similarly, I'm not going to indulge in a disucssion of editors other than to remind him to comment on content NOT editors. Richard's proposal is acceptable to me. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC) :However, this then raises a problem with the first sentence of the Economy section, which is based on a 2012 Foreign Office description (and also appears to overstate the significance of online gambling compared with the source). We should be changing this in the same way IMO. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


== Ancient history in lead ==
::My view for this one is the same as the previous proposal. I'm not keen because I think we'd be better off with something shorter, but am willing to accept it as a means of getting consensus. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I must say that I am a bit frustrated because I think that I've proposed several very reasonable alternatives and, somehow, they have not even been taken into consideration.
:::Myself, I think that I have been quite open in order to reach consensus with Pfainuk and Justin (accepting the mention of type of government in the lede -in spite of the opinion of the majority of inside and outside editors-, accepting not to mention the UN's and Spain's position about Gibraltar's self-government -that it is a "non self-governing territory"-, accepting the mention of just TWO exceptions to self-government...).
:::I suppose it's only reasonable to ask that they should do the same (so far, they've only accepted to mention that there are exceptions to self-government -something that is mentioned in ALL sources-, and to include the mention of self-government a bit later than the FOURTH word of the article -like ALL sources do).
:::I will accept the text that Richard proposes except for a minor change of wording. It includes the less controversial expression "self-government" (used by half of the sources or more):
{{cquote|Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.


], do you think that even Gibraltar being one of the ] is not lead material? ] (''pʿmy-ʿlywn'') - ] 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.
:Certainly not masked as part of the urban history. It can be useful in the introduction of the article of ], and perhaps in the introduction of this article (when the rock—the geographical feature—is mentioned).--Asqueladd (]) 18:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::Fine, even though I don't agree I won't argue about that. ] (''pʿmy-ʿlywn'') - ] 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024 ==
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.}}
:::I can't imagine any possible encyclopaedic objections from Pfainuk and Justin to this text, so I hope they go along with this spirit of consensus and we can finish this discussion that started more than 15 months ago. Thanks. -- ] (]) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Gibraltar|answered=yes}}
::::I have rewritten the lede in accordance with the above. I really hope that finishes this particular episode; I'd like to get on with a lot of things including going through the useful suggestions in the and trying for GA status again. On balance, and although the four of us seem to have frightened everyone else away, I feel pleased that we have managed to reach a consensus text, one which probably does improve the article. I'd like to thank you all for your help and I hope that you all feel a similar satisfaction. ] (]) 10:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
national_representation1 = ]
The Minister of State for Europe has changed. ] (]) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


== Ethnic Groups ==
:::::Steady on here. I, for one, have an objection to this text. I object because it's badly written. We should, at least, have a wording that flows. This one doesn't.


We have an editor - one who has long been obsessed with the events of 1704 to the point of appearing as an ] - insisting that we go on about the events of 1704 in the section about modern ethnic groups. Said editor insists that the text has consensus despite its having been removed by three separate editors, all noting that events that occurred 300 years ago are not relevant to the modern situation.
:::::Let me explain: in the verb phrase proposed by Richard, "except" modifies "self-governing". Thus "except" introduces limitations to self-government. In the noun phrase proposed by Imalbornoz, "except" modifies "has". This is a rather more binary distinction: instead of introducing standing limitations to self-government, it would introduce situations in which self-government is removed altogether.


Note that 300-year-old population movements are not normally discussed when discussing modern ethnic groups in other contexts on Misplaced Pages, particularly when these details are already discussed repeatedly elsewhere ib the same article.
:::::For example, one might say that Gibraltar has self-government except during wartime, or that it has self-government except at the airport. It does not really work with reserved powers, which are a standing situation that do not remove Gibraltar's self-government in other areas. These aren't the sort of limitations that are introduced by Imalbornoz's phrase. The wording makes a binary self-government-or-no-self-government distinction and then tries to pull out of it and ends up sounding weird. That's aside the awkward repetition of the word "government".


It is worth mentioning straight up why 1704 gets pushed here as though it were literally the most important event in all of history. There is an argument among modern Spanish ultra-nationalists that the fact that the population left in 1704 means that the modern population of Gibraltar have no civil rights - which is convenient for them because it means they don't get a say in what happens to Gibraltar. Curiously, they do not apply this logic to other population displacements elsewhere, even those that occurred more recently such as in Spanish-speaking America. In this case, for example, I note that said editor does not propose that we also go on about the other historic population changes that will have affected Gibraltar such as the ].
:::::Imalbornoz has provided no good reason whatsoever why such awkward phrasing should be preferred over a more natural phrasing. He's provided reasons, but none of them are relevant. So I see no reason to use it over Richard's proposal.


:::::As a side issue, I'm not particularly happy with the removal of the section ''at the entrance of the ], overlooking the ]'' - which I hadn't noticed before. Gibraltar's strategic position is absolutely crucial to the understanding of many aspects of Gibraltar's history, and its cultural significance. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Editor has been curiously shy about discussing this point on the talk page, instead choosing to edit war against multiple editors in attempt to push this POV. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 10:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry to hear that. I have returned the text to the previous consensus as per BRD until we all find a new one. Regarding Pfainuk's argument, I think it is a very interesting one, but not really accurate (in my humble opinion). The text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government. Plus, anyone can understand what is meant, especially with the examples that are given about foreign relations and defense. -- ] (]) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


:The text has indeed had consensus for 15 years: The subsections was created in 2009 with the brief historical reference. For 15 years many users have edited and added (and removed) information to the section, and no one thought it was redundant. This information has been there for 15 years without interruption. And this, in an article that touches very sensitive points for British and Spanish nationalisms. I would say that passing the 15 years test is proof of consensus.
:::::::If we met in a Madrid and I said to you ''¿Metro dónde?'', I'm sure you'd understand what I meant - but I'm equally sure you would recognise that this is not a well-constructed sentence in Spanish.
:That is, until Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok decided a month ago (after 15 years!) that the text was redundant. As a context, neither Wee Curry Monster nor Kahastok wanted to explain the the flight of the native population even in the History section. In fact, both of them were topic banned (together with me and another user) during the discussion about the History section 13 years ago.
:Everyone can see that this article can generate very heated discussions, make editors waste lots of time and, in the meanwhile, offer suboptimal content in the article. Please, let's leave the consensus content and not edit war.
:If you have relevant sources about the ] and its impact in the ethnic groups of Gibraltar, please do contribute to the section!!!
:Regarding the content now included in the section: you have deleted all reference to ethnic groups and only left information about nationalities (which are different things). The section is about ethnic groups. If you want, I encourage you to add another section about nationalities.
:I have not been shy about discussing it in the talk page. In fact, I have encouraged you guys to discuss in the talk page instead of edit warring, and I am now gladly answering.
:To sum it up: (i) Please don't delete sensitive information that has endured a 15 year consensus in an article this complicated; (ii) If you want to add information about nationalities (which is not the same as ethnic groups) please do so, without deleting other information; (iii) let's try to avoid repeating errors of the past and not waste our and other people's time in endless discussions with a nationalist background. -- ] (]) 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:: ] on <s>your</s> my talk page, the section describes the ''current'' demographic profile of Gibraltar. Events of over 200 years ago are not relevant to that question in ''this'' article and have never been ]. OTOH, they are entirely relevant to the History of Gibraltar article but not this one. Otherwise where does it stop? Expulsion of the Moors? Genocide of the Neanderthals? For comparison, ] says nothing about the ]. It changes nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of Spain's claim.
::It is legitimate to boldly delete irrelevant content. Yes, we can have a ] debate if you wish but the conclusion is already obvious: you are the only one arguing for reinstatement. --] (]) 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::This section is called "Ethnic groups", not "Nationalities". Deleting any reference to historical facts related with the native and migrant population, Kahastok has also eliminated all references to ethnicity of the current Gibraltarian population. In fact, the source he mentions is the section "Nationalities" in the 2012 Census. I suppose we are all aware that nationality is not the same as ethnicity; e.g. Gibraltarians, as described by the census, are one nationality, but they also are a diverse multiplicity of ethnical groups.
:::I guess you could say that Kahastok's version is nationalistic, in the sense that, even in a section titled "Ethnic groups" he only talks about nationalities, and eliminates any mentions to the ethnical diversity of the Gibraltarian population. Even worse, from a wikipedian point of view, taking into account that the section is about ethnic groups and not nationalities, the content in Kahastok's version (only about nationalities) is obviously less informative for a reader than the previous one. Don't you think?
:::Is it really OK to eliminate all reference to ethnicities in a section called "Ethnical groups"? -- ] (]) 08:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


::It is regrettable that you choose to undermine confidence in your good faith by making false accusations like {{tq|neither Wee Curry Monster nor Kahastok wanted to explain the the flight of the native population even in the History section}}. Regrettable, but not surprising. You've done it far too many times in the past for it to be surprising.
:::::::You say that "the text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government". Well, no. I never said it did. My point is that the construction is unnatural because it starts by implying something that affects the whole of Gibraltar's self-government and then refers to something that doesn't.


::I did change the section here so that it focusses primarily on nationality, and I did that because that's what we have sources on. The census in 2012 - the last one for which we have data - does not appear to have asked about ethnicity directly, and there seems to be little other data on ethnicity out there. , for example, uses the same approach as my new text.
:::::::I actually fail to understand any reason why you are not willing to accept Richard's original proposal. You say that "self-government" is preferred by most sources - but words in Misplaced Pages are not chosen by popular vote of sources, so that's totally irrelevant. Good thing too: if it was, we'd never be able to put together a coherent sentence. You imply that "self-governing" is controversial - well, if "self-governing" is controversial then "self-government" is surely equally controversial. I see little to choose between them in that regard - this is certainly no good reason to choose a less natural-sounding sentence over a more natural-sounding sentence. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Oh dear. Oh well. I find myself agreeing with both of you. Imalbornoz's proposal doesn't, as far as I can see, either say or imply that the reserve powers remove self-government. However, it is slightly (and we are talking about slight differences here) clumsier than the alternative text; the problem as Pfainuk says is the repetition of the word "government", and while we must use our sources we don't have to choose <i>exactly</i> the same word.
::::::::I also agree that we should continue to include a phrase describing the strategic location of Gibraltar. I shall go for a paddle in the less-controversial waters that lap Anglesey and check your thoughts again this evening after sunset. ] (]) 13:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Can we just cut the crap please, Richard's proposed text was perfectly acceptable and good english. What Imalbornoz proposed was badly written with bad grammar and poor use of English. It seems to be vacillating and filibustering to frustrate consensus. Can we please just go with what Richard wrote and get on with it. There is no material difference except one is written well and the other <u>isn't</u>. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


::The text I removed was an unsourced paragraph of platitudes and padding that told the reader nothing useful, followed by the results of analysis on surname origins published in a book in 2006. Surname origins are clearly no better than nationality as a proxy for ethnicity - but unlike the census there's no reason to believe book in question is getting updated.
UNINDENT


::The suggestion that this is somehow "nationalistic" is patently absurd. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 16:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I've restored Richard's edit, supported by Pfainuk's amendment. There is clearly a consensus to add this. If Imalbornoz wishes to propose an improvement he can do so here. I hope we won't see edit warring to remove it.


:So now we have three questions: The first one about whether 1704 should be mentioned in the ethnic groups section, another about whether the historical explanation of Gibraltar's ethnic mix should be mentioned at all, and one about whether the ethnic mix implied by surnames should be mentioned.
Now moving on, this and this should have been an uncontroversial edit. Per ] and ] they're clearly relevant and provide due coverage of the issue. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
:On the first question, both versions of the first paragraph of the ethnic groups section are about history: ''The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many ... migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years'' vs the same thing with ''after almost all of the Spanish population'' ''left in 1704'' added. The only difference is that the first version cuts off the history abruptly just after a major event that influenced the current demographics. To me, it's clearly better to make the cutoff ''before'' 1704. When people read about past immigration affecting current ethnicity, they are naturally going to think of immigrants merging into an original population, which explains the ethnic diversity of most places. Saying the population started over in 1704 greatly clarifies this statement.
:As for whether any of this history should be mentioned, since there's no source for it and it's disputed, I think it should be left out. As a general rule, I give very little weight to how long something has existed in an article.
:Finally, I don't see anything wrong with reporting the ethnicity of surnames in 2006. That is modern enough that readers might well take useful information from it. At least it would be an additional hint about ethnicity when adjacent to 2012 nationality statistics in an "Ethnic groups" section. On the other hand, if the section contains nothing but nationality information, the section name should really be changed. ] (]) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for you comment. I have a couple of questions: Would you then propose to include the ethnicity of surnames, that the demographics of Gibraltar reflect the migration of 300 years, and that the original population left in 1704? Which part do you have in mind when you say there is no source and it's disputed? -- ] (]) 16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::The part that is unsourced (there's no footnote there) and disputed (at least one editor wants it removed) is the statement that the demographics of Gibraltar reflect 300 years of migration, i.e. the whole first paragraph as of few months ago, with or without recent amendments. This fact may seem obvious, but it's still an editorial conclusion if there isn't a reliable source saying that is why Gibraltar's demographics are what they are. So I propose to leave that out.
:::I do propose to include the ethnicity of surnames. ] (]) 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Regarding sources for the statement about migration, there are many. There was one that was used in the previous version (both for the first and second paragraphs, but as I look at the previous version, it was only footnoted in the second paragraph, which may have given the impression that it didn't affect the first one). It is "Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006.
::::You can check the summary here and preview some of the content in Routledge. Some excerpts:
::::<blockquote>As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa. (pg 2, Introduction)</blockquote>
::::<blockquote>Of course, Gibraltar existed physically long before the British arrived, although the Gibraltarians tend not to claim the more distant past as theirs: for them the beginning was 4 August 1704 when, after conquest of the British, all the residents left, making way for the creation of a new people. Before that, there had been 242 years when the population had been Spanish, from a far from unified Spain. Preceding that, there had been over seven centuries of Islamic control, begun in 711 with the defeat of the Christian Visigoths. The modern Gibraltarian sense of identity incorporates none of the earlier years and events. (pg 10, Changing contexts, values and norms)</blockquote>
::::<blockquote>Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a Gibraltarian nation today, it is the result of the assimilation of these immigrant groups over a long period of time.(pg 35, Ethnic factors)</blockquote>
::::For the record, I don't agree with some of the more political points of view Archer reflects in this book (calling the territory "abandoned", with no mention of the rapes, murders and plunder that happened during the capture just before the native population "left" the town; the way it makes a difference between the Spanish and Muslim native population -as if they were all not ethnically Spanish; the fact that there is a Gibraltarian nation... and many other things), but precisely for that reason I think it can be a good undisputed source for many editors with a different point of view.
::::In any case, the ethnic origins of the current Gibraltar population are clearly sourced, in this academic book and in many others. I hope this helps. ] (]) 08:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::And that is an excellent illustration why the present-day demographics section of an article about the present-day city should limit itself to what exists ''today'' (or the most recent census){{snd}} exactly as the equivalent section in every other NPOV article about a settlement does. In ''this'' article, it is ]. On the other hand, how it got to be that way is entirely ] in an article about the history of the city, where it indeed appropriate to cover the "ethnic cleansings" of 1704, ], ], ], ], ] and so on ad infinitum. It is ''not'' the place to have a proxy war over its political status: that is adequately covered elsewhere in the article. --] (]) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're right; I thought the footnote was for the paragraph, not the whole section. That is an excellent source for the summary in the article of why Gibraltar's ethnicity is what it is, and the article condensed the information from the source well.
:::::I think most people find it easier to comprehend and remember a fact if they know why it's true, so I think a few historical words of explanation, in particular what was there for years, fit nicely in the Ethnic Groups section. ] (]) 19:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Nothing about the events of 1704 - more than 300 years ago - tells us anything useful about either the ethnicity of Gibraltarians in a modern context. The user is not in this section for a discussion on history, they want to know about the modern position.


::::::If we're going to discuss 1704, we should also be discussing everything that happened before 1704 and everything that happened since, because all of the earlier and later events - from the Roman conquest to Brexit - will have a similarly significant effect on the modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians. If we are to understand the background to Gibraltar's ethnic mix in the sense that you describe, we basically need to repeat the entire history section in the ethnic groups section.
== RfC: Ownership Issues & NPOV on ] ==


::::::I am increasingly inclined to take the view that this section should be binned entirely unless and until we can find an actual source that directly describes the mix of ] modern Gibraltar. It is clear from the views expressed above that the section is only really here to serve as a ] for arguments about history. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 08:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
{{rfctag|hist}}
:::::::Historical facts about ethnic groups should be mentioned in the ethnic groups section if they are considered relevant in sources and are interesting enough to explain the current situation. For example, the Ethnicity section in the United Kingdom article
:::::::<blockquote>Historically, indigenous British people were thought to be descended from the various ethnic groups that settled there before the 12th century: the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans. Welsh people could be the oldest ethnic group in the UK. The UK has a history of non-white immigration with Liverpool having the oldest Black population in the country dating back to at least the 1730s during the period of the African slave trade. During this period it is estimated the Afro-Caribbean population of Great Britain was 10,000 to 15,000 which later declined due to the abolition of slavery. The UK also has the oldest Chinese community in Europe, dating to the arrival of Chinese seamen in the 19th century. In 2011, 87.2 per cent of the UK population identified themselves as white, meaning 12.8 per cent of the UK population identify themselves as of one of an ethnic minority group.</blockquote>
:::::::The article goes, not 300, but 900 years back!
:::::::It is the same in Demographics section of the Australia article:
:::::::<blockquote>Between 1788 and the Second World War, the vast majority of settlers and immigrants came from the British Isles (principally England, Ireland and Scotland), although there was significant immigration from China and Germany during the 19th century. Following Federation in 1901, a strengthening of the white Australia policy restricted further migration from these areas. However, in the decades immediately following the Second World War, Australia received a large wave of immigration from across Europe, with many more immigrants arriving from Southern and Eastern Europe than in previous decades. All overt racial discrimination ended in 1973, with multiculturalism becoming official policy. Subsequently, there has been a large and continuing wave of immigration from across the world, with Asia being the largest source of immigrants in the 21st century.</blockquote>
:::::::And also in many other countries and territories that have had an interesting history impacting their demographics (take a look at Taiwan, Cuba...): they do mention historical facts in their Demographics section.
:::::::Would you rather delete any historical facts form the Demographics section in the UK article (as well as Australia, Cuba, Taiwan, ...) because it is "about now, not about 900 years ago" and then start a discussion in the talk page, or accept that mentions of these facts can be included in the Demographics section Gibraltar article?
:::::::The source proposed is about modern day Gibraltar, please take a look at it, I have linked it above.
:::::::Also don't worry about ]s, you should only worry about relevant information and reliable sources.-- ] (]) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


::::::::We have no relevant information or reliable sources about ethnic groups in Gibraltar. We've got nationality statistics, and we've got an 18-year-old interpretation of surnames. That's it.
There are some very clear ownership issues on this article. Any attempt to improve the article, to expand coverage to deal with some obvious NPOV issues, or introduce relevant material is resisted by several editors. Arguments are inconsistently applied, material that is tangential on one subject must be included but other material that is relevant is reverted with the claim it is tangential. Talk page discussion is fruitless as there is no attempt to achieve a consensus, rather discussions on consensus are a stalling tactic to deter editors from attempting to improve the article. Outside opinion is discouraged by flooding the talk page with tendentious arguments and there is some serious misrepresentation of sources. Tag team edit warring has been used to impose content that clearly did not have consensus, there is also a very unhealthy attitude where consensus is decided by straw poll among a group of editors who always agree with one another. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:Justin has so far failed to convince anyone, apart from , to support the changes in the previous section. New opinions would indeed be welcome, perhaps in the previous section where the proposed changes are laid out. My comments in the previous section are about as brief as I can manage, but I suppose we could always reiterate a few of the main points with references. The issues are discussed at some length on this page, but related argument fills most of the previous 18 archived talk pages.


::::::::And yes, given that your argument is that this section should basically be a repeat of the history section (or rather, the part of the history section that seems to have obsessed you to an unhealthy degree), I think we do have to worry about ]. This is not a section about history. This is a section about ethnicity. We have no information about ethnicity. So why have a section? Surely it is not there solely so that we can recount the events of 1704 over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over - as you propose. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally it might be appropriate to review in relation to the recent activity on this page, starting at above. ] (]) 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


:::::::::Another way of looking at it is repeating only the parts of the history section that explain ethnic distribution. You seem to be biased by your expectation that anything Imalbornaz advocates must be for the purpose of pushing the idea that Gibraltar should be Spanish so that you're not seeing all the other value the edits might have. I think you have to look pretty hard to find a nationalist viewpoint in stating that the population started over in 1704. You have said that if we include the events of 1704 then we should include events before 1704 too, but the way I see it, the whole point of mentioning that one event in 1704 (people left) is that it makes everything before 1704 irrelevant to the current ethnic makeup. ] (]) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::Yes I was topic banned for uncivil conduct, I have returned and done my level best to edit in a civil manner. I also apologised to everyone involved unreservedly. I served my topic ban. There was also a great deal of taunting and uncivil behaviour that arbcom chose to ignore, there were also mitigating circumstances which Richard chose not to mention. The purpose in raising the arbcom case is not to help anyone considering to offer a comment but rather to deter it. Continually referring to past conduct, when I have done nothing to repeat past mistakes is of itself uncivil. Please note I have been labelled "prejudiced" already in discussion, each and every edit I have done has been reverted, even where an editor claimed he agreed with it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::], wikiquette alert filed regarding the above comment by Richard. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::::Oh, did you think 1704 was the last time the civilian population left Gibraltar? No, it wasn't. ].
::Do you ''really'' think this is helpful Richard? Yes, Justin was topic-banned. But given as he is not repeating the conduct that led to the topic ban, this is not an issue. Whether you like them or not, Justin is entitled to his views and is entitled to express them. He is not the problem here: right now appear he is being dismissed based on the fact that it's him making the argument, not on the merit of his arguments - and his arguments do have merit.


::::::::::This section is discussing a topic that we have no information on. The answer to that is to remove the section, not to try and fill it with information tangentially related to the topic in the hope that nobody notices.
::We've got to the absurd point where it is demonstrated that a user is misrepresenting his sources to an alarming degree and you don't seem to care. But Justin is subjected to personal attacks and his views are dismissed for the sole reason that he is Justin. Nobody was entirely innocent in the Arbcom. Just because they topic banned Justin and not you and Imal, it doesn't mean that you two were perfection personified. Time for everyone to move on from the Arbcom and discuss this in a constructive manner. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::::Even if you're proposing that we only regurgitate that part of the history section covering events after 1704 in the ethnic groups section - instead of discussing the actual ethnic mix in Gibraltar - that's still a ] and it's still unacceptable. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 07:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, who is misrepresenting their sources? I see Justin doing it - the "fear of revenge attacks" for example seems to be pure synthesis - and he is also producing walls of ill-constructed text of limited relevance to his edits. His incivility has been muted, it's true. But his arguments do not appear to be any more useful than they ever have been, indeed they have changed very little. To the extent that I can understand what his proposals are, I have extracted them from his bold recent edits and arranged them above. I would be <i>extremely</i> happy to see some reasoned comment upon them, or indeed any further comprehensible proposals. Maybe the RfC will help? Failing that I can only think that Justin's suggestion of arbitration enforcement may be the best way of moving on. ] (]) 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Excuse me, Kahastok, the way you mention that evacuation could be misleading: it was temporary and had no impact in the demographics of Gibraltar (which is what the section we are discussing is about), as they all returned between 1946 and 1951 (as the article you link says: "The last of the evacuees did not see The Rock again until 1951.{{sfn|Bond|2003|p=100}}")
::::Except once again I made no such claim, more to the point I have clarified my comments already above to ensure there is no misundertanding. Yet the same misinformation is being repeated and anything I proposed vetoed. My "incivility" has been non-existent, Richard, non-existent. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::That is quite different from the fact of practically a whole town (5,000 persons except for 70 that remained) with more or less a homogeneous ethnicity leaving and never coming back, and then the size of the population not recovering until 100 years later with ethnicities from very different origins (which kept immigrating to the town until more less 1900). That indeed had a direct impact on the ethnic groups of Gibraltar -as most relevant sources say- and can be briefly explained in this section the way the ] or the ] Demographics sections do, as @] proposes. -- ] (]) 11:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


::::::::::::What ] and ] do is describe where the current ethnic groups came from, and generally only in fairly brief terms. ] does not mention the Aboriginal population except in a modern context, and mentions no specific historical event (other than solely by date) before the twentieth century. ] makes no mention of Picts or Gaels, nor any specific historical event at all.
::::Have you not read the above then? According to Imalbornoz calls refers to as Gibraltar "British colony, Europe". It doesn't. A search for those words on that page does not come up with anything at all. The word "colony" is only used in reference to the situation in 1830. Imalbornoz's representation of the source is totally inaccurate. And there are others - practically that entire table is at best selectively quoted in order to give an impression that accords with Imalbornoz's POV. We can't have consensus unless everyone is prepared to assume that everyone else is here to improve the encyclopædia, and this is impossible if editors are selectively quoting sources in order to try and push a position.


::::::::::::Based on those, you could make an argument for, {{tq|The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many European and other economic migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years.}}, i.e. . There is no precedent in these articles that would suggest that we should give any detail on what happened in 1704, other than possibly the date.
::::But regardless of that, you're trying to drag up old dirt. If you've seen the arguments before, then that does not mean that the topic ban is relevant. The topic ban was put in place because for behavioural reasons, reasons that do not exist right now. Trying to discredit his arguments based on a topic ban that has nothing to do with them is a case of commenting on the editor, not the argument - and is distinctly unhelpful.


::::::::::::I note that you imply that the mix basically hasn't changed since 1900 - that the Spanish Civil War, World War 2, Franco, the closure of the border and EU freedom of movement basically made no difference at all. I doubt this very much.
::::I note, finally, that I cannot find where the words "fear of revenge attacks" features in the above, and thus would suggest that Justin is being misquoted. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(His words were ) ] (]) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::::::But the fact remains that ''we don't know'' what the current ethnic mix is because we don't have sources that tell us. No amount of banging on about history changes this. All putting more history in does is make the ] worse. 12:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Pfainuk, if you look at the History of the article in the Britannica (in the upper left corner) you will see that the term "colony" was changed to "BOT" (not "self-governing BOT", mind you) on December 8, 2009. As I said (and Justin and you must know, as we were involved in a very heated discussion about the "self-governing" expression), I created and posted this table for the first time in August 2009. I'm sorry I didn't check since then.
:::::In any case, to accuse me of "misrepresenting" sounds a bit overreacting. You can check that for many sources I've written the term "British Overseas Territory" in the table, so it would not be consistent for me to just "misrepresent" the Britannica. In fact, I'm not proposing to call it a colony, but a "British Overseas Territory" (without "self-governing"), so the current version of Britannica would only support my proposal.
:::::Overall, I hope that you've been able to check that NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER CALLS GIBRALTAR "A SELF-GOVERNING BOT" without exceptions or qualifiers.
:::::Finally, about "the fear of revenge" theory, it was ''you'' in fact who first proposed it one year ago, saying that it was ''fully'' sourced. Poor Justin seems to have just trusted you as a source. Talk about "misrepresentation"... You and Justin have kept proposing this theory in this same page again and again. It's pretty weird that you can't find those words and suggest that Justin is misquoted. Cheers. -- ] (]) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::::::I took a look at how those and Misplaced Pages articles about other places treat ethnic makeup and see that they do not offer any explanation of why the makeup is what it is. But that appears to be because they all are replete with hard facts about what the ethnic makeup actually is. We have the opposite problem -- no hard facts. But that doesn't mean we don't have any information. The author of "Gibraltar, Identity, and Empire" faced the same situation when trying to describe the ethnic makeup of Gibraltar and rather than just throw up his hands, gave at least two pieces of information that a reader trying to get some clue as to the ethnicity of Gibraltar could consider informative on that issue: 1) the fact that it's a result of migration in the past 300 years (and no more) from several places around the Mediterranean; and 2) the surname data. We should do the same. I'll bet a Misplaced Pages reader would consider this to be an indicator of Gibraltar's demographics even 18 years later. We additionally have the nationality stats -- again not a full answer to the question, but not entirely useless to a reader either.
::::::Dragging up the past again? Perhaps you could get your facts straight. You may note that my comment of 5 September 2009, for example, was nothing more than reiterating the final proposal at the inconclusive end of a very long and pointless discussion in May-June 2008. You may note that, far from proposing it, I was perfectly willing to leave that point out. You will also note that the words "the fear of revenge" and "fear of revenge attacks" do not occur in either of my comments. Justin uses the words "the fear of revenge" once on this page, it's true - but Richard quoted him as saying "fear of revenge attacks", which he did not say. Richard misquoted Justin, and you have just misquoted me and misrepresented the history of this page quite significantly.
::::::::::::So I don't see anything to be gained by not reporting all three things that sources tell us, however little, about Gibraltar's ethnicity.
::::::::::::On the subsidiary issue of whether the fact that the previous population left is relevant, it still seems to me that saying the current population is descended from migrants from the past 300 years leaves an open question in a reader's mind: What about the people who arrived before that? Aren't they represented too? Was Gibraltar first discovered by humans 300 years ago? ] (]) 22:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:LOL and where did the population go? That's right, to the Spanish mainland and settled with ease. There is no "indigenous" population waiting in the wings to settle Gib once the "colonisers" are kicked out. Spanish nationalist fantasies and a culture of grievance born out of the fact Britain surpassed their Empire & then lost it under less traumatic circumstances. BooHoo, The Canary Islands and those two African enclaves would like a word!!! ] (]) 10:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


{{od}}Mr Henderson, if we have no hard facts, then that is an argument for removing a section not for expanding it with unrelated facts. If you want to know what happened 300 years ago, its covered in the history section, there is no need to constantly <u>repeat</u> the same information in every section. Otherwise this article does become somewhat of a ] when it constantly repeats the same narrative. Your comment above that this was removed because {{tq|You seem to be biased by your expectation that anything Imalbornaz advocates}} is simply a presumption of bad faith. Three other editors have removed it in good faith and explained why, in response he asserts it was done in bad faith, the usual refrain being anyone British is embarrassed by what happened 300 years ago. Its something constantly repeated and I long since tired of having to deal with an editor who makes such asinine accusations. Perhaps if that editor entered discussion in good faith and did not constantly edit war for his preferred edit it would be better received but don't criticise editors who've put up with this crap for decades. If this continues to be a trading of bad faith accusations and a dialogue of the deaf I'd advocate the removal of this section as not being worth the hassle. Its not like it adds much to the article. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::On self-governing, you've misrepresented Justin's argument on this so many times that one wonders whether you have actually read it. Justin is not arguing that we should just say "self-governing". I think we should, because I think it's a useful point, but it's not his argument. He's arguing that we should say that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - a rather different point. You go to Encyclopædia Britannica and say it backs up your position. It's clear that it backs up Justin's position as well. Your point?
:I agree and suggest that it is past time that {{u|Imalbornoz}} is referred to ] for constant ]ring and ]. By no stretch of the imagination whatever was remotely consistent with the clear and unambiguous consensus of the talk page, and their edit note claiming that it did is egregiously ]. This debate has gone on long enough. There is a limit to the time that fellow editors must spend trying to get through to someone who is adamant that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Time's up. --] (]) 16:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Revised to add words in for clarity. -] (]) 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::Please, Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok, JMF: It can be offensive to use words such as "disruptive", "regurgitate", "this crap", "presumption of bad faith" (at the same time accusing other editors of "bad faith"!), "asinine accusations", "dialogue of the deaf", ... Come on, let us try to discuss constructively without bad faith accusations and loaded words.
::I suppose all of us are trying to have a good article with consistent criteria. That is what I am trying to do: if I see an inconsistency or a misunderstanding, I just point it out and we can discuss it. No hard feelings.
::You guys said that explaining the origins of ethnic groups did not fit in an ethnic groups section in Misplaced Pages, because they mentioned things happening 300 years ago. Then I showed you the examples of the ethnicity and immigration sections from the articles about UK (a country two of you must be very familiar with!) and Australia which do mention facts from 900 years ago (UK) and the 18th century (Australia). So, mentioning those facts is consistent with the criteria of other Misplaced Pages articles, and the fact that they are historical is no reason to delete those facts more than to delete them from the UK, Australia, Cuba, Taiwan... articles.
::Then some said that they thought there were no sources for the assertions being made in the article. I showed that there are, as you can see above (I just cited one but there are plenty of them).
::After that, Giraffedata said that he supported including the ethnicity reflected in surnames and the repopulation of the town, I thought it was solved and changed the text.
::Now some say I should be referred to ] for constant ]ring and ]. Oh my gosh...
::Seriously:
::(i) Do you still think historical events should be deleted from the Demographics section in Gibraltar because it is about "now"? Do you say the same about those sections in the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Cuba, ... articles (please do read them)? Or is it only in Gibraltar?
::(ii) Do you still think that there are no reliable sources mentioning those facts in and ethnicity context?
::And please, try to be more well mannered. Thank you. --] (]) 19:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I did read them. I told you I read them before. Are you reading the responses you get or are you just ignoring them?


:::As I said before, what those articles do is not what you want this article to do. Those articles discuss the origins of the current populations of those places. The text at issue here is not about the origins of the current population of Gibraltar, it's about a different group of people.
::::::On December 8 2009, I had not edited this page in three months. I was not involved in any such discussion here at that time and so it seems odd for you to assume that I have detailed knowledge of what was discussed when. I do not.


:::And then there's a question of what we actually want to put in the article. Fact is, you have ''not'' provided us with a source that actually gives us data about the actual ethnicity of people in Gibraltar. What we've got is an analysis of surnames, which requires so many caveats as to be useless, nationality statistics, which are something but not great, and a load of platitudes about how diverse Gibraltar is. We have nothing at all about how people in Gibraltar would actually describe their ethnicity.
::::::We cannot move forward if you will continue to insist on pretending people's positions are things that they are not. This works only to undermine others' assumption of your good faith, and the assumption of good faith really is necessary for consensus to be achieved. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


:::And practically the first thing you did in this discussion is accuse me of nationalist editing. It is not an accusation to point out that well over half your edits to Misplaced Pages in the last 15 years have been on the narrow topic of how this article should deal with the people who left Gibraltar in 1704, always pushing for as much detail as humanly possible. It is not an accusation to point out that you have consistently pushed strongly pro-Spanish talking points both in talk and on the article, including in this discussion. It is not an accusation to point out that your edit today - your sixth revert on this point in recent weeks - completely ignored this discussion, claiming consensus for something that clearly didn't have it. These are facts that anyone can see. If you don't like these facts, that isn't anyone else's problem. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
===Incompetence===
::::I could say that I have not pushed "strongly pro-Spanish talking points" (really, mentioning the very diverse ethnic origins of Gibraltarians in an Ethnic Origins section -which you say "should be binned entirely altogether"- is pro-Spanish????), but I won't because I think it is not relevant. We should not argue in favor or against edits based on whether they are pro or against some nationalistic narrative, but whether they are relevant and based on reliable sources.
If we do this properly with diffs, I really hope that something useful will come out of it. I summarize by saying that Justin's main problem at present is not the incivility, which he has toned down to mildly irritating asides. It is incompetence; in the first place, dragging up old issues, but more importantly, failing to organize the discussion stage of WP:BRD.
::::"Those articles discuss the origins of the current populations of those places". Exactly, that's what we are proposing here and so does -I think- Giraffedata. The origins of the current population, according to sources, are: "a complex ethnic mix reflecting the many British, Mediterranean and other economic migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years after the native population left in 1704. The mix is of of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins".
::::"What we've got is an analysis of surnames, which requires so many caveats as to be useless". I could defend the analysis by the source, but it is not up to you or me to discuss that. The source is reliable or it isn't according to Misplaced Pages's criteria (not Kahastok's), and in this case, it is:
::::*It is written by an academic: "E. G. Archer has been successively teacher, head teacher and university lecturer at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. He served as the Secretary of the Hispanic Society of Scotland for over thirteen years. A frequent visitor to Gibraltar, he co-authored Education in Gibraltar 1704-2004, and a book on the village of Catalan Bay.".
::::*It is published by Routledge, the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences.
::::*It is cited in many academic papers and not critized by one that I have seen.
::::Which criticism of this analysis have you seen made by academics (not, mind you, Misplaced Pages editors?). If you have a list of academic citations of this source using the analysis will you accept the edit?
::::Many other sources say the same thing. Do you really want to go over them? If you see more sources saying that, will you accept the edit?-- ] (]) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


:::::The text {{tq|after the native population left in 1704}} is not about the current population of Gibraltar, though, is it? Not a single one of those articles you name says anything like that about historical events. They discuss --exceedingly sparingly - the origins of the current populations. They don't discuss other populations or other groups at all.
1. ]" in the lede.] After a very long discussion (see above under POV tag, Self-governing in the lede) Justin complains:
"ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC") I cannot find - correct me if I'm wrong - any comment from Justin that made this new wording clear. As far as I can see, the discussion to that point had been specifically about the term "self-governing".


:::::I also note the phrase {{tq|native population}}. The concept of a "native population" in Europe is at best troubling because even in the easiest cases it is very difficult to define who is "native" and who is not. Given the series of previous population movements in the area - including the ], it is not credible or neutral to imply that the population immediately prior to 1704 were somehow more "native" to Gibraltar than the current population.
2. Next, he :
"The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over ], ], Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.<ref> Dr Gerry O’Reilly, GIBRALTAR: SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES AND TERRITORIAL WATERS, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Spring 1999</ref>
] (]) or Olivença (]) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between ] and ], which is claimed '']'' by both countries and administered '']'' as part of the Spanish ] of ]. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous ] sovereignty since 1297 when it was ] and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the ]. Spain claims the '']'' sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the ''de jure'' sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the ] of 1807.


:::::You go on and on about the credentials of the source for your surname analysis, but you ignore what the source ''actually says''. I said, the text requires so many caveats as to be useless. You reject this. Yet the source provides nine caveats straight off the bat, none of which are in your version of the article. Your text implies that surnames are a valid means of determining the ethnicity of the current population of Gibraltar. The source does not make actually make this connection at all, rather using the surnames to identify broad groups of incomers whose origins might be further discussed.
Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the ] of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to ''"endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority"''. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.
Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish ] or the ] claims on ], ] and the '']''). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."


:::::This is not a question of whether the source is reliable - that's a straw man. Even the most reliable source isn't useful for things it doesn't say or connections it doesn't make.


:::::The only source we have that even suggests it gives us data on ethnic groups in Gibraltar is the CIA, and they just repeat the nationality statistics from the census. You rejected using the CIA because it's nationality not ethnicity - and yet you insist on an analysis that isn't even claimed to reflect ethnicity. If we have no data on the current ethnicity of people in Gibraltar - and you have not provided any - then it makes no sense at all to have section on the current ethnicity of people in Gibraltar. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 07:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Red Hat reverted it, commenting (as others agreed) that it would be better under the dispute article or Foreign policy of Spain. After a significant discussion on this text in Parallels above, Justin then writes ]'' <small>'']''</small> 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)"] It seems that he had changed his mind in accordance with Red Hat's comments, but hadn't bothered to tell anyone else, instead indulging in a long wrangle about whether his two casual quotations support notability in the Gibraltar context. My jaw dropped and I shook my head, but, for the sake of being obliging, I struck the text through as he requested. Above, at the end of the Parallels section, I asked:
::::::Ok, so we agree that the source is reliable. That is a good start.
::::::You say that it is important also to know what the source ''actually'' says. In the introduction, where the main thesis of the book is explained, it literally says:
::::::<blockquote>As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa. (pg 2, Introduction)</blockquote>
::::::Also:
::::::<blockquote>Of course, Gibraltar existed physically long before the British arrived, although the Gibraltarians tend not to claim the more distant past as theirs: for them the beginning was 4 August 1704 when, after conquest of the British, all the residents left, making way for the creation of a new people. Before that, there had been 242 years when the population had been Spanish, from a far from unified Spain. Preceding that, there had been over seven centuries of Islamic control, begun in 711 with the defeat of the Christian Visigoths. The modern Gibraltarian sense of identity incorporates none of the earlier years and events. (pg 10, Changing contexts, values and norms)</blockquote>
::::::<blockquote>Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a Gibraltarian nation today, it is the result of the assimilation of these immigrant groups over a long period of time.(pg 35, Ethnic factors)</blockquote>
::::::That is what one of the most cited works about ethnicity in Gibraltar says: it mentions the abandoned territory in 1704 (a very relevant episode that the source mentions repeatedly because, according to him, it explains why the whole town of Gibraltar started anew with immigration from different parts of Europe and the Mediterranean resulting in the current mix), the complex ethnical mix as a result of immigration, and mentions the most significant ethnicities in Gibraltar. The only difference between the proposed edit and this summary in the introduction of the book are the %s corresponding to the last names, which you consider questionable. I would be happy to include the ] if the source considered it very relevant, but it is 1704 that it mentions prominently not the Moriscos (probably for the reason ] mentioned: the flight of the townspeople made anything happening before 1704 irrelevant from a demographics point of view, it is the flight of 1704 that is relevant).
::::::Would you then accept the text without the %s? I would rather include the percentages, explaining it is an approximation via surnames, which I think they are informative for the Misplaced Pages reader; but, for the sake of consensus, I will accept not including them if you don't want to. That way, including the summary of the introduction, I suppose we will not have any discrepancy about the interpretation of what the source actually says. Also, if you find the term "native" too loaded, we can find some other word that satisfies you. -- ] (]) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


"OK, could we have your revised proposal then?"


:::::::I ask, pretty much knowing the answer, do you have the book or are you relying for your quotes on the limited preview from Google Books? I mention this in passing, because other editors may not be aware of your track record of quoting sources you don't have access to, relying on google snippets to try and justify your ''a priori'' presumptions. If thats the case you're only able to see less than half the material on ethnicity. Ethnicity forms only one chapter in the book focusing as it does on the identity of the people of Gibraltar from multiple aspects.
to which Justin replied:
:::::::The principle theme of this book is that the people of Gibraltar are a separate and distinct people despite Spanish claims to the contrary.
{{cquote|The existence of a separate and distinctive population on their tiny part of the Iberian peninsula cannot be denied, however much the Spanish government may wish to disregard it}}
:::::::Given this is the central theme of the book, one has to wonder why you fasten on to the snippets of it referring to the events of 1704. If we're going to use this source, we should be saying loud and proud that the people of Gibraltar are a separate and distinctive people in their own right, conferring as that does the right to self-determination as outlined in the pre-amble of the Gibraltar Constitution Order.
:::::::Because based on what this author is arguing, the central message we would derive is that the events of history under the British have led to the evolution of the Gibraltarian identity. It has been the continuous presence of the British not the events of 1704 that have led to this situation, which is mentioned in passing to establish the beginning of the British period. And in terms of ethnicity the people of Gibraltar have their own separate and disctinctive identity. If we're going with what the sources says, that is the clear message of the book, which you acknowledge as one of the most cited works on Gibraltar ethnicity. I think that would be very informative for the Misplaced Pages reader. Or we could stick with the uncontroversial but slightly boring census results. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly. This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years (especially in the last 75 years or so). I think we all agree with that. I think that is why those facts (in two sentences) were able to survive for 15 years in an article that generates a lot of nationalist controversy.
::::::::My goal is not to impose a nationalist pro-Spanish POV, but to reflect relevant facts that are informative to the Misplaced Pages reader and which, by the way, are accepted by all the parts: the unique ethnic mix of Gibraltar is the result of the immigration from Britain, the Mediterranean (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta and North of Africa), and other origins over the 300 years since the previous inhabitants left in 1704.
::::::::Those are the relevant facts summarized by (British and Spanish) reliable sources, irrespective of whether some people want to use them for their (British or Spanish) political agenda or not. Wouldn't you agree to include them? -- ] (]) 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::So that will be a "no" then, you don't have access to the source.


:::::::::You say you want to reflect the source, but that's not what your text does. What your text says is that Gibraltarians are not a people, that they are instead a mix of different ethnic groups and that the real ("native") Gibraltarians all left in 1704. Your text says nothing about Gibraltarians having a "distinct identity" - the opposite, it implies that there are a number of different groups from different parts of Europe, each with a distinct identity, separate from the others.
"Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected."


:::::::::And this idea that Gibraltarians are just a random mix rather than a distinctive people with a distinctive identity is pro-Spanish POV, whether you like it or not. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, not actual incivility, just a mildly irritating aside. The point is the incompetence in discussion and the waste of time.


::::::::::There has been longevity of a number of wikipedia hoaxes, so the persistence of a text doesn't reflect merit. As you didn't answer the question, I'll presume based on past experience that as I thought you don't have access. The book definitely has a POV and takes an advocates position, it also says a lot more than just identity - it asserts they are a separate and distinct people:
3. "]" from the History section. As a one-off bold edit, this might be acceptable, though given the long previous arguments about it and the multiple references which firmly establish its notability, it would have been tactful to introduce the possibility on the talk page first. But I am left astonished that he should think that the comment "to be consistent with the argument in Parallels" is adequate. He may think that the multiply-referenced main destination of most of the previous population of Gibraltar is as trivial as a perceived inconsistency in Spanish policy, but other editors are unlikely to agree. His change was reverted.
{{cquote|The Gibraltarians themselves have no doubt about their existence as a distinct and homogenous people.}}
::::::::::It also states their identity as a separate people is not because a small population left in 1704 but because of the status as a British fortress, then later as a British Overseas Territory enabling the development of self-government and evolution of a people who assert the right to self-determination. The existence of that desire for self-government stemming from their exile in 1940.
::::::::::So if you're proposing to change the text to better reflect the source, by all means suggest an edit about their emergence as a separate and distinct people. But if we're going to have ] wording they're a mongrel mix and not really a people, reflecting a rather unpleasant nationalist narrative well that's a no from me. I'd prefer the current edit. TTFN <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Kahastok: Sorry, I didn't answer your question: Yes, I do have access to the source. Does it change anything? Do you want to find consensus in order to provide Misplaced Pages users some information about Gibraltar's distinct ethnic situation?-- ] (]) 09:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Wee Curry Monster: Would you then want to include something in the lines of: "Gibraltar's population shows a distinct and unique ethnic mix" and then go on to explain the rest of it along the lines of Archer "reflecting immigration from various European and Mediterranean sources, notably from Britain, Genoa and other parts of Italy, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa, over the 300 hundred years since the previous inhabitants left in 1704". ] (]) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


::::::::::::That's substantially identical to your previous proposal. It still fails to tell the reader what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar, which is the most basic requirement of this section. It still bangs on about 1704, and while you've tried to justify this using other articles, none of those articles do what you want to do. So, no. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
4. : "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." His edit summary was again entirely inadequate: "slimming down the text relevant to an overview, the detail can go in the history article, rm material that is peripheral as per current discussion". His repeated removal after a revert came with the summary "rv per discussion in talk, with a request that accusations of disruptive editing and other PA cease and a plea to focus on content". Again, nowhere near adequate, and an editor without longstanding involvement reverted to the last stable version.
:::::::::::::Can you tell me how this fails to tell the reader what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar: "from various European and Mediterranean sources, notably from Britain, Genoa and other parts of Italy, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa"? -- ] (]) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Based solely on that description, what proportion of the population of Gibraltar would describe their ethnicity as North African? How many as Sub-Saharan African or Afro-Caribbean? How many would describe their ethnicity as Minorcan or Genoese? How many as Spanish or as British or as Gibraltarian? We don't know. This at best gives us vague information about ancestries of modern Gibraltarians, but says nothing their ethnicity.


::::::::::::::Remember that ] is fundamentally a social construct, and that ethnicities can merge and can split. Chances are most people in Gibraltar, just like most people in Britain, just like most people in Spain, just like most people in France, in the US, in just about anywhere else, have ancestors from more than one place, and those ancestors might be quite disparately spread. This is why self-reporting is so important. If there are no modern Gibraltarians who would consider themselves ethnically Genoese, then there are no ethnically Genoese Gibraltarians.
5. , referenced and well-written but probably far too long for an overview article:
"After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point. Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and ], desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. The ] provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave. They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into ]. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of ] founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles."


::::::::::::::And if you feel that that phrase does give the information we need, then there is no value in adding the rest of your proposal, the part that achieves nothing other than indulging your obsession with 1704. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 21:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
6. to insert a brief (and possibly defensible) comment: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of ] and ] in ]." I reverted almost all of these edits anyway to await consensus. Discussion in the Overview section above was getting lost in Justin's complaints (as opposed to relevant comments) about how the present text was achieved: "In actual fact, there was no consensus for including this material - you and others chose to tag team edit war that material into the article. And again you drag up the past and use the threat of admin action to impose content rather than discussing. There is also a major inconsistency in your approach. Above you insist we shouldn't include material on the grounds you assert it is relevant to Spain but tangential to Gibraltar; an argument that isn't sustainable given the prominence in sources. Yet something that is tangential to Gibraltar but relevant to Spain you insist must be included and edit war to impose it. I am prepared to discuss it but if you insist on personaling this discussion as a dispute and make personal attacks and accusations as you've done at ANI I will be going to arbitration enforcement. I have given you plenty of warnings. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)"
:::::::::::::::You are too much of an experienced Misplaced Pages editor for you to need me to explain what ] is, so out of respect I won't.
:::::::::::::::I will just point out that, on the one hand, we have a wide consensus of academic sources (Archer is just one of them) literally saying those are the ethnic groups of Gibraltar; and on the other hand, there is Kahastok saying that they are not.
:::::::::::::::According to Misplaced Pages's criteria the article should reflect what the reliable sources say, not an editor's (not your, not my) opinion. So, will you tell me a reason, different from your own opinion, why those are not the ethnic groups that create Gibraltar's ethnical identity? Any reliable sources? -- ] (]) 23:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


::::::::::::::::I certainly know what OR is. That means I know when people are claiming OR incorrectly. I also know about concept of cherry picking sources. I do not see anywhere in your source, for example, where Archer describes these as ''current'' ethnic groups in Gibraltar. On the contrary, he describes ''original'' ethnic groups, but makes it clear that "the various ethnic ingredients merged and the notion of being Gibraltarian became dominant".
7. In the hope of getting discussion back on track I started the section above "Request for one-line comments on proposed changes". As will be clear from the diffs here, the proposals listed were direct quotations (some trivially amended) from Justin's edits. Justin then complained about ownership of the article, and wrote (above): "The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented."


::::::::::::::::So insofar as you present this as me vs Archer, it's only because you misrepresent Archer in a way that anyone who has dealt with you will know is entirely predictable. Your source does not back your content, and repeating yourself over and over again will not make it back your content. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
====Summary and proposed action====
:::::::::::::::::Please analyse what the source says:
Even from Justin, this seemed remarkable. It appears impossible to engage Justin in a meaningful discussion at all. If he disclaims his own edits and refuses to write any other proposals, I really cannot understand how anybody is supposed to guess what his proposals actually are. At this point, and considering Justin's immense past history of argumentation, I came to the conclusion that as long as Justin continues to edit in this fashion, this article will remain bogged in futile wrangles. I should add that I do not merely assume good faith, I judge that he is editing in good faith, but without displaying sufficient ] to conduct a constructive discussion. I will remind him that the included specifically "Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, ]...", and that advice on dispute resolution includes "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages.". Making highly contentious edits and following them with semi-relevant wrangles, accusations, and disclaimers does not help us to build a better encyclopedia and it is a behaviour pattern which might reasonably attract enforcement action under the terms of the existing ].
:::::::::::::::::<blockquote>It is not the intention to write anything approaching a history of the peoples of Gibraltar. (...) The objective is to confirm the presence and significance of each group, and to discuss the salient issues arising.</blockquote>
:::::::::::::::::Note the words "presence" and "significance".
:::::::::::::::::In the introduction, regarding the determinants of Gibraltarian identity, a set of them are called, according to Archer, citing Ernest Barker, the “material factors”. Among them, the first one he mentions are the “ethnic ingredients of the population” or “ethnic component” of Gibraltar. Then he says what they are, literally: “immigration” “from various Mediterranean sources” “into an abandoned territory” and explains those sources. He does not say that they remain exactly the same as when they arrived, but that they have evolved into what Gibraltar is nowadays, which is -according to his thesis- one Gibraltarian identity with several characteristics, one of which is the ethnic mix.
:::::::::::::::::In the “Ethnic factors” chapter, he not only counts last names (that is only one of the 17 pages of the chapter), he also analyses each of the groups and explains, for each of them: who they were; why, how and when they came to Gibraltar; what their contribution has been to society; how fully integrated they are nowadays; and how they are perceived in terms of Gibraltarian identity. The groups he analyses are (by order of arrival): Genoese/Italians, Jews, British, Portuguese, Minorcans, Spanish, Maltese, Indians, Moroccans, and Others. Be aware that the author talks about these groups in present tense. The case is pretty similar in each of them: they retain some of their characteristics (some religion, some language, there is an anecdote with present day Gibraltarian Jews attending a cricket game vs Israel waving Israeli flags, some Portuguese who like to trace their roots…), but they have merged into a Gibraltarian identity.
:::::::::::::::::It is quite similar to the ethnic groups that the United Kingdom article describes in the Demographics section (see above): it traces a historical origin that explains the present, even though most of the ethnic groups have evolved into a more or less homogeneous British identity.
:::::::::::::::::Reading the source (not just snippets) it is evident that the author (in an academic publication with numerous cites in other papers) states that the ethnical environment of Gibraltar can best be explained as several ethnic groups from the Mediterranean and Britain that immigrated to Gibraltar after the previous population left and have evolved to create a Gibraltarian identity (which is what his sentence from the introduction means both as stand alone and put into context).
:::::::::::::::::<blockquote> As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa. </blockquote>
:::::::::::::::::There are many (really a lot) other sources explaining that these are the ethnic groups of Gibraltar (the same ones that Archer explains), it is not something that any reliable source denies. Really, this feels like discussing with someone about whether a source says that the earth is round or that the book of Genesis has or doen't have scientific support.
:::::::::::::::::Do you have any reliable sources saying that those are not the ethnic groups in Gibraltar? Otherwise, please do accept the edit or let us start a discussion with external editors. -- ] (]) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


{{od}}This is a classic example of an editor ] from a source to support an ''a priori'' notion, creating a classic example of ] that fails to represent a ]. The source presented <u>does not support</u> the view that there are ethnic groups in Gibraltar such as ''Genoese/Italians, Jews, British, Portuguese, Minorcans, Spanish, Maltese, Indians, Moroccans, and Other'', instead it explored the ancestry of the ''people'' who now identify as ]. You have avoided mentioning the conclusion of the author that Gibraltarians are a separate and distinct people, instead alluding to ] such as identity and ethnic mix. You're right this discussion does have a feeling of a discussion with a flat earther, going round in circles with repetition of the same tired point; except you're projecting your own problems onto others. Personally I wouldn't tend to use Archer as a source, he definitely has his own views and he strongly supports the rights of the people of Gibraltar. It is very much a biased source; biased towards recognition of Gibraltarians as a separate and distinct people. Its bizarre in that context to try and use this source to argue the Spanish position in Misplaced Pages's voice that Gibraltarians aren't a people but a mongrel mix of immigrants. So the question, which I fully expect you to dodge, do you accept based on the conclusions of this source that Gibraltarians are a separate and distinct people? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so. ] (]) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


:(i) Please comment on the following sentence: "It is not the intention to write anything approaching a history of the peoples of Gibraltar. (...) The objective is to confirm the presence and significance of each group, and to discuss the salient issues arising." How is that sentence compatible with the author thinking that there are no ethnic groups? Do you have any sentence in the book that supports the idea that those are not the main ethnic groups in Gibraltar?
:I'm afraid I haven't read this because it's over 14,000 bytes and fills my entire monitor. I wouldn't expect a point-by-point rebuttal (indeed, I'd ask editors not to provide one) for exactly the same reason. When people talk about "walls of text" putting people off, this is the sort of thing they mean. In the future, could I ask all editors to try and write more concisely please?
:(ii) You don't read my comments: of course I don't avoid mentioning the conclusion of the author that Gibraltarians are a a separate and distinct people. Please read my comments above, for example: "Exactly. This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years." And that is not incompatible with there being ethnic groups in Gibraltar, like there are in the United Kingdom or Australia (see the Demographics sections in those articles), and those countries also undeniably have their own distinct national identity (which includes some level of diversity).
:(iii) How do you explain that the Government of Gibraltar(!) as member of the UKOT association says that "It has a population of approximately 30,000 Gibraltarians, representing an international mix of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African, with 75% of the population being Roman Catholic."
:(iv) Can you explain how you think that what applies in the Ethnicity section of the United Kingdom article does not apply here?-- ] (]) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


::You claim to mention the author's conclusion that Gibraltarians are a a separate and distinct people. But the text you want to put in the article implies the precise opposite conclusion, dismissing them in favour of the group who left in 1704.
:That said, I would suggest that, however politely it's put (and I don't know because I haven't read it), posting a nearly-2000-word essay entitled "incompetence" on a talk page about another user would look like a personal attack even if there was no Arbcom case and no dispute. Now, it could be that there's no violation of ] in there - but it doesn't look good. Could I ask that this be sorted please? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


::The text on ] is actually a good example of what a good text ''should'' do, but your text ''doesn't'' do. Its focus is on modern-day ethnic groups based on self-description. It does briefly discusses the history of those groups, but only in terms of the modern groups currently living in the UK, without any mention of any group not currently living in the UK. Your text, by contrast, doesn't even mention modern ethnic groups based on self-description, instead focussing entirely on history, including going off on a tangent about groups no longer present.
::Sorry about the volume, but documenting some long-winded argumentation seems the only way of making a convincing point about remediation. Backing up the call for no point-by-point rebuttals, I repeat my summary request for all editors to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's principles. ] (]) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


::Where ] treats ethnicity correctly as a social construct, allowing people to belong to more than one group and allowing generalisations where needed, your text treats ethnicity as immutable and unchanging, assigning each person exactly one ethnicity inherited solely down the paternal line.
:::Perhaps that would start with you, then? What compromises are you willing to make in order to gain consensus on the points raised? What are your proposals that you believe could resolve the dispute to you and Justin's mutual satisfaction? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


::The idea that your text is just doing what ] does is risible. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps we could continue our above? If we cannot reach consensus on the present proposals no doubt we can generate some more. ] (]) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I say it does describe modern-day ethnic groups and you say it doesn't, but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is what reliable sources say (not one source, many of them, and so far you have not cited one that says otherwise). According to reliable sources:
:::*Gibraltar’s ethnic factors reflect "a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa." (Archer)
:::*Gibraltar’s population is "an international mix of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African" (UKOTA)
:::*"It would be correct to say that the fusion of races which has made the Gibraltarian of to-day, includes apart from Jews, Genoese, men of Savoy, Spaniards, men of the United Kingdom, Portuguese, Minorcans, Sardinians, Sicilians, Maltese, French, Austrians, and Italians..." (Henry William Howes, The Gibraltarian: The Origin and Development of the Population of Gibraltar from 1704)
:::*"When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers." (Archer)
:::*” On the Rock the incorporation of immigrants has played an important role in the creation of a shared national identity, as was the case with some other former British colonies such as Singapore – sometimes known as the ‘Gibraltar of the East’.” (‘An Example to the World!’: Multiculturalism in the Creation of a Gibraltarian Identity, by Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini)
:::*Interviews selected by the authors of ‘An Example to the World’ to prove their point:
:::**”And the point is that we do not have a native language because we are not natives to the Rock or rather we are not indigenes to the Rock. So, therefore, we don’t have a language of our own. And you think of the cocktail of people that were here: Greeks, Maltese, Jewish, Italians . . . Everybody was sort of thrown into one melting pot and most of these people were single.”
:::**“We are very rich in a sense, culturally speaking because we have many different types of people with many different types of cultures. And Gibraltar has become like a melting pot. So, we actually know a lot about many cultures and that has been very enriching for the Gibraltarian mentality. And it’s shown in our cooking. Many Gibraltarians have come over from Morocco to live here, other from Italian people, from Spanish, from Maltese, so that has enriched our culture.”
:::It doesn't matter if you think that this advances a Spanish nationalist POV (I think it doesn't, but it doesn't matter either). A wide spectrum of sources support that text that you want deleted.-- ] (]) 16:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::::You claim to be reflecting the sources, but we've already established that the text you want to put in the article reaches the precise opposite conclusion to your most-frequently cited source. You claim to be talking about groups existing in the present, but even your cherrypicked quotes treat them as historic. You claim to want this section to talk about the present, but you in fact seem desperate for it to talk about the past - to the point where a surprising degree of prominence is given to people who left 300 years ago. No. I'm going for that. Of course I'm not going for that. I actually think if we are describing ethnic groups in Gibraltar, we should be describing the present, not trying to convert the ethnicity section into a second history section. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 21:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::"We've established"? Who? You, Wee Curry Monster and JMF? Giraffedata, myself and (most importantly) many reliable sources do not. The sources, when talking about ethnic groups, (i) mention "Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins", (ii) they say that these groups originated as a result of immigration in the last 300 years, and (iii) the immigration came into a territory that had been previously abandoned by the original Spanish population.
:::::Another source:
:::::<blockquote>Who are the Gibraltarians? A touch improbably for a community inhabiting such a small space, the people of Gibraltar are descended from a rich mixed salad of immigrant genes: Italian, Spanish, Sephardic-Jewish, Maltese, Portuguese, English, Scottish, and Irish, among many others. (The surnames in my own extended family attest to this polyglot medley: Alvarez, Romero, Olivero, Caetano, Chiarvetto, Ballantine, Vinet.) Unlike other colonized peoples who can look back to pre-colonial precursors in their efforts to nurture a sense of their distinctiveness, the Gibraltarians carne into being after the original Spanish population had fled in its entirety.</blockquote>
:::::::Alvarez, David (2000) "Colonial Relic: Gibraltar in the Age of Decolonization," Grand Valley Review: Vol. 21: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvr/vol21/iss1/4
:::::Please notice the present tense in "Who '''are''' the Gibraltarians."
:::::I can go on and on and on posting reliable sources that mention those 3 points (list of main groups, immigration and exile of original population) when talking about Gibraltar's current ethnic groups. Take into account that, for the sake of consensus, I have only used British sources in order to avoid the accusation of using an anti-British POV. There are reliable sources from many other origins (especially Spanish, but also from other places) that also state the same three points. Should we include those sources as well?
:::::Let us try to see what we have established in this discussion, fact-checking some of the comments in this discussion:
:::::*"300-year-old population movements are not normally discussed when discussing modern ethnic groups in other contexts on Misplaced Pages" "The text at issue here is not about the origins of the current population of Gibraltar, it's about a different group of people.": FALSE
:::::**The UK article mentions origins in the Ethnicities section: the original population from 900 years ago, the arrival of black population in the 1700s and Chinese population in the 1800s
:::::**Australia's Demographics section does the same: talks about British arrivals since 1788, German and Chinese immigration in the 19th century, and English/Scottish/German/Greek/etc. ancestries
:::::**The same with Cuba, Taiwan, and many other articles
:::::*"We have no relevant information or reliable sources about ethnic groups in Gibraltar" "We have no information about ethnicity." "This section is discussing a topic that we have no information on.": FALSE
:::::**We have a very large amount of sources mentioning Gibraltar's ethnic groups: Archer, Howes, UKOTA, Gibraltar's board of Tourism, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, David Alvarez, ... (and there are many, many more)
:::::*"Your text says nothing about Gibraltarians having a "distinct identity": FALSE
:::::**I have proposed: ""Gibraltar's population shows a distinct and unique ethnic mix" and then go on to explain the rest of it along the lines of Archer"
:::::**I have said about Archer that "This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years"
:::::**I have said that "they retain some of their characteristics (...), but they have merged into a Gibraltarian identity." and "the previous population left and have evolved to create a Gibraltarian identity"
:::::**In case there is any doubt I will say it clearly: I think that the text should reflect (as it does in the Culture section among others) that there is a current day Gibraltarian identity. I will add that practically all sources say that a very relevant factor of this identity is the diversity as a result of immigration and there not being a "native" population after they left in 1704.
:::::*"a surprising degree of prominence is given to people who left 300 years ago." FALSE
:::::**That prominence is not surprising, if we judge by the many sources mentioning that fact when they explain Gibraltar's current Demographics situation, and why it is the way it is now: Archer, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, David Alvarez... (and, besides those British sources, a great number of Spanish sources as well).
:::::I hope you admit now that (i) we have sources mentioning the ethnic groups, (ii) historic population movements are mentioned in this context (Demographics sections of country articles), (iii) I am in favor of saying that Gibraltarians have a distinc identity, and (iv) the fact that the current demographics of Gibraltar originated after the original population left is well sourced.
:::::Please go over 4 those points and tell me if we now have some common ground.--] (]) 09:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::And I still see no sources describing ''current'' ethnic groups, only ''historic'' groups. Since you're clearly having trouble with the distinction, words like "descended from" are generally a good hint. We could argue we know the ethnicities of the current Gibraltarians' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, but that's not the same thing as the ethnicities of current Gibraltarians.


::::::I note that you claim that you are in favour of saying that Gibraltarians have a distinct identity, but your text not only doesn't say this, it actually implies the precise opposite, that they are a random mix of different groups that just happen to live near each other. Saying one thing on the talk page is worthless if you say the opposite on the article.
:::::What's needed here is compromise on all sides. Justin has been trying to compromise, but you've opposed every one of his attempts. It's not reasonable to expect people to stumble around in the dark hoping we hit upon something that you're willing to accept. So I would like to invite you again to put your suggestions. What compromises are you willing to make in order to resolve this dispute? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::As to 1704 you repeatedly point out these four articles, that you believe make your case best. But you've still failed to mention anywhere where any one of them gives the history of a group that has been absent for 300 years.
::::::Suggestions can be divided into those that unequivocally help a better encyclopedia, those that unequivocally don't, and the group in the middle. I'm happy to compromise on the middle group. ] (]) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::The closest parallel is probably . There are differences between the situations. The pre-1704 Gibraltarians left as refugees during war, whereas the Spanish enslaved and killed all of the Taino. And, the Taino have a far more claim to being a distinctive ethnic group than the pre-1704 Gibraltarians, and also far more claim to being "native" to Cuba than the pre-1704 Gibraltarians have to being "native" to Gibraltar.
:::::::This comment notably fails to ] in that it implies that those who disagree with you are "unequivocally" out to damage the encyclopædia. If you want to have a civilised discussion, then you're going to have to accept that people who disagree with you are not doing so out of bad faith. Neither I nor Justin is out to damage the encyclopædia, as you imply. <small><font color=gray> — ] {{#if:| ({{{2}}}),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->


::::::The case made on this page would apply far more strongly to the Taino there than to the pre-1704 Gibraltarians here. And yet the section at ] says nothing at all about what happened to the Taino. And, to be clear, none of the others give any more detail than Cuba does about groups not currently present.
::::::::(I don't say anything of the sort, and I assure you that I don't imply or mean it either. I have mentioned already that I don't find poor faith to be the problem. ] (]) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC))


:::::::::Well, you ''do'' imply it. You say that you'll support anything unless it "unequivocally" doesn't improve the encyclopædia, and you oppose to others' proposals. The only way these make sense together is if you believe that others are out to damage Misplaced Pages. So, perhaps you would like to clarify your comment above? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC) ::::::When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter how many times you post walls of text insisting that grass is orange, grass is not suddenly going to become orange. Your aim seems to be to filibuster the discussion by posting walls of text, and nobody should be surprised by that because it's a tactic that you've been using for decades. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So, to be clear:
:::::::(i) You don't agree that the ethnic groups section should mention ethnicities according to whom they descended from?
:::::::(ii) And, forgetting for a moment about the phrase to be included in the ethnic groups section, and focussing on facts that we agree on, please confirm whhether at least you agree that relevant sources support that:
:::::::*The current Gibraltarians are descended from people of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins?
:::::::*Those people migrated into what was a practically empty town after the takeover of 1704?
:::::::*Gibraltarians have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years?
:::::::Thank you. -- ] (]) 09:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


::::::::You're still asking questions about history. And this is still not a history section. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::On the substance of your point, you are currently opposing suggestions that would clearly improve the encyclopædia in my view. I don't say "unequivocally" because I recognise that people may in good faith disagree with me. Fact is, because I have no idea what you consider would "unequivocally help a better encyclopedia" and what you feel "unequivocally" wouldn't, your post tells me nothing whatsoever. <small><font color=gray> — ] {{#if:| ({{{2}}}),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
:::::::::I agree: this is not a history section, it is a demographics section; but some parts of demographics sections in other countries' articles do mention historical facts (UK, Australia, etc.) Given that we are not of the same opinion about the content that should go in this section, it's better we clarify what we agree and what we don't agree on; that is what I am trying to do.
:::::::::From the previous discussion I have understood that:
:::::::::(i) You don't agree that the ethnic groups section should mention ethnicities according to whom they descended from.
:::::::::(ii) You agree that relevant sources support the following facts, but you don't think they should go into the demographics section:
:::::::::*The current Gibraltarians are descended from people of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins.
:::::::::*Those people migrated into what was a practically empty town after the takeover of 1704.
:::::::::*Gibraltarians have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years.
:::::::::Can you please confirm that I have understood you correctly on each of those points? Thank you very much. -- ] (]) 14:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The other articles mention history only to give context to current data. None mentions history in any other context. You are focussing in on history to the exclusion of all else. You insist on history and only history, and this is ''still'' not a history section. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 16:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, I understand you say that this section is not about history, neither in this article nor in the UK, Australia, etc. But I am not asking about that.
:::::::::::What I am asking is (i) Can you confirm that you say that the ethnicities section should not mention who descended from whom? (ii) You think that the points above should not be mentioned in the demographics section, but do you at least agree that relevant sources support they are historical fact? Please, for consensus sake, answer these questions. -- ] (]) 07:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And I am saying that discussion of historical details for their own sake is not relevant to this section, which - and you seem to acknowledge but then immediately disregard this key point - is not a history section and has not become a history section during the course of this discussion. Given that they are not relevant to the section in discussion, I see no purpose in discussing the historical details further.


::::::::::::This is supposed to be a section discussing ethnic groups in Gibraltar in the present day. The only source we have seen that discusses this point in present day terms is the CIA, which gives the nationality statistics from the census. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Instead of general argumentation, which has kept this page bogged down for years, perhaps we could talk about specific proposals? ] (]) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see you don't disagree about those being historical facts. What you are saying is that historical facts such as descent or ancestry do not belong in an Ethnicity section: "And I still see no sources describing current ethnic groups, only historic groups. Since you're clearly having trouble with the distinction, words like '''"descended from"''' are generally a good hint. We could argue we know the ethnicities of the current Gibraltarians' '''great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents''', but that's not the same thing as the ethnicities of current Gibraltarians."
:::::::::It has been done before, believe me. Though I note that you haven't provided any specific proposals on most of the issues of contention, so any that I make are still blundering around in the dark. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The thing is that ethnicity is defined, at least, as a result of descent from past generations:
:::::::::::::::<blockquote>This book defines '''ethnic identities''' as a subset of categories in which '''descent-based''' attributes are necessary for membership (…) The notion that descent matters in defining ethnic identity is hardly surprising. '''Virtually all social science definitions''' of an ethnic identity '''emphasize the role of descent''' in some way.” (Chandra, Kanchan (2012). Constructivist theories of ethnic politics. Oxford University Press. pp. 9-10)</blockquote>
:::::::::::::Therefore, in a section about '''ethnicities''', you need to at least mention '''who they are descended from''' (and who they are not descended from). Btw, the last cite is not random, it is one of the references cited in the first paragraph of the wikipedia ] article. This is not a "modern Spanish ultra-nationalist" argument. It is the essential nature of ethnicity. I suppose this settles the discussion. -- ] (]) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I note that your quote actually explicitly describes that ethnicity as principally a social construct. I also find it very interesting that you a quote that defines ethnicity as {{tq|a social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or one's ancestors' experiences}}.
::::::::::::::Your historically-based text for this article treats ancestry and descent as the ''only'' possible way by which ethnicity may be defined, forcing labels on people based on their surnames despite no evidence those people would accept those labels. In doing so it directly contradicts the quotes you provide, that hold that ethnicity is a social construct.
::::::::::::::In doing this, your text ''does'' push a Spanish nationalist POV in that it denies even the possibility that ethnic groups may change over time. It denies even the possibility that, for some if not most of the Gibraltar population, the "shared social experience" of actually living in Gibraltar for centuries may be more important than some distant ancestors' experience of islands or historic city-states hundreds of miles away.
::::::::::::::It also pushes that POV because - we go back to where this discussion starts - it insists on the relevance of people who left over 300 years ago in a discussion of modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians. This being a core tenet of the modern Spanish ultra-nationalist belief that the descendents of people who left over 300 years ago somehow have more political rights over modern Gibraltar than the current population of Gibraltar. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The concept of ethnicity in general: As you can see, all definitions of ethnicity include the concept of descent and ancestors, and (yes, indeed) sometimes other factors. But the concept of descent is central, to the point of one source saying that "Virtually all social science definitions of an ethnic identity emphasize the role of descent in some way".
:::::::::::::::Ethnicity in the specific case of Gibraltar: Do sources discard ancestry and focus in other factors? Or do they mention the ancestors? As you can see, all the sources talk, not surprisingly, about the ancestors of today's Gibraltarians; say that they immigrated from Britain, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Jewish families; that they populated an empty territory after the native population left in 1704; and created a unique mix that is one of the characteristics of Gibraltar's identity.
:::::::::::::::That clearly contradicts your previous points that we have no sources, that sources do not mention the immigration into the abandoned territory as part of the explanation of Gibraltar's ethnicity, or that past descent or ancestry has nothing to do with modern ethinicities.
:::::::::::::::The text does not stand against the posibility of ethnicities changing over time. In fact, it says that Gibraltar's identity is the result (á la melting pot) of the evolution of a diverse mix of several ethnic origins, and I stress the word "evolution" (which means change).
:::::::::::::::You say that the text supports that the descendants that left have more political rights than modern Gibraltarians. That is absurd, taking into account that all sources are British and Gibraltarian. In any case, you have piqued my curiosity: Can you please tell where does the text say anything about political rights?
:::::::::::::::Finally, the possibility that the facts reflected in the text supposedly support some cabal or conspiracy with pro-Spanish, pro-British or pro-whatever political points of view should not matter at all. The important thing in Misplaced Pages is to reflect the facts that reliable sources mention. -- ] (]) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There is something I'm just not seeing in part of this dispute. One of the fundamental points of disagreement is whether the words "after the original population left in 1704" should be in the ethnicity section. Kahastok has said multiple times that this suggests that peoples who lived in Gibraltar before 1704 are relevant to the current ethnicity of Gibraltar ("it insists on the relevance of people who left over 300 years ago in a discussion of modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians"), but I see exactly the opposite -- it says those peoples are ''not'' relevant -- and that is why it's a helpful addition to the section. Can someone reconcile this?
:::::::::::::::This and much of this whole discussion is irrelevant, by the way, because it is not our job to describe the ethnicity of Gibraltar here. It is our encylopedic job to summarize what reliable sources say about the ethnicity of Gibraltar. If we can find sources that say surnames, historical immigration, and the events of 1704 don't tell us anything about the ethnicity of Gibraltar, we should report that alongside the facts from the other sources saying they do. ] (]) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Except, we ''don't'' have sources that say that.


:::::::::::::::::We have, at best, sources that describe the describe the history of the people in Gibraltar. We don't have any sources at all that say that this corresponds to their current ethnicity. The sources quoted above go to great effort ''not'' to say that this corresponds to current ethnicity.. As WCM pointed out, the conclusion that Imalbornoz proposes that the article reach is the ''precise opposite'' of the conclusion reached by his preferred source.
:::::::You've suggested a compromise on one point. I appreciate this, but your proposal is so vague that it's impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion on it. Do I support it? Well, right now there is no "it", so I couldn't tell you. You're asking for suggested edits, but your sole proposal isn't a suggested edit. And I notice you remain silent on the other points, meaning that we still have no idea what you might be willing to accept on those points. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


:::::::::::::::::If people want to know history, we have a history section. If that isn't enough, we have an ]. Perhaps you could explain to me why you feel that we need a second full-blown history section in the Demographics section? ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I could have been clearer. Would you like to suggest a specific phrase for the lede? Or alternative edits to those presently failing to achieve any consensus one way or the other? ] (]) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::@] has a very important point: Gibraltar starts its unique ethnical mix 300 years ago from scratch, and this is a very singular and noteworthy fact for a territory in Europe (where a larger share of people who can trace back their ancestry from millenia ago in the same place share their territories with some people who came from far away recently or just a few generations ago). Gibraltar is a noteworthy example of a diverse ethnicity started in the modern age, similar to some places in the new world.
::::::::::::::::::Regarding sources, actually we do have many:
::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>As regards the '''ethnic''' component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an '''abandoned territory''' from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of '''Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa'''.
:::::::::::::::::::"Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006; pg 2, Introduction</blockquote>
::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the '''Spanish''' population, with a few exceptions, '''left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque''', some miles inside Spain. What was taken '''in 1704 was virtually empty territory'''. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a '''Gibraltarian nation''' today, it is the result of the '''assimilation of these immigrant groups''' over a long period of time.
:::::::::::::::::::"Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006, pg 35, '''Ethnic factors'''</blockquote>
::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>"And the point is that '''we do not have a native language because we are not natives to the Rock or rather we are not indigenes to the Rock'''. So, therefore, we don’t have a language of our own. And you think of the cocktail of people that were here: Greeks, Maltese, Jewish, Italians . . . Everybody was sort of thrown into one melting pot and most of these people were single.”
:::::::::::::::::::‘An Example to the World!’: Multiculturalism in the Creation of a Gibraltarian Identity, by Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini (fragment of interview selected by authors to showcase the point of view of the population)</blockquote>
::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>It has a population of approximately 30,000 Gibraltarians, representing an '''international mix''' of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African, with 75% of the population being Roman Catholic.
:::::::::::::::::::United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association (the Government of Gibraltar is a member)</blockquote>
::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>'''Who are the Gibraltarians'''? A touch improbably for a community inhabiting such a small space, the people of Gibraltar are '''descended''' from a rich mixed salad of '''immigrant genes: Italian, Spanish, Sephardic-Jewish, Maltese, Portuguese, English, Scottish, and Irish''', among many others. (The surnames in my own extended family attest to this polyglot medley: Alvarez, Romero, Olivero, Caetano, Chiarvetto, Ballantine, Vinet.) Unlike other colonized peoples who can look back to pre-colonial precursors in their efforts to nurture a sense of their distinctiveness, the Gibraltarians '''came into being after the original Spanish population had fled in its entirety'''.
:::::::::::::::::::Alvarez, David (2000) "Colonial Relic: Gibraltar in the Age of Decolonization," Grand Valley Review: Vol. 21: Iss. 1, Article 4.</blockquote>
::::::::::::::::::There are many more sources along these lines, which the article should summarize. Their volume is massive, but ok, if there are also a significant number of sources saying that immigration in the last 300 years from the places cited above is not the source of practically all Gibraltarian ethnicity, Kahastok, please tell us and we will cite them as well. Could you please do that? --- ] (]) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::''Perhaps you could explain to me why you feel that we need a second full-blown history section in the Demographics section?''
::::::::::::::::::I don't feel that we need that. At most, I feel that the article would be improved by including one or two historical facts in the demographics section that reliable sources say inform us about the ethnic makeup of Gibraltar.
::::::::::::::::::Do you want to comment on the issue of whether the words "after the original population left in 1704" says the pre-1704 population is or is not relevant to the ethnicity of Gibraltar? Because I still think I'm missing the point of some of your objections. ] (]) 18:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}The relevant historical facts that have led to the evolution of a unique Gibraltar identity are: A) its role as a British military outpost for the RN, which in many ways retarded the development of self-government and B) demands by the people of Gibraltar for a role in how they were governed and the conflict between the two. In many ways it parallels the situation in many of the smaller British possessions where in the past the needs of local people were ignored by civil servants who thought they knew best. I say this as someone who has read extensively on the subject and formed a view based on the prevailing view in the literature. The problem with the proposal, is the demand to mention the Spanish exodus and then looking for sources to justify mentioning it. Its putting the cart before the horse but symptomatic of an editor whose been doing it for well over a decade. The second problem is you Bryan because more than once you've assumed bad faith in people suggesting this was inappropriate. If you were talking of historical facts relevant to a social construct like ethnicity, such as the ones I suggested, that may be appropriate. What modern relevance is people who left in 1704, when we don't mention the arabs who left, the conversos or anyone of a number of past groups who are no longer relevant to the ethnic make up of the modern Gibrltarians? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: Bryan as I was about to log off when I noticed I answered the same question of yours on the 10 May. Did you expect a different answer by repeating the question? This proposal is clearly going nowhere, someone should close this pointless discussion. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::There was no answer on May 10, just as now, unless it is to say the question is moot because there's some other reason the words "after the original population left in 1704" should not be included. But when Kahastok said at least twice more that the words should not be included because they mean the population that left in 1704 ''is'' relevant to the ethnic groups in Gibraltar, I had to assume he didn't think the question is moot and the question just got lost on May 10.
::I have not assumed bad faith. I have suspected bias. Bad faith is editing in a way you believe hurts Misplaced Pages or at least breaks its rules. Bad faith is arguing something you don't really believe. Acting with a bias is not acting in bad faith.
::This discussion has been half about article content and half about editor conduct from the beginning. (It actually begins with "We have an editor ...", and is sprinkled with ad hominem throughout). I am just not interested in the editor conduct issue, but you switch to that when you say the problem with the mention of the 1704 exodus is the thought process of the person who put it there. It doesn't address my question about how a reader would interpret this phrase. ] (]) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::But why would the section mention history at all, other than incidentally? The question that this section is supposed to be answering is "what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?". There's no reason to mention history in answering that question. Let alone the history of groups that aren't even present in Gibraltar.


:::The problem here is fundamentally that we don't have much information to answer that question in a modern context. The best we've got is the CIA. I suppose you could argue for (which argues explicitly that a common Gibraltarian ethnic group exists and was written by some of the authors that Imalbornoz claims argue the opposite). But I don't because it's answering the wrong question. Just like most of the other sources listed here.
:::::::::Will discuss the proposal above. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


:::Because the question "what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?" is not the same as the question "what is the history of ethnic groups in Gibraltar?". An answer to the second question does not work as an answer to the first, unless you deny the possibility that ethnic groups can emerge and can disappear. And if you do deny that possibility - as Imalbornoz implicitly does above - you are forced into some very odd conclusions. By this logic, there are no Irish people in Ireland, no Spanish people in Spain and no German people in Germany, because all of those ethnic groups - along with all other ethnic groups on the planet - emerged from disparate predecessor groups.
UNINDENT


:::The fact that Imalbornoz is not trying to find an answer even to the question "what is the history of ethnic groups in Gibraltar?" (but rather trying to source an answer he already had based on his own prejudices, sometimes to the point of cherrypicking quotes to try and make authors reach a conclusion diametrically opposed to the conclusion they actually reach) is almost irrelevant, because it's the wrong question. Ultimately, you cannot say what ethnic groups there currently are in Gibraltar or any other place based solely on history.
Richard alleges that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion alleging I'm somehow unclear, that I cannot be understood.


:::To write this section properly - to answer the question of what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar - we need to discuss modern statistics based on modern surveys like censuses. The only source we have on this is the CIA, which repeats the census nationality data. There is no law saying we have to have a section at all. ] does not have one. But the worst thing we can do is try to hide the lack of data through off-topic waffle and irrelevances. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 11:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
# OK please tell me how I could have made my proposal plainer? Two other editors seemed to realise straight away.
::::Kahastok: You say that in order to answer the question "What ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?" "There's no reason to mention history in answering that question." The wikipedians who have contributed to the ] in the United Kingdom article (for example) think otherwise. Their answer in the case of the ethnicity of the UK is:
# I express my comments on the reasons for the exodus:
::::<blockquote>Historically, indigenous British people were thought to be descended from the various ethnic groups that settled there before the 12th century: the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans. Welsh people could be the oldest ethnic group in the UK. The UK has a history of non-white immigration with Liverpool having the oldest Black population in the country dating back to at least the 1730s during the period of the African slave trade. During this period it is estimated the Afro-Caribbean population of Great Britain was 10,000 to 15,000 which later declined due to the abolition of slavery. The UK also has the oldest Chinese community in Europe, dating to the arrival of Chinese seamen in the 19th century. In 2011, 87.2 per cent of the UK population identified themselves as white, meaning 12.8 per cent of the UK population identify themselves as of one of an ethnic minority group.</blockquote>
{{cquote|One, is the behaviour of the troops, two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, '''there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town'''. I personally feel that latter is the one that most stands up to logical examination as by the time of the exodus order had been restored.}}
::::It clearly mentions historical dates: before the 12th century, 1730s, 19th century. That is only logical, taking into account that almost all sources about ethnicity take historical ancestry as the most important factor, or at least one of the most important ones.
I add the emphasis to make plain a personal opinion on one of the reasons for the exodus. Which you will note I amplified in the following sentence and that I acknowledge as a personal opinion, with the additional point that personal opion is not the basis. All have been previously advanced as reasons for the exodus. The argument I present is supported by the source:
::::In any case, the criteria should be "How do reliable sources answer the question of what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?". Then we take a look at Archer's book, and the answer is very similar to the UK ethnicity section:
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :
::::<blockquote>As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa.</blockquote>
{{cquote|Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.}}
::::You don't have to interpret that. It is literally right there: a diversity of ethnical groups that immigrated into abandoned territory in the last 300 years. With regards to Gibraltar's identity (which includes additional things to ethnicity, like culture, general beliefs, etc.) Archer says what you're saying: Gibraltar has its own identity which has evolved along the years, and one of the key factors is indeed its multiethnical mix. But "national identity" is not "ethnicity". The UK ethnicity section does not deal with national identities or whether the ethnic groups it mentions have evolved into one ethnicity; it just mentions them and gives some historical context. Although, if you want the article to also talk about Gibraltar's national identity, go ahead, I will not be against it.
I would hope there would be agreement that the sources supports the expectation of a counter attack.
::::Then we have the other British and Gibraltarian sources as well: Alvarez, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, UKOTA,... And there are also several Spanish sources, which I have not brought here in order to avoid a discussion about Spanish POVs.
So I do not understand why you are demanding I provide a sources for a comment that is not my principal argument. Perhaps you could elaborate for the reason for doing so. Equally perhaps you could explain why Pfainuk is attacked for suggesting that my comments have merit, alleging he is responsible for introducing this throw away line.
::::There you have it: (i) it makes sense (of course!) to mention some historical facts when talking about ethnicity; (ii) most sources do mention the ethnic groups that you deleted; and (iii) many of them mention the fact that they immigrated into an abandoned territory.
# On San Roque, I am prepared to compromise provided it is explained properly. Again my point is that saying they went to a town founded '''2 YEARS''' later is not the basis for a well written encyclopedia.
:::: Do you think that the Gibraltar article should be different from the UK article? Can you cite other sources that discard the facts that you deleted in the Gibraltar article? Are they better sources with regards to the content of an ethnic groups section?-- ] (]) 00:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
# On Ceuta and Melila, I have pointed out the legal and political justification for including a sentence. I have compromised following your suggestion of including my original proposal and wikilinking to another article with a very brief mention in this article. I don't see the justification for a revert here.
:::::{{tq|Their answer in the case of the ethnicity of the UK is...}} - no, it isn't. Their answer is a large table giving the number of people in each ethnic group. Everything else in that section is just there to give context to the table.
# I have followed the ], every edit that I have produced that has been reverted I have attempted to discuss.
# Your comment on one line proposals. Well noting my comments above, particularly where I explicity defined my proposal ie , my proposals were not accurately explained. There were also two editors who have demonstrated a reluctance to address my arguments who both voted against ideas that were not my own. Perhaps you might like to consider it from my perspective but to me it looks like two editors who only wish to bring up the past, ganging up against me and owning the article. Perhaps that is a bad faith presumption but it is not an entirely unjustifiable one.
# If I am incompetent Richard, perhaps you could explain to me, what is the benefit of dragging up remarks I made whilst extremely upset and whilst I was in a bad way mentally. Because from my perspective it simply appears as flinging them back in my face and an attempt to belittle and humiliate me. I have apologised unreservedly on more than one occasion so I really don't feel it is helpful.
# Finally, I have done nothing but ask to focus on content not editors. I don't feel the need to attack your competence with a 2000 word diatribe. And yet again we have a wall of angry text deterring outside comment. Is it not possible to put the past behind us? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


:::::I note that you again explicitly claim that the authors of support your position, even though they in fact reach the opposite conclusion. As does Archer.
:It's difficult to answer this one for several reasons. First, I don't want to fatten this already-overfed page, but would prefer to move on. To explain the further misunderstandings in your last comment above would require yet another couple of screensful. Second, I don't want to belittle you nor to stop you from contributing in an area where you have information and interest, and I guess that answering all your points, if I were to do so to your intellectual satisfaction, would do nothing for your self-esteem. Third, given your angry comments about me in the past, I'm not sure you'd read what I write in the constructive way that I intend it. I'm not therefore keen on answering your last set of questions, and if you were to persuade me to do it I'd prefer to do it on a user subpage. I do want to get on with the business of improving this encyclopedia. Perhaps you could solicit an un-involved editor - Atama comes to mind if he/she has the time - to assist you in the technique of doing so?
:However, I hope that we may bypass this wretched business by the process in the . That is, by making clear proposals and brief pertinent comments, either achieving consensus or moving on to alternative proposals. User subpages may also be a useful mechanism for honing our longer contributions, perhaps with help from our friends, until they express with brevity and clarity a really well-thought-through point. Or we could draft our remarks thoughtfully, then wait a day or two to allow us to make them clearer and more relevant before we post them. ] (]) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


:::::In the case of ] they decided not to have any section at all. Again, this doesn't match your approach. Your approach would have said that the ethnic groups of Spain are Celts, Tartessians, Lusitanians, Vascones, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Visigoths, Vandals, Arabs and Berbers. But no Spanish people, obviously. Because Spanish people are a modern group, not a historic group.
::Frankly, if you didn't want to have to have this kind of discussion, you shouldn't have posted a 2000-word essay on how incompetent Justin was. That was a very bad idea, and was never ''ever'' going to have a good outcome. Given the personal attacks contained in this message, veiled and open, you are baiting Justin here, Richard. If you want a civilised discussion, you are going exactly the wrong way about it.


:::::Not having a section is an option here as well, if we feel that the CIA and the census results - our only relevant source - isn't good enough to tell us what ethnic groups there currently are in Gibraltar. But your approach - to waffle about a different topic to try and hide the fact that we have little good data - is not going to become acceptable just because you decided to repeat the same argument 300 times. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::The topic ban is finished. Justin has apologised over and over and over again for his past comments. Let's move on. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:28, 11 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gibraltar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeGibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2004, April 30, 2005, April 30, 2006, April 30, 2007, August 4, 2007, September 10, 2007, September 10, 2008, August 4, 2009, September 10, 2009, and August 4, 2010.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconGibraltarpediA Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of GibraltarpediA.GibraltarpediAWikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediATemplate:WikiProject GibraltarpediAGibraltarpediA-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGibraltar Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconCities: National capitals
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBritish Overseas Territories Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpain Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
WikiProject iconPhoenicia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Gibraltar in popular culture was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gibraltar. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.


Lead overload?

@Imalbornoz:, it may be fair to say that Wee Curry Monster was a bit heavy-handed with their deletion but they certainly do have a point to this extent: WP:LEAD says that the lead should contain a "brief summary of the main points of the article". The material you added is valid but it is not a "brief summary". You need to look at it again with a view to reducing it to no more than two or three lines.

Even as it stands, the lead is too long. It should not normally be longer than four succinct paragraphs. So if you were so minded, a general spring clean of the lead would be welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your comment.
I have indeed tried to write a brief summary, but you have to take into account that Gibraltar sits at one of the main points of the Mediterranean and it has a long history with a relevant role in quite a few of the Mediterranean civilizations. Therefore, the History section of the article is not short: it has almost 11,000 words. The lead paragraph about history is 269 words long. So it has a scale of 1 to 40, which I would say is a reasonably brief summary.
On the other hand, in order to have a vision of what is a reasonable length of a lead section, I have taken a look at the leads of a sample of equivalent countries or territories: the current length of the Gibraltar lead is 481 words vs Bermuda 531 words, Faroe Islands 618 words, Jersey 482 words, Marshall Islands 591 words, Monaco 772 words, Northern Mariana Islands 742 words, Tuvalu 669 words... Therefore, I don't think we can say that the current lede of 481 words is unreasonably long.
But of course I am ready to try and abbreviate the historical part of the lead a bit further. Let me take a look at it.
Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
That we have been unable to write the history section with appropriate WP:summary style is not a reason to make the lead section excessive as well. The expanded paragraph is 15 lines, almost doubling the length. I'm not seeing how much of the addition is particularly due either, the lead doesn't need to generally cover the history of the Iberian peninsula. CMD (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I've reduced the size of the lead paragraph. Now the lead is 420 words (much much shorter than Jersey, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Tuvalu, etc.) --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead, but specifically the history para, is certainly better now. I removed one line (about 711 beach-head for Arab invasion) since the body text says that the location is unknown but was probably not Gibraltar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I thought it was important because some sources say it has to do with the name Gibraltar, but it's ok with me to remove that if it is not a historical fact supported by most sources. I have left another point that is relevant to the history of the population of Gibraltar.--Imalbornoz (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:BRD Bold Edit, when Reverted, Discuss
I add emphasis, because frustratingly, it seems Imalbornoz still feels it appropriate to revert to his preferred edit and insist other editors justify removing it. What was added was not a material improvement to the lede and I don't think my revert was in the least heavy-handed. I thank other editors for recognising my concerns and explaining and amplifying them. I have further summarised the text but I have to note I don't see a need to change the pre-existing lede. WCMemail 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, there are important things that happened in the history of Gibraltar that you have reverted for the second time. The things you have reverted affected (i) the most single issue that Gibraltar was known for in Ancient times for several centuries (Pillars of Hercules) and (ii) the destiny of almost all the population of Gibraltar of 1704 (1,200 households according to most British and Spanish sources). The lead is still much shorter than the ones about similar countries or territories, so there should be no need to further summarize it.
As a side comment, I don't think that a second revert is a very appropriate use of WP:BRD in an article that has seen quite a few topic bans (especially, some attempts to remove the destiny of those 1,200 indigenous families from the history section were something that caused lots of discussion and topic bans). Please, do not revert again and discuss. I am very eager to read your opinions and exchange sources and ideas in the talk page. Thank you very much.--Imalbornoz (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have no desire to waste my time going over the events of a decade ago, I strongly suggest you let it go. Please take my reply as a WP:3RR warning that you should stop edit warring and discuss content in a calm and rational manner. I disagree that this belongs in the lede, the aftermath of the capture is but a footnote in history, it is in the article; it doesn't need to be in the lede.
I request that you apologise for the accusation I am suppressing material, its been going on for over a decade and I cannot discuss content with an editor who is doing so on the basis of this bad faith accusation. WCMemail 19:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You are correct that your repeated reversions are not an appropriate use of WP:BRD. Having realised this, one would have thought that you would stop reverting, but apparently not?
The lead is already unbalanced toward history compared with the rest of the article. I don't think unbalancing it further will help anything. This is an article on all aspects of Gibraltar, not just history. Kahastok talk 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I found the original edit to put too much detail in the lede - dates and people, for example. But I agree important parts of the history were not summarized before. I find the current version to be a great distillation of material that was missing before. I like it. If it were to be trimmed anymore, I would take out the details of the Strait's military significance at the end.

As for the metadiscussion, I did find the original reversion to be heavy handed in that it wiped out with a single click a significant effort to improve the article; a lighter hand would have tried to find some value in that edit and maybe keep at least part of it. Sweeping reversions evince the attitude that the reverter is in charge and supplicants must find something exactly to his liking for it to be considered. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bryan I really resent the inference of that comment, it is most unhelpful. WCMemail 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Bryan.--Imalbornoz (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion and the edits seem to be more constructive now, so thank you everybody for that.
Regarding the point we were discussing, I think that the destiny of the civilian inhabitants would be relevant for the lead: they turned from around 5,000 or 6,000 (1,200 households) to almost zero in 1704, and grew during the next two centuries resulting in the current unique mix of British, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, other Mediterranean (Sephardic Jews among them), and Asian origin.. A brief reference to that could be fit in the lead. What would be the opinions of other users on the matter?--Imalbornoz (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think you have been trying to push this point into the article by any possible means for well over a decade, irrespective of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, arguing at times that it should be given more weight than the Treaty of Utrecht. The point is sufficiently explained by the article. Putting it in the lead as well would demonstrate only lead fixation. Kahastok talk 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think there are far more important topics that could be covered in the lede:
  1. Neanderthals in Gibraltar noting the significance of Gibraltar in their study.
  2. Impact of desalination plants - Gibraltar long had a problem obtaining enough fresh water, which was a major brake on population growth.
  3. Great Siege of Gibraltar, which is the longest siege in British Army history
  4. Gibraltar Parliament and the self-governing nature of Gibraltar
  5. Elections in Gibraltar
  6. Constitution of Gibraltar
  7. British Forces Gibraltar
  8. Military history of Gibraltar during World War II and the far more recent Evacuation of the Gibraltarian civilian population during World War II
  9. History of the Jews in Gibraltar and the expulsion of the Jews under Spanish rule. I don't think we should discuss the Spanish claim of the violation of the Treaty of Utrecht by allowing members of the Jewish faith to live in Gibraltar, which might be misconstrued.
  10. Communications in Gibraltar
  11. The closure of the border
  12. Royal Gibraltar Regiment
  13. University of Gibraltar
  14. Gibraltar Squadron
  15. Moorish Castle
  16. Gibraltar Anthem
  17. Gibraltarian cuisine
  18. Gibraltar Anthem
  19. Little bit of trivia, Rock Hudson derived his stage name from the Rock of Gibraltar
  20. The significant role of Gibraltar in defeating Napoleon and the Battle of Trafalgar
I don't see it as particularly helpful to relitigate endlessly the same discussion, punctuated with bad faith accusations to raise tension. Because this is already going down the route of past discussion eg Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 26#Historical documents of the village of Gibraltar including the same threats of seeking topic bans and arbcom sanctions. Editing is supposed to be collaborative, it isn't supposed to be about winning by imposition of your content choices.
Having made some content suggestions I intend to step back and allow others to comment, I suggest Imalbornoz does the same. WCMemail 10:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding WCMonster's list: Usually, leads of countries or territories talk about the most outstanding facts about their geography, population, history, government/politics/diplomacy and economy. Therefore, I would include things among the topics that you mention like the Neanderthals, the Great Siege, the Moorish Castle... as long as you also include a mention about the history of the inhabitants of Gibraltar as a whole (which should really be the main characters in this article). both before AND after it became a British territory. That is why I proposed to mention the 5-6,000 inhabitants pre-1704 and the successive waves of migrants from Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Sephardite Jews, etc., mainly in the XIX century. I understand from your proposal, WCMonster, that you think that there is not a lead overload.
The importance of Gibraltar's Military History is already mentioned in the lead.
I don't really think that Rock Hudson's name should be included in the lead, or the cuisine, etc. (maybe in a Popular Culture section)
In fact, it would be very interesting to understand WCMonster's criteria to include Rock Hudson in the lead and exclude the almost total outward migration in 1704 and inward migration in the XIX century. Can you explain your criteria to include Rock Hudson and exclude the migration of the practical totality of Gibraltarian population from the lead?--Imalbornoz (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between these are topics that would go in the lead before your proposal and these are topics that should go in the lead.
Those of us who have been around for a while will know your POV. They will know your history of pushing this point as though it were literally the most important thing that could ever be said about Gibraltar. However, Misplaced Pages's job isn't to show off individual editors' hobby horses, including yours. The lead should be aiming to introduce and summarise the article. We already have too much history there, we don't need more. Kahastok talk 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think this is the most important thing that could ever be said about Gibraltar, at all. What I do think is that the historical fact that almost all inhabitants of Gibraltar left the town in 1704 and settled nearby, while most of the current population is a very diverse group that migrated to Gibraltar during the following 3 centuries is very relevant, but some other editors think that it isn't, thus the discussion.
I understand the difference between "would go in the lead before" and "should go in the lead". That's why I asked @Wee Curry Monster: why he thinks Rock Hudson's name would in the lead "before" the exodus of all the population of Gibraltar. Him explaining the underlying criteria would help to understand his position and understanding is important for consensus. Thanks.--Imalbornoz (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the duplicate paragraph in the intro section:

Since Brexit, Gibraltar is not a member of the European Union but negotiations are under way to have it participate in the Schengen Agreement to facilitate border movements between Gibraltar and Spain. As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked.

Since Brexit, Gibraltar is not a member of the European Union but negotiations are under way to have it participate in the Schengen Agreement to facilitate border movements between Gibraltar and Spain. As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked. Dxks10080 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede Fixation

I note that the lede has come in for a lot of attention; particularly around the economy. May I remind editors the lede is supposed to reflect the article and provides a summary of what is in the article. Whilst the edits have introduced a new source, which is helpful, the lede no longer reflects what the economy section of the article says. WCMemail 11:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

My objection to the text previously in the lead was twofold:
  1. While four sources were presented, the only one that seemed to contain any information on the subject was a Spanish government piece written in 2010, specifically to support its sovereignty claims.
  2. When the source was replaced (with the CIA World Factbook), it was clear that the original claim (Gibraltar's economy is based largely on tourism, online gambling, financial services, and bunkering did not match the source.
The quote from the CIA is this:
The financial sector, tourism (over 11 million visitors in 2012), gaming revenues, shipping services fees, and duties on consumer goods also generate revenue. The financial sector, tourism, and the shipping sector contribute 30%, 30%, and 25%, respectively, of GDP. Telecommunications, e-commerce, and e-gaming account for the remaining 15%.
So, we have 85% shared between financial services (30%), tourism (30%), and shipping (25%), with three other industries - including online gaming (which is larger than gambling) - accounting for the rest (15%).
Based on these numbers, I still think calling out gaming over telecoms and e-commerce probably overstates the significance of e-gaming. However, based on the source that Asqueladd added, I am happy that the current description is backed by an appropriate source.
However, this then raises a problem with the first sentence of the Economy section, which is based on a 2012 Foreign Office description (and also appears to overstate the significance of online gambling compared with the source). We should be changing this in the same way IMO. Kahastok talk 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ancient history in lead

Asqueladd, do you think that even Gibraltar being one of the pillars of Heracles is not lead material? פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not masked as part of the urban history. It can be useful in the introduction of the article of the Rock of Gibraltar, and perhaps in the introduction of this article (when the rock—the geographical feature—is mentioned).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Fine, even though I don't agree I won't argue about that. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

national_representation1 = Nus Ghani The Minister of State for Europe has changed. ParliamentarianCA (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

We have an editor - one who has long been obsessed with the events of 1704 to the point of appearing as an WP:SPA - insisting that we go on about the events of 1704 in the section about modern ethnic groups. Said editor insists that the text has consensus despite its having been removed by three separate editors, all noting that events that occurred 300 years ago are not relevant to the modern situation.

Note that 300-year-old population movements are not normally discussed when discussing modern ethnic groups in other contexts on Misplaced Pages, particularly when these details are already discussed repeatedly elsewhere ib the same article.

It is worth mentioning straight up why 1704 gets pushed here as though it were literally the most important event in all of history. There is an argument among modern Spanish ultra-nationalists that the fact that the population left in 1704 means that the modern population of Gibraltar have no civil rights - which is convenient for them because it means they don't get a say in what happens to Gibraltar. Curiously, they do not apply this logic to other population displacements elsewhere, even those that occurred more recently such as in Spanish-speaking America. In this case, for example, I note that said editor does not propose that we also go on about the other historic population changes that will have affected Gibraltar such as the Expulsion of the Moriscos.

Editor has been curiously shy about discussing this point on the talk page, instead choosing to edit war against multiple editors in attempt to push this POV. Kahastok talk 10:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The text has indeed had consensus for 15 years: The subsections was created in 2009 with the brief historical reference. For 15 years many users have edited and added (and removed) information to the section, and no one thought it was redundant. This information has been there for 15 years without interruption. And this, in an article that touches very sensitive points for British and Spanish nationalisms. I would say that passing the 15 years test is proof of consensus.
That is, until Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok decided a month ago (after 15 years!) that the text was redundant. As a context, neither Wee Curry Monster nor Kahastok wanted to explain the the flight of the native population even in the History section. In fact, both of them were topic banned (together with me and another user) during the discussion about the History section 13 years ago.
Everyone can see that this article can generate very heated discussions, make editors waste lots of time and, in the meanwhile, offer suboptimal content in the article. Please, let's leave the consensus content and not edit war.
If you have relevant sources about the Expulsion of the Moriscos and its impact in the ethnic groups of Gibraltar, please do contribute to the section!!!
Regarding the content now included in the section: you have deleted all reference to ethnic groups and only left information about nationalities (which are different things). The section is about ethnic groups. If you want, I encourage you to add another section about nationalities.
I have not been shy about discussing it in the talk page. In fact, I have encouraged you guys to discuss in the talk page instead of edit warring, and I am now gladly answering.
To sum it up: (i) Please don't delete sensitive information that has endured a 15 year consensus in an article this complicated; (ii) If you want to add information about nationalities (which is not the same as ethnic groups) please do so, without deleting other information; (iii) let's try to avoid repeating errors of the past and not waste our and other people's time in endless discussions with a nationalist background. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
As I wrote to you on your my talk page, the section describes the current demographic profile of Gibraltar. Events of over 200 years ago are not relevant to that question in this article and have never been wp:DUE. OTOH, they are entirely relevant to the History of Gibraltar article but not this one. Otherwise where does it stop? Expulsion of the Moors? Genocide of the Neanderthals? For comparison, Northern Ireland#Demographics says nothing about the Plantation of Ulster. It changes nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of Spain's claim.
It is legitimate to boldly delete irrelevant content. Yes, we can have a WP:BRD debate if you wish but the conclusion is already obvious: you are the only one arguing for reinstatement. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is called "Ethnic groups", not "Nationalities". Deleting any reference to historical facts related with the native and migrant population, Kahastok has also eliminated all references to ethnicity of the current Gibraltarian population. In fact, the source he mentions is the section "Nationalities" in the 2012 Census. I suppose we are all aware that nationality is not the same as ethnicity; e.g. Gibraltarians, as described by the census, are one nationality, but they also are a diverse multiplicity of ethnical groups.
I guess you could say that Kahastok's version is nationalistic, in the sense that, even in a section titled "Ethnic groups" he only talks about nationalities, and eliminates any mentions to the ethnical diversity of the Gibraltarian population. Even worse, from a wikipedian point of view, taking into account that the section is about ethnic groups and not nationalities, the content in Kahastok's version (only about nationalities) is obviously less informative for a reader than the previous one. Don't you think?
Is it really OK to eliminate all reference to ethnicities in a section called "Ethnical groups"? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
It is regrettable that you choose to undermine confidence in your good faith by making false accusations like neither Wee Curry Monster nor Kahastok wanted to explain the the flight of the native population even in the History section. Regrettable, but not surprising. You've done it far too many times in the past for it to be surprising.
I did change the section here so that it focusses primarily on nationality, and I did that because that's what we have sources on. The census in 2012 - the last one for which we have data - does not appear to have asked about ethnicity directly, and there seems to be little other data on ethnicity out there. The CIA, for example, uses the same approach as my new text.
The text I removed was an unsourced paragraph of platitudes and padding that told the reader nothing useful, followed by the results of analysis on surname origins published in a book in 2006. Surname origins are clearly no better than nationality as a proxy for ethnicity - but unlike the census there's no reason to believe book in question is getting updated.
The suggestion that this is somehow "nationalistic" is patently absurd. Kahastok talk 16:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
So now we have three questions: The first one about whether 1704 should be mentioned in the ethnic groups section, another about whether the historical explanation of Gibraltar's ethnic mix should be mentioned at all, and one about whether the ethnic mix implied by surnames should be mentioned.
On the first question, both versions of the first paragraph of the ethnic groups section are about history: The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many ... migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years vs the same thing with after almost all of the Spanish population left in 1704 added. The only difference is that the first version cuts off the history abruptly just after a major event that influenced the current demographics. To me, it's clearly better to make the cutoff before 1704. When people read about past immigration affecting current ethnicity, they are naturally going to think of immigrants merging into an original population, which explains the ethnic diversity of most places. Saying the population started over in 1704 greatly clarifies this statement.
As for whether any of this history should be mentioned, since there's no source for it and it's disputed, I think it should be left out. As a general rule, I give very little weight to how long something has existed in an article.
Finally, I don't see anything wrong with reporting the ethnicity of surnames in 2006. That is modern enough that readers might well take useful information from it. At least it would be an additional hint about ethnicity when adjacent to 2012 nationality statistics in an "Ethnic groups" section. On the other hand, if the section contains nothing but nationality information, the section name should really be changed. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for you comment. I have a couple of questions: Would you then propose to include the ethnicity of surnames, that the demographics of Gibraltar reflect the migration of 300 years, and that the original population left in 1704? Which part do you have in mind when you say there is no source and it's disputed? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The part that is unsourced (there's no footnote there) and disputed (at least one editor wants it removed) is the statement that the demographics of Gibraltar reflect 300 years of migration, i.e. the whole first paragraph as of few months ago, with or without recent amendments. This fact may seem obvious, but it's still an editorial conclusion if there isn't a reliable source saying that is why Gibraltar's demographics are what they are. So I propose to leave that out.
I do propose to include the ethnicity of surnames. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding sources for the statement about migration, there are many. There was one that was used in the previous version (both for the first and second paragraphs, but as I look at the previous version, it was only footnoted in the second paragraph, which may have given the impression that it didn't affect the first one). It is "Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006.
You can check the summary here and preview some of the content in Routledge. Some excerpts:

As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa. (pg 2, Introduction)

Of course, Gibraltar existed physically long before the British arrived, although the Gibraltarians tend not to claim the more distant past as theirs: for them the beginning was 4 August 1704 when, after conquest of the British, all the residents left, making way for the creation of a new people. Before that, there had been 242 years when the population had been Spanish, from a far from unified Spain. Preceding that, there had been over seven centuries of Islamic control, begun in 711 with the defeat of the Christian Visigoths. The modern Gibraltarian sense of identity incorporates none of the earlier years and events. (pg 10, Changing contexts, values and norms)

Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a Gibraltarian nation today, it is the result of the assimilation of these immigrant groups over a long period of time.(pg 35, Ethnic factors)

For the record, I don't agree with some of the more political points of view Archer reflects in this book (calling the territory "abandoned", with no mention of the rapes, murders and plunder that happened during the capture just before the native population "left" the town; the way it makes a difference between the Spanish and Muslim native population -as if they were all not ethnically Spanish; the fact that there is a Gibraltarian nation... and many other things), but precisely for that reason I think it can be a good undisputed source for many editors with a different point of view.
In any case, the ethnic origins of the current Gibraltar population are clearly sourced, in this academic book and in many others. I hope this helps. Imalbornoz (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
And that is an excellent illustration why the present-day demographics section of an article about the present-day city should limit itself to what exists today (or the most recent census) – exactly as the equivalent section in every other NPOV article about a settlement does. In this article, it is WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, how it got to be that way is entirely WP:DUE in an article about the history of the city, where it indeed appropriate to cover the "ethnic cleansings" of 1704, 1609, 711, 407, 206 BCE, c. 700 BCE and so on ad infinitum. It is not the place to have a proxy war over its political status: that is adequately covered elsewhere in the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
You're right; I thought the footnote was for the paragraph, not the whole section. That is an excellent source for the summary in the article of why Gibraltar's ethnicity is what it is, and the article condensed the information from the source well.
I think most people find it easier to comprehend and remember a fact if they know why it's true, so I think a few historical words of explanation, in particular what was there for years, fit nicely in the Ethnic Groups section. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Nothing about the events of 1704 - more than 300 years ago - tells us anything useful about either the ethnicity of Gibraltarians in a modern context. The user is not in this section for a discussion on history, they want to know about the modern position.
If we're going to discuss 1704, we should also be discussing everything that happened before 1704 and everything that happened since, because all of the earlier and later events - from the Roman conquest to Brexit - will have a similarly significant effect on the modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians. If we are to understand the background to Gibraltar's ethnic mix in the sense that you describe, we basically need to repeat the entire history section in the ethnic groups section.
I am increasingly inclined to take the view that this section should be binned entirely unless and until we can find an actual source that directly describes the mix of ethnicity modern Gibraltar. It is clear from the views expressed above that the section is only really here to serve as a WP:COATRACK for arguments about history. Kahastok talk 08:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Historical facts about ethnic groups should be mentioned in the ethnic groups section if they are considered relevant in sources and are interesting enough to explain the current situation. For example, the Ethnicity section in the United Kingdom article

Historically, indigenous British people were thought to be descended from the various ethnic groups that settled there before the 12th century: the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans. Welsh people could be the oldest ethnic group in the UK. The UK has a history of non-white immigration with Liverpool having the oldest Black population in the country dating back to at least the 1730s during the period of the African slave trade. During this period it is estimated the Afro-Caribbean population of Great Britain was 10,000 to 15,000 which later declined due to the abolition of slavery. The UK also has the oldest Chinese community in Europe, dating to the arrival of Chinese seamen in the 19th century. In 2011, 87.2 per cent of the UK population identified themselves as white, meaning 12.8 per cent of the UK population identify themselves as of one of an ethnic minority group.

The article goes, not 300, but 900 years back!
It is the same in Demographics section of the Australia article:

Between 1788 and the Second World War, the vast majority of settlers and immigrants came from the British Isles (principally England, Ireland and Scotland), although there was significant immigration from China and Germany during the 19th century. Following Federation in 1901, a strengthening of the white Australia policy restricted further migration from these areas. However, in the decades immediately following the Second World War, Australia received a large wave of immigration from across Europe, with many more immigrants arriving from Southern and Eastern Europe than in previous decades. All overt racial discrimination ended in 1973, with multiculturalism becoming official policy. Subsequently, there has been a large and continuing wave of immigration from across the world, with Asia being the largest source of immigrants in the 21st century.

And also in many other countries and territories that have had an interesting history impacting their demographics (take a look at Taiwan, Cuba...): they do mention historical facts in their Demographics section.
Would you rather delete any historical facts form the Demographics section in the UK article (as well as Australia, Cuba, Taiwan, ...) because it is "about now, not about 900 years ago" and then start a discussion in the talk page, or accept that mentions of these facts can be included in the Demographics section Gibraltar article?
The source proposed is about modern day Gibraltar, please take a look at it, I have linked it above.
Also don't worry about WP:COATRACKs, you should only worry about relevant information and reliable sources.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
We have no relevant information or reliable sources about ethnic groups in Gibraltar. We've got nationality statistics, and we've got an 18-year-old interpretation of surnames. That's it.
And yes, given that your argument is that this section should basically be a repeat of the history section (or rather, the part of the history section that seems to have obsessed you to an unhealthy degree), I think we do have to worry about WP:COATRACKS. This is not a section about history. This is a section about ethnicity. We have no information about ethnicity. So why have a section? Surely it is not there solely so that we can recount the events of 1704 over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over - as you propose. Kahastok talk 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is repeating only the parts of the history section that explain ethnic distribution. You seem to be biased by your expectation that anything Imalbornaz advocates must be for the purpose of pushing the idea that Gibraltar should be Spanish so that you're not seeing all the other value the edits might have. I think you have to look pretty hard to find a nationalist viewpoint in stating that the population started over in 1704. You have said that if we include the events of 1704 then we should include events before 1704 too, but the way I see it, the whole point of mentioning that one event in 1704 (people left) is that it makes everything before 1704 irrelevant to the current ethnic makeup. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, did you think 1704 was the last time the civilian population left Gibraltar? No, it wasn't. That was 1940.
This section is discussing a topic that we have no information on. The answer to that is to remove the section, not to try and fill it with information tangentially related to the topic in the hope that nobody notices.
Even if you're proposing that we only regurgitate that part of the history section covering events after 1704 in the ethnic groups section - instead of discussing the actual ethnic mix in Gibraltar - that's still a WP:COATRACK and it's still unacceptable. Kahastok talk 07:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me, Kahastok, the way you mention that evacuation could be misleading: it was temporary and had no impact in the demographics of Gibraltar (which is what the section we are discussing is about), as they all returned between 1946 and 1951 (as the article you link says: "The last of the evacuees did not see The Rock again until 1951.")
That is quite different from the fact of practically a whole town (5,000 persons except for 70 that remained) with more or less a homogeneous ethnicity leaving and never coming back, and then the size of the population not recovering until 100 years later with ethnicities from very different origins (which kept immigrating to the town until more less 1900). That indeed had a direct impact on the ethnic groups of Gibraltar -as most relevant sources say- and can be briefly explained in this section the way the United Kingdom or the Australia Demographics sections do, as @Giraffedata proposes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
What United Kingdom and Australia do is describe where the current ethnic groups came from, and generally only in fairly brief terms. Australia#Ancestry and immigration does not mention the Aboriginal population except in a modern context, and mentions no specific historical event (other than solely by date) before the twentieth century. United Kingdom#Ethnicity makes no mention of Picts or Gaels, nor any specific historical event at all.
Based on those, you could make an argument for, The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many European and other economic migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years., i.e. this version. There is no precedent in these articles that would suggest that we should give any detail on what happened in 1704, other than possibly the date.
I note that you imply that the mix basically hasn't changed since 1900 - that the Spanish Civil War, World War 2, Franco, the closure of the border and EU freedom of movement basically made no difference at all. I doubt this very much.
But the fact remains that we don't know what the current ethnic mix is because we don't have sources that tell us. No amount of banging on about history changes this. All putting more history in does is make the WP:COATRACK worse. 12:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I took a look at how those and Misplaced Pages articles about other places treat ethnic makeup and see that they do not offer any explanation of why the makeup is what it is. But that appears to be because they all are replete with hard facts about what the ethnic makeup actually is. We have the opposite problem -- no hard facts. But that doesn't mean we don't have any information. The author of "Gibraltar, Identity, and Empire" faced the same situation when trying to describe the ethnic makeup of Gibraltar and rather than just throw up his hands, gave at least two pieces of information that a reader trying to get some clue as to the ethnicity of Gibraltar could consider informative on that issue: 1) the fact that it's a result of migration in the past 300 years (and no more) from several places around the Mediterranean; and 2) the surname data. We should do the same. I'll bet a Misplaced Pages reader would consider this to be an indicator of Gibraltar's demographics even 18 years later. We additionally have the nationality stats -- again not a full answer to the question, but not entirely useless to a reader either.
So I don't see anything to be gained by not reporting all three things that sources tell us, however little, about Gibraltar's ethnicity.
On the subsidiary issue of whether the fact that the previous population left is relevant, it still seems to me that saying the current population is descended from migrants from the past 300 years leaves an open question in a reader's mind: What about the people who arrived before that? Aren't they represented too? Was Gibraltar first discovered by humans 300 years ago? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
LOL and where did the population go? That's right, to the Spanish mainland and settled with ease. There is no "indigenous" population waiting in the wings to settle Gib once the "colonisers" are kicked out. Spanish nationalist fantasies and a culture of grievance born out of the fact Britain surpassed their Empire & then lost it under less traumatic circumstances. BooHoo, The Canary Islands and those two African enclaves would like a word!!! 2A00:23C8:A72F:4A01:5DCA:1695:E41C:6691 (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mr Henderson, if we have no hard facts, then that is an argument for removing a section not for expanding it with unrelated facts. If you want to know what happened 300 years ago, its covered in the history section, there is no need to constantly repeat the same information in every section. Otherwise this article does become somewhat of a WP:COATRACK when it constantly repeats the same narrative. Your comment above that this was removed because You seem to be biased by your expectation that anything Imalbornaz advocates is simply a presumption of bad faith. Three other editors have removed it in good faith and explained why, in response he asserts it was done in bad faith, the usual refrain being anyone British is embarrassed by what happened 300 years ago. Its something constantly repeated and I long since tired of having to deal with an editor who makes such asinine accusations. Perhaps if that editor entered discussion in good faith and did not constantly edit war for his preferred edit it would be better received but don't criticise editors who've put up with this crap for decades. If this continues to be a trading of bad faith accusations and a dialogue of the deaf I'd advocate the removal of this section as not being worth the hassle. Its not like it adds much to the article. WCMemail 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that it is past time that Imalbornoz is referred to WP:ANI for constant wp:EDITWARring and WP:POVPUSHING. By no stretch of the imagination whatever was this edit remotely consistent with the clear and unambiguous consensus of the talk page, and their edit note claiming that it did is egregiously wp:disruptive. This debate has gone on long enough. There is a limit to the time that fellow editors must spend trying to get through to someone who is adamant that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Time's up. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Revised to add words in for clarity. -𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Please, Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok, JMF: It can be offensive to use words such as "disruptive", "regurgitate", "this crap", "presumption of bad faith" (at the same time accusing other editors of "bad faith"!), "asinine accusations", "dialogue of the deaf", ... Come on, let us try to discuss constructively without bad faith accusations and loaded words.
I suppose all of us are trying to have a good article with consistent criteria. That is what I am trying to do: if I see an inconsistency or a misunderstanding, I just point it out and we can discuss it. No hard feelings.
You guys said that explaining the origins of ethnic groups did not fit in an ethnic groups section in Misplaced Pages, because they mentioned things happening 300 years ago. Then I showed you the examples of the ethnicity and immigration sections from the articles about UK (a country two of you must be very familiar with!) and Australia which do mention facts from 900 years ago (UK) and the 18th century (Australia). So, mentioning those facts is consistent with the criteria of other Misplaced Pages articles, and the fact that they are historical is no reason to delete those facts more than to delete them from the UK, Australia, Cuba, Taiwan... articles.
Then some said that they thought there were no sources for the assertions being made in the article. I showed that there are, as you can see above (I just cited one but there are plenty of them).
After that, Giraffedata said that he supported including the ethnicity reflected in surnames and the repopulation of the town, I thought it was solved and changed the text.
Now some say I should be referred to WP:ANI for constant wp:EDITWARring and WP:POVPUSHING. Oh my gosh...
Seriously:
(i) Do you still think historical events should be deleted from the Demographics section in Gibraltar because it is about "now"? Do you say the same about those sections in the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Cuba, ... articles (please do read them)? Or is it only in Gibraltar?
(ii) Do you still think that there are no reliable sources mentioning those facts in and ethnicity context?
And please, try to be more well mannered. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I did read them. I told you I read them before. Are you reading the responses you get or are you just ignoring them?
As I said before, what those articles do is not what you want this article to do. Those articles discuss the origins of the current populations of those places. The text at issue here is not about the origins of the current population of Gibraltar, it's about a different group of people.
And then there's a question of what we actually want to put in the article. Fact is, you have not provided us with a source that actually gives us data about the actual ethnicity of people in Gibraltar. What we've got is an analysis of surnames, which requires so many caveats as to be useless, nationality statistics, which are something but not great, and a load of platitudes about how diverse Gibraltar is. We have nothing at all about how people in Gibraltar would actually describe their ethnicity.
And practically the first thing you did in this discussion is accuse me of nationalist editing. It is not an accusation to point out that well over half your edits to Misplaced Pages in the last 15 years have been on the narrow topic of how this article should deal with the people who left Gibraltar in 1704, always pushing for as much detail as humanly possible. It is not an accusation to point out that you have consistently pushed strongly pro-Spanish talking points both in talk and on the article, including in this discussion. It is not an accusation to point out that your edit today - your sixth revert on this point in recent weeks - completely ignored this discussion, claiming consensus for something that clearly didn't have it. These are facts that anyone can see. If you don't like these facts, that isn't anyone else's problem. Kahastok talk 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I could say that I have not pushed "strongly pro-Spanish talking points" (really, mentioning the very diverse ethnic origins of Gibraltarians in an Ethnic Origins section -which you say "should be binned entirely altogether"- is pro-Spanish????), but I won't because I think it is not relevant. We should not argue in favor or against edits based on whether they are pro or against some nationalistic narrative, but whether they are relevant and based on reliable sources.
"Those articles discuss the origins of the current populations of those places". Exactly, that's what we are proposing here and so does -I think- Giraffedata. The origins of the current population, according to sources, are: "a complex ethnic mix reflecting the many British, Mediterranean and other economic migrants who have moved into the Rock over the course of the last 300 years after the native population left in 1704. The mix is of of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins".
"What we've got is an analysis of surnames, which requires so many caveats as to be useless". I could defend the analysis by the source, but it is not up to you or me to discuss that. The source is reliable or it isn't according to Misplaced Pages's criteria (not Kahastok's), and in this case, it is:
  • It is written by an academic: "E. G. Archer has been successively teacher, head teacher and university lecturer at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. He served as the Secretary of the Hispanic Society of Scotland for over thirteen years. A frequent visitor to Gibraltar, he co-authored Education in Gibraltar 1704-2004, and a book on the village of Catalan Bay.".
  • It is published by Routledge, the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences.
  • It is cited in many academic papers and not critized by one that I have seen.
Which criticism of this analysis have you seen made by academics (not, mind you, Misplaced Pages editors?). If you have a list of academic citations of this source using the analysis will you accept the edit?
Many other sources say the same thing. Do you really want to go over them? If you see more sources saying that, will you accept the edit?-- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The text after the native population left in 1704 is not about the current population of Gibraltar, though, is it? Not a single one of those articles you name says anything like that about historical events. They discuss --exceedingly sparingly - the origins of the current populations. They don't discuss other populations or other groups at all.
I also note the phrase native population. The concept of a "native population" in Europe is at best troubling because even in the easiest cases it is very difficult to define who is "native" and who is not. Given the series of previous population movements in the area - including the expulsion of the Moriscos, it is not credible or neutral to imply that the population immediately prior to 1704 were somehow more "native" to Gibraltar than the current population.
You go on and on about the credentials of the source for your surname analysis, but you ignore what the source actually says. I said, the text requires so many caveats as to be useless. You reject this. Yet the source provides nine caveats straight off the bat, none of which are in your version of the article. Your text implies that surnames are a valid means of determining the ethnicity of the current population of Gibraltar. The source does not make actually make this connection at all, rather using the surnames to identify broad groups of incomers whose origins might be further discussed.
This is not a question of whether the source is reliable - that's a straw man. Even the most reliable source isn't useful for things it doesn't say or connections it doesn't make.
The only source we have that even suggests it gives us data on ethnic groups in Gibraltar is the CIA, and they just repeat the nationality statistics from the census. You rejected using the CIA because it's nationality not ethnicity - and yet you insist on an analysis that isn't even claimed to reflect ethnicity. If we have no data on the current ethnicity of people in Gibraltar - and you have not provided any - then it makes no sense at all to have section on the current ethnicity of people in Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 07:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so we agree that the source is reliable. That is a good start.
You say that it is important also to know what the source actually says. In the introduction, where the main thesis of the book is explained, it literally says:

As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa. (pg 2, Introduction)

Also:

Of course, Gibraltar existed physically long before the British arrived, although the Gibraltarians tend not to claim the more distant past as theirs: for them the beginning was 4 August 1704 when, after conquest of the British, all the residents left, making way for the creation of a new people. Before that, there had been 242 years when the population had been Spanish, from a far from unified Spain. Preceding that, there had been over seven centuries of Islamic control, begun in 711 with the defeat of the Christian Visigoths. The modern Gibraltarian sense of identity incorporates none of the earlier years and events. (pg 10, Changing contexts, values and norms)

Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a Gibraltarian nation today, it is the result of the assimilation of these immigrant groups over a long period of time.(pg 35, Ethnic factors)

That is what one of the most cited works about ethnicity in Gibraltar says: it mentions the abandoned territory in 1704 (a very relevant episode that the source mentions repeatedly because, according to him, it explains why the whole town of Gibraltar started anew with immigration from different parts of Europe and the Mediterranean resulting in the current mix), the complex ethnical mix as a result of immigration, and mentions the most significant ethnicities in Gibraltar. The only difference between the proposed edit and this summary in the introduction of the book are the %s corresponding to the last names, which you consider questionable. I would be happy to include the expulsion of the Moriscos if the source considered it very relevant, but it is 1704 that it mentions prominently not the Moriscos (probably for the reason giraffedata mentioned: the flight of the townspeople made anything happening before 1704 irrelevant from a demographics point of view, it is the flight of 1704 that is relevant).
Would you then accept the text without the %s? I would rather include the percentages, explaining it is an approximation via surnames, which I think they are informative for the Misplaced Pages reader; but, for the sake of consensus, I will accept not including them if you don't want to. That way, including the summary of the introduction, I suppose we will not have any discrepancy about the interpretation of what the source actually says. Also, if you find the term "native" too loaded, we can find some other word that satisfies you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


I ask, pretty much knowing the answer, do you have the book or are you relying for your quotes on the limited preview from Google Books? I mention this in passing, because other editors may not be aware of your track record of quoting sources you don't have access to, relying on google snippets to try and justify your a priori presumptions. If thats the case you're only able to see less than half the material on ethnicity. Ethnicity forms only one chapter in the book focusing as it does on the identity of the people of Gibraltar from multiple aspects.
The principle theme of this book is that the people of Gibraltar are a separate and distinct people despite Spanish claims to the contrary.
“ The existence of a separate and distinctive population on their tiny part of the Iberian peninsula cannot be denied, however much the Spanish government may wish to disregard it ”
Given this is the central theme of the book, one has to wonder why you fasten on to the snippets of it referring to the events of 1704. If we're going to use this source, we should be saying loud and proud that the people of Gibraltar are a separate and distinctive people in their own right, conferring as that does the right to self-determination as outlined in the pre-amble of the Gibraltar Constitution Order.
Because based on what this author is arguing, the central message we would derive is that the events of history under the British have led to the evolution of the Gibraltarian identity. It has been the continuous presence of the British not the events of 1704 that have led to this situation, which is mentioned in passing to establish the beginning of the British period. And in terms of ethnicity the people of Gibraltar have their own separate and disctinctive identity. If we're going with what the sources says, that is the clear message of the book, which you acknowledge as one of the most cited works on Gibraltar ethnicity. I think that would be very informative for the Misplaced Pages reader. Or we could stick with the uncontroversial but slightly boring census results. WCMemail 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years (especially in the last 75 years or so). I think we all agree with that. I think that is why those facts (in two sentences) were able to survive for 15 years in an article that generates a lot of nationalist controversy.
My goal is not to impose a nationalist pro-Spanish POV, but to reflect relevant facts that are informative to the Misplaced Pages reader and which, by the way, are accepted by all the parts: the unique ethnic mix of Gibraltar is the result of the immigration from Britain, the Mediterranean (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta and North of Africa), and other origins over the 300 years since the previous inhabitants left in 1704.
Those are the relevant facts summarized by (British and Spanish) reliable sources, irrespective of whether some people want to use them for their (British or Spanish) political agenda or not. Wouldn't you agree to include them? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
So that will be a "no" then, you don't have access to the source.
You say you want to reflect the source, but that's not what your text does. What your text says is that Gibraltarians are not a people, that they are instead a mix of different ethnic groups and that the real ("native") Gibraltarians all left in 1704. Your text says nothing about Gibraltarians having a "distinct identity" - the opposite, it implies that there are a number of different groups from different parts of Europe, each with a distinct identity, separate from the others.
And this idea that Gibraltarians are just a random mix rather than a distinctive people with a distinctive identity is pro-Spanish POV, whether you like it or not. Kahastok talk 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There has been longevity of a number of wikipedia hoaxes, so the persistence of a text doesn't reflect merit. As you didn't answer the question, I'll presume based on past experience that as I thought you don't have access. The book definitely has a POV and takes an advocates position, it also says a lot more than just identity - it asserts they are a separate and distinct people:
“ The Gibraltarians themselves have no doubt about their existence as a distinct and homogenous people. ”
It also states their identity as a separate people is not because a small population left in 1704 but because of the status as a British fortress, then later as a British Overseas Territory enabling the development of self-government and evolution of a people who assert the right to self-determination. The existence of that desire for self-government stemming from their exile in 1940.
So if you're proposing to change the text to better reflect the source, by all means suggest an edit about their emergence as a separate and distinct people. But if we're going to have WP:WEASEL wording they're a mongrel mix and not really a people, reflecting a rather unpleasant nationalist narrative well that's a no from me. I'd prefer the current edit. TTFN WCMemail 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Kahastok: Sorry, I didn't answer your question: Yes, I do have access to the source. Does it change anything? Do you want to find consensus in order to provide Misplaced Pages users some information about Gibraltar's distinct ethnic situation?-- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster: Would you then want to include something in the lines of: "Gibraltar's population shows a distinct and unique ethnic mix" and then go on to explain the rest of it along the lines of Archer "reflecting immigration from various European and Mediterranean sources, notably from Britain, Genoa and other parts of Italy, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa, over the 300 hundred years since the previous inhabitants left in 1704". Imalbornoz (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's substantially identical to your previous proposal. It still fails to tell the reader what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar, which is the most basic requirement of this section. It still bangs on about 1704, and while you've tried to justify this using other articles, none of those articles do what you want to do. So, no. Kahastok talk 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell me how this fails to tell the reader what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar: "from various European and Mediterranean sources, notably from Britain, Genoa and other parts of Italy, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa"? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Based solely on that description, what proportion of the population of Gibraltar would describe their ethnicity as North African? How many as Sub-Saharan African or Afro-Caribbean? How many would describe their ethnicity as Minorcan or Genoese? How many as Spanish or as British or as Gibraltarian? We don't know. This at best gives us vague information about ancestries of modern Gibraltarians, but says nothing their ethnicity.
Remember that ethnicity is fundamentally a social construct, and that ethnicities can merge and can split. Chances are most people in Gibraltar, just like most people in Britain, just like most people in Spain, just like most people in France, in the US, in just about anywhere else, have ancestors from more than one place, and those ancestors might be quite disparately spread. This is why self-reporting is so important. If there are no modern Gibraltarians who would consider themselves ethnically Genoese, then there are no ethnically Genoese Gibraltarians.
And if you feel that that phrase does give the information we need, then there is no value in adding the rest of your proposal, the part that achieves nothing other than indulging your obsession with 1704. Kahastok talk 21:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You are too much of an experienced Misplaced Pages editor for you to need me to explain what WP:OR is, so out of respect I won't.
I will just point out that, on the one hand, we have a wide consensus of academic sources (Archer is just one of them) literally saying those are the ethnic groups of Gibraltar; and on the other hand, there is Kahastok saying that they are not.
According to Misplaced Pages's criteria the article should reflect what the reliable sources say, not an editor's (not your, not my) opinion. So, will you tell me a reason, different from your own opinion, why those are not the ethnic groups that create Gibraltar's ethnical identity? Any reliable sources? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I certainly know what OR is. That means I know when people are claiming OR incorrectly. I also know about concept of cherry picking sources. I do not see anywhere in your source, for example, where Archer describes these as current ethnic groups in Gibraltar. On the contrary, he describes original ethnic groups, but makes it clear that "the various ethnic ingredients merged and the notion of being Gibraltarian became dominant".
So insofar as you present this as me vs Archer, it's only because you misrepresent Archer in a way that anyone who has dealt with you will know is entirely predictable. Your source does not back your content, and repeating yourself over and over again will not make it back your content. Kahastok talk 17:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Please analyse what the source says:

It is not the intention to write anything approaching a history of the peoples of Gibraltar. (...) The objective is to confirm the presence and significance of each group, and to discuss the salient issues arising.

Note the words "presence" and "significance".
In the introduction, regarding the determinants of Gibraltarian identity, a set of them are called, according to Archer, citing Ernest Barker, the “material factors”. Among them, the first one he mentions are the “ethnic ingredients of the population” or “ethnic component” of Gibraltar. Then he says what they are, literally: “immigration” “from various Mediterranean sources” “into an abandoned territory” and explains those sources. He does not say that they remain exactly the same as when they arrived, but that they have evolved into what Gibraltar is nowadays, which is -according to his thesis- one Gibraltarian identity with several characteristics, one of which is the ethnic mix.
In the “Ethnic factors” chapter, he not only counts last names (that is only one of the 17 pages of the chapter), he also analyses each of the groups and explains, for each of them: who they were; why, how and when they came to Gibraltar; what their contribution has been to society; how fully integrated they are nowadays; and how they are perceived in terms of Gibraltarian identity. The groups he analyses are (by order of arrival): Genoese/Italians, Jews, British, Portuguese, Minorcans, Spanish, Maltese, Indians, Moroccans, and Others. Be aware that the author talks about these groups in present tense. The case is pretty similar in each of them: they retain some of their characteristics (some religion, some language, there is an anecdote with present day Gibraltarian Jews attending a cricket game vs Israel waving Israeli flags, some Portuguese who like to trace their roots…), but they have merged into a Gibraltarian identity.
It is quite similar to the ethnic groups that the United Kingdom article describes in the Demographics section (see above): it traces a historical origin that explains the present, even though most of the ethnic groups have evolved into a more or less homogeneous British identity.
Reading the source (not just snippets) it is evident that the author (in an academic publication with numerous cites in other papers) states that the ethnical environment of Gibraltar can best be explained as several ethnic groups from the Mediterranean and Britain that immigrated to Gibraltar after the previous population left and have evolved to create a Gibraltarian identity (which is what his sentence from the introduction means both as stand alone and put into context).

As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa.

There are many (really a lot) other sources explaining that these are the ethnic groups of Gibraltar (the same ones that Archer explains), it is not something that any reliable source denies. Really, this feels like discussing with someone about whether a source says that the earth is round or that the book of Genesis has or doen't have scientific support.
Do you have any reliable sources saying that those are not the ethnic groups in Gibraltar? Otherwise, please do accept the edit or let us start a discussion with external editors. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a classic example of an editor cherry picking from a source to support an a priori notion, creating a classic example of original research that fails to represent a neutral point of view. The source presented does not support the view that there are ethnic groups in Gibraltar such as Genoese/Italians, Jews, British, Portuguese, Minorcans, Spanish, Maltese, Indians, Moroccans, and Other, instead it explored the ancestry of the people who now identify as Gibraltarian. You have avoided mentioning the conclusion of the author that Gibraltarians are a separate and distinct people, instead alluding to weasel words such as identity and ethnic mix. You're right this discussion does have a feeling of a discussion with a flat earther, going round in circles with repetition of the same tired point; except you're projecting your own problems onto others. Personally I wouldn't tend to use Archer as a source, he definitely has his own views and he strongly supports the rights of the people of Gibraltar. It is very much a biased source; biased towards recognition of Gibraltarians as a separate and distinct people. Its bizarre in that context to try and use this source to argue the Spanish position in Misplaced Pages's voice that Gibraltarians aren't a people but a mongrel mix of immigrants. So the question, which I fully expect you to dodge, do you accept based on the conclusions of this source that Gibraltarians are a separate and distinct people? WCMemail 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(i) Please comment on the following sentence: "It is not the intention to write anything approaching a history of the peoples of Gibraltar. (...) The objective is to confirm the presence and significance of each group, and to discuss the salient issues arising." How is that sentence compatible with the author thinking that there are no ethnic groups? Do you have any sentence in the book that supports the idea that those are not the main ethnic groups in Gibraltar?
(ii) You don't read my comments: of course I don't avoid mentioning the conclusion of the author that Gibraltarians are a a separate and distinct people. Please read my comments above, for example: "Exactly. This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years." And that is not incompatible with there being ethnic groups in Gibraltar, like there are in the United Kingdom or Australia (see the Demographics sections in those articles), and those countries also undeniably have their own distinct national identity (which includes some level of diversity).
(iii) How do you explain that the Government of Gibraltar(!) as member of the UKOT association says that "It has a population of approximately 30,000 Gibraltarians, representing an international mix of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African, with 75% of the population being Roman Catholic."
(iv) Can you explain how you think that what applies in the Ethnicity section of the United Kingdom article does not apply here?-- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
You claim to mention the author's conclusion that Gibraltarians are a a separate and distinct people. But the text you want to put in the article implies the precise opposite conclusion, dismissing them in favour of the group who left in 1704.
The text on United Kingdom is actually a good example of what a good text should do, but your text doesn't do. Its focus is on modern-day ethnic groups based on self-description. It does briefly discusses the history of those groups, but only in terms of the modern groups currently living in the UK, without any mention of any group not currently living in the UK. Your text, by contrast, doesn't even mention modern ethnic groups based on self-description, instead focussing entirely on history, including going off on a tangent about groups no longer present.
Where United Kingdom treats ethnicity correctly as a social construct, allowing people to belong to more than one group and allowing generalisations where needed, your text treats ethnicity as immutable and unchanging, assigning each person exactly one ethnicity inherited solely down the paternal line.
The idea that your text is just doing what United Kingdom does is risible. Kahastok talk 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I say it does describe modern-day ethnic groups and you say it doesn't, but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is what reliable sources say (not one source, many of them, and so far you have not cited one that says otherwise). According to reliable sources:
  • Gibraltar’s ethnic factors reflect "a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa." (Archer)
  • Gibraltar’s population is "an international mix of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African" (UKOTA)
  • "It would be correct to say that the fusion of races which has made the Gibraltarian of to-day, includes apart from Jews, Genoese, men of Savoy, Spaniards, men of the United Kingdom, Portuguese, Minorcans, Sardinians, Sicilians, Maltese, French, Austrians, and Italians..." (Henry William Howes, The Gibraltarian: The Origin and Development of the Population of Gibraltar from 1704)
  • "When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers." (Archer)
  • ” On the Rock the incorporation of immigrants has played an important role in the creation of a shared national identity, as was the case with some other former British colonies such as Singapore – sometimes known as the ‘Gibraltar of the East’.” (‘An Example to the World!’: Multiculturalism in the Creation of a Gibraltarian Identity, by Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini)
  • Interviews selected by the authors of ‘An Example to the World’ to prove their point:
    • ”And the point is that we do not have a native language because we are not natives to the Rock or rather we are not indigenes to the Rock. So, therefore, we don’t have a language of our own. And you think of the cocktail of people that were here: Greeks, Maltese, Jewish, Italians . . . Everybody was sort of thrown into one melting pot and most of these people were single.”
    • “We are very rich in a sense, culturally speaking because we have many different types of people with many different types of cultures. And Gibraltar has become like a melting pot. So, we actually know a lot about many cultures and that has been very enriching for the Gibraltarian mentality. And it’s shown in our cooking. Many Gibraltarians have come over from Morocco to live here, other from Italian people, from Spanish, from Maltese, so that has enriched our culture.”
It doesn't matter if you think that this advances a Spanish nationalist POV (I think it doesn't, but it doesn't matter either). A wide spectrum of sources support that text that you want deleted.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
You claim to be reflecting the sources, but we've already established that the text you want to put in the article reaches the precise opposite conclusion to your most-frequently cited source. You claim to be talking about groups existing in the present, but even your cherrypicked quotes treat them as historic. You claim to want this section to talk about the present, but you in fact seem desperate for it to talk about the past - to the point where a surprising degree of prominence is given to people who left 300 years ago. No. I'm going for that. Of course I'm not going for that. I actually think if we are describing ethnic groups in Gibraltar, we should be describing the present, not trying to convert the ethnicity section into a second history section. Kahastok talk 21:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"We've established"? Who? You, Wee Curry Monster and JMF? Giraffedata, myself and (most importantly) many reliable sources do not. The sources, when talking about ethnic groups, (i) mention "Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins", (ii) they say that these groups originated as a result of immigration in the last 300 years, and (iii) the immigration came into a territory that had been previously abandoned by the original Spanish population.
Another source:

Who are the Gibraltarians? A touch improbably for a community inhabiting such a small space, the people of Gibraltar are descended from a rich mixed salad of immigrant genes: Italian, Spanish, Sephardic-Jewish, Maltese, Portuguese, English, Scottish, and Irish, among many others. (The surnames in my own extended family attest to this polyglot medley: Alvarez, Romero, Olivero, Caetano, Chiarvetto, Ballantine, Vinet.) Unlike other colonized peoples who can look back to pre-colonial precursors in their efforts to nurture a sense of their distinctiveness, the Gibraltarians carne into being after the original Spanish population had fled in its entirety.

Alvarez, David (2000) "Colonial Relic: Gibraltar in the Age of Decolonization," Grand Valley Review: Vol. 21: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvr/vol21/iss1/4
Please notice the present tense in "Who are the Gibraltarians."
I can go on and on and on posting reliable sources that mention those 3 points (list of main groups, immigration and exile of original population) when talking about Gibraltar's current ethnic groups. Take into account that, for the sake of consensus, I have only used British sources in order to avoid the accusation of using an anti-British POV. There are reliable sources from many other origins (especially Spanish, but also from other places) that also state the same three points. Should we include those sources as well?
Let us try to see what we have established in this discussion, fact-checking some of the comments in this discussion:
  • "300-year-old population movements are not normally discussed when discussing modern ethnic groups in other contexts on Misplaced Pages" "The text at issue here is not about the origins of the current population of Gibraltar, it's about a different group of people.": FALSE
    • The UK article mentions origins in the Ethnicities section: the original population from 900 years ago, the arrival of black population in the 1700s and Chinese population in the 1800s
    • Australia's Demographics section does the same: talks about British arrivals since 1788, German and Chinese immigration in the 19th century, and English/Scottish/German/Greek/etc. ancestries
    • The same with Cuba, Taiwan, and many other articles
  • "We have no relevant information or reliable sources about ethnic groups in Gibraltar" "We have no information about ethnicity." "This section is discussing a topic that we have no information on.": FALSE
    • We have a very large amount of sources mentioning Gibraltar's ethnic groups: Archer, Howes, UKOTA, Gibraltar's board of Tourism, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, David Alvarez, ... (and there are many, many more)
  • "Your text says nothing about Gibraltarians having a "distinct identity": FALSE
    • I have proposed: ""Gibraltar's population shows a distinct and unique ethnic mix" and then go on to explain the rest of it along the lines of Archer"
    • I have said about Archer that "This book's thesis is that the inhabitants of Gibraltar have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years"
    • I have said that "they retain some of their characteristics (...), but they have merged into a Gibraltarian identity." and "the previous population left and have evolved to create a Gibraltarian identity"
    • In case there is any doubt I will say it clearly: I think that the text should reflect (as it does in the Culture section among others) that there is a current day Gibraltarian identity. I will add that practically all sources say that a very relevant factor of this identity is the diversity as a result of immigration and there not being a "native" population after they left in 1704.
  • "a surprising degree of prominence is given to people who left 300 years ago." FALSE
    • That prominence is not surprising, if we judge by the many sources mentioning that fact when they explain Gibraltar's current Demographics situation, and why it is the way it is now: Archer, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, David Alvarez... (and, besides those British sources, a great number of Spanish sources as well).
I hope you admit now that (i) we have sources mentioning the ethnic groups, (ii) historic population movements are mentioned in this context (Demographics sections of country articles), (iii) I am in favor of saying that Gibraltarians have a distinc identity, and (iv) the fact that the current demographics of Gibraltar originated after the original population left is well sourced.
Please go over 4 those points and tell me if we now have some common ground.--Imalbornoz (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
And I still see no sources describing current ethnic groups, only historic groups. Since you're clearly having trouble with the distinction, words like "descended from" are generally a good hint. We could argue we know the ethnicities of the current Gibraltarians' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, but that's not the same thing as the ethnicities of current Gibraltarians.
I note that you claim that you are in favour of saying that Gibraltarians have a distinct identity, but your text not only doesn't say this, it actually implies the precise opposite, that they are a random mix of different groups that just happen to live near each other. Saying one thing on the talk page is worthless if you say the opposite on the article.
As to 1704 you repeatedly point out these four articles, that you believe make your case best. But you've still failed to mention anywhere where any one of them gives the history of a group that has been absent for 300 years.
The closest parallel is probably Cuba. There are differences between the situations. The pre-1704 Gibraltarians left as refugees during war, whereas the Spanish enslaved and killed all of the Taino. And, the Taino have a far more claim to being a distinctive ethnic group than the pre-1704 Gibraltarians, and also far more claim to being "native" to Cuba than the pre-1704 Gibraltarians have to being "native" to Gibraltar.
The case made on this page would apply far more strongly to the Taino there than to the pre-1704 Gibraltarians here. And yet the section at Cuba says nothing at all about what happened to the Taino. And, to be clear, none of the others give any more detail than Cuba does about groups not currently present.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter how many times you post walls of text insisting that grass is orange, grass is not suddenly going to become orange. Your aim seems to be to filibuster the discussion by posting walls of text, and nobody should be surprised by that because it's a tactic that you've been using for decades. Kahastok talk 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
So, to be clear:
(i) You don't agree that the ethnic groups section should mention ethnicities according to whom they descended from?
(ii) And, forgetting for a moment about the phrase to be included in the ethnic groups section, and focussing on facts that we agree on, please confirm whhether at least you agree that relevant sources support that:
  • The current Gibraltarians are descended from people of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins?
  • Those people migrated into what was a practically empty town after the takeover of 1704?
  • Gibraltarians have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years?
Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You're still asking questions about history. And this is still not a history section. Kahastok talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree: this is not a history section, it is a demographics section; but some parts of demographics sections in other countries' articles do mention historical facts (UK, Australia, etc.) Given that we are not of the same opinion about the content that should go in this section, it's better we clarify what we agree and what we don't agree on; that is what I am trying to do.
From the previous discussion I have understood that:
(i) You don't agree that the ethnic groups section should mention ethnicities according to whom they descended from.
(ii) You agree that relevant sources support the following facts, but you don't think they should go into the demographics section:
  • The current Gibraltarians are descended from people of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, North African and other origins.
  • Those people migrated into what was a practically empty town after the takeover of 1704.
  • Gibraltarians have developed their own distinct identity in the last 300 years.
Can you please confirm that I have understood you correctly on each of those points? Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The other articles mention history only to give context to current data. None mentions history in any other context. You are focussing in on history to the exclusion of all else. You insist on history and only history, and this is still not a history section. Kahastok talk 16:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you say that this section is not about history, neither in this article nor in the UK, Australia, etc. But I am not asking about that.
What I am asking is (i) Can you confirm that you say that the ethnicities section should not mention who descended from whom? (ii) You think that the points above should not be mentioned in the demographics section, but do you at least agree that relevant sources support they are historical fact? Please, for consensus sake, answer these questions. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And I am saying that discussion of historical details for their own sake is not relevant to this section, which - and you seem to acknowledge but then immediately disregard this key point - is not a history section and has not become a history section during the course of this discussion. Given that they are not relevant to the section in discussion, I see no purpose in discussing the historical details further.
This is supposed to be a section discussing ethnic groups in Gibraltar in the present day. The only source we have seen that discusses this point in present day terms is the CIA, which gives the nationality statistics from the census. Kahastok talk 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I see you don't disagree about those being historical facts. What you are saying is that historical facts such as descent or ancestry do not belong in an Ethnicity section: "And I still see no sources describing current ethnic groups, only historic groups. Since you're clearly having trouble with the distinction, words like "descended from" are generally a good hint. We could argue we know the ethnicities of the current Gibraltarians' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, but that's not the same thing as the ethnicities of current Gibraltarians."
The thing is that ethnicity is defined, at least, as a result of descent from past generations:

This book defines ethnic identities as a subset of categories in which descent-based attributes are necessary for membership (…) The notion that descent matters in defining ethnic identity is hardly surprising. Virtually all social science definitions of an ethnic identity emphasize the role of descent in some way.” (Chandra, Kanchan (2012). Constructivist theories of ethnic politics. Oxford University Press. pp. 9-10)

Therefore, in a section about ethnicities, you need to at least mention who they are descended from (and who they are not descended from). Btw, the last cite is not random, it is one of the references cited in the first paragraph of the wikipedia Ethnicity article. This is not a "modern Spanish ultra-nationalist" argument. It is the essential nature of ethnicity. I suppose this settles the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I note that your quote actually explicitly describes that ethnicity as principally a social construct. I also find it very interesting that you added and then removed a quote that defines ethnicity as a social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or one's ancestors' experiences.
Your historically-based text for this article treats ancestry and descent as the only possible way by which ethnicity may be defined, forcing labels on people based on their surnames despite no evidence those people would accept those labels. In doing so it directly contradicts the quotes you provide, that hold that ethnicity is a social construct.
In doing this, your text does push a Spanish nationalist POV in that it denies even the possibility that ethnic groups may change over time. It denies even the possibility that, for some if not most of the Gibraltar population, the "shared social experience" of actually living in Gibraltar for centuries may be more important than some distant ancestors' experience of islands or historic city-states hundreds of miles away.
It also pushes that POV because - we go back to where this discussion starts - it insists on the relevance of people who left over 300 years ago in a discussion of modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians. This being a core tenet of the modern Spanish ultra-nationalist belief that the descendents of people who left over 300 years ago somehow have more political rights over modern Gibraltar than the current population of Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The concept of ethnicity in general: As you can see, all definitions of ethnicity include the concept of descent and ancestors, and (yes, indeed) sometimes other factors. But the concept of descent is central, to the point of one source saying that "Virtually all social science definitions of an ethnic identity emphasize the role of descent in some way".
Ethnicity in the specific case of Gibraltar: Do sources discard ancestry and focus in other factors? Or do they mention the ancestors? As you can see, all the sources talk, not surprisingly, about the ancestors of today's Gibraltarians; say that they immigrated from Britain, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Jewish families; that they populated an empty territory after the native population left in 1704; and created a unique mix that is one of the characteristics of Gibraltar's identity.
That clearly contradicts your previous points that we have no sources, that sources do not mention the immigration into the abandoned territory as part of the explanation of Gibraltar's ethnicity, or that past descent or ancestry has nothing to do with modern ethinicities.
The text does not stand against the posibility of ethnicities changing over time. In fact, it says that Gibraltar's identity is the result (á la melting pot) of the evolution of a diverse mix of several ethnic origins, and I stress the word "evolution" (which means change).
You say that the text supports that the descendants that left have more political rights than modern Gibraltarians. That is absurd, taking into account that all sources are British and Gibraltarian. In any case, you have piqued my curiosity: Can you please tell where does the text say anything about political rights?
Finally, the possibility that the facts reflected in the text supposedly support some cabal or conspiracy with pro-Spanish, pro-British or pro-whatever political points of view should not matter at all. The important thing in Misplaced Pages is to reflect the facts that reliable sources mention. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
There is something I'm just not seeing in part of this dispute. One of the fundamental points of disagreement is whether the words "after the original population left in 1704" should be in the ethnicity section. Kahastok has said multiple times that this suggests that peoples who lived in Gibraltar before 1704 are relevant to the current ethnicity of Gibraltar ("it insists on the relevance of people who left over 300 years ago in a discussion of modern ethnicity of Gibraltarians"), but I see exactly the opposite -- it says those peoples are not relevant -- and that is why it's a helpful addition to the section. Can someone reconcile this?
This and much of this whole discussion is irrelevant, by the way, because it is not our job to describe the ethnicity of Gibraltar here. It is our encylopedic job to summarize what reliable sources say about the ethnicity of Gibraltar. If we can find sources that say surnames, historical immigration, and the events of 1704 don't tell us anything about the ethnicity of Gibraltar, we should report that alongside the facts from the other sources saying they do. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Except, we don't have sources that say that.
We have, at best, sources that describe the describe the history of the people in Gibraltar. We don't have any sources at all that say that this corresponds to their current ethnicity. The sources quoted above go to great effort not to say that this corresponds to current ethnicity.. As WCM pointed out, the conclusion that Imalbornoz proposes that the article reach is the precise opposite of the conclusion reached by his preferred source.
If people want to know history, we have a history section. If that isn't enough, we have an entire article on the subject. Perhaps you could explain to me why you feel that we need a second full-blown history section in the Demographics section? Kahastok talk 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bryan has a very important point: Gibraltar starts its unique ethnical mix 300 years ago from scratch, and this is a very singular and noteworthy fact for a territory in Europe (where a larger share of people who can trace back their ancestry from millenia ago in the same place share their territories with some people who came from far away recently or just a few generations ago). Gibraltar is a noteworthy example of a diverse ethnicity started in the modern age, similar to some places in the new world.
Regarding sources, actually we do have many:

As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa.

"Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006; pg 2, Introduction

Some Gibraltarians argue that Gibraltar is not a colony in the normal sense; they are not conquered people in a country colonized by the British. When the Anglo-Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. What was taken in 1704 was virtually empty territory. Those people who eventually became native Gibraltarian were in-comers of one type or another or, more precisely, the children of in-comers.(...) If there is a Gibraltarian nation today, it is the result of the assimilation of these immigrant groups over a long period of time.

"Gibraltar, Identity and Empire", by Edward G. Archer, Psychology Press, 2006, pg 35, Ethnic factors

"And the point is that we do not have a native language because we are not natives to the Rock or rather we are not indigenes to the Rock. So, therefore, we don’t have a language of our own. And you think of the cocktail of people that were here: Greeks, Maltese, Jewish, Italians . . . Everybody was sort of thrown into one melting pot and most of these people were single.”

‘An Example to the World!’: Multiculturalism in the Creation of a Gibraltarian Identity, by Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini (fragment of interview selected by authors to showcase the point of view of the population)

It has a population of approximately 30,000 Gibraltarians, representing an international mix of Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German and North African, with 75% of the population being Roman Catholic.

United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association (the Government of Gibraltar is a member)

Who are the Gibraltarians? A touch improbably for a community inhabiting such a small space, the people of Gibraltar are descended from a rich mixed salad of immigrant genes: Italian, Spanish, Sephardic-Jewish, Maltese, Portuguese, English, Scottish, and Irish, among many others. (The surnames in my own extended family attest to this polyglot medley: Alvarez, Romero, Olivero, Caetano, Chiarvetto, Ballantine, Vinet.) Unlike other colonized peoples who can look back to pre-colonial precursors in their efforts to nurture a sense of their distinctiveness, the Gibraltarians came into being after the original Spanish population had fled in its entirety.

Alvarez, David (2000) "Colonial Relic: Gibraltar in the Age of Decolonization," Grand Valley Review: Vol. 21: Iss. 1, Article 4.
There are many more sources along these lines, which the article should summarize. Their volume is massive, but ok, if there are also a significant number of sources saying that immigration in the last 300 years from the places cited above is not the source of practically all Gibraltarian ethnicity, Kahastok, please tell us and we will cite them as well. Could you please do that? --- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain to me why you feel that we need a second full-blown history section in the Demographics section?
I don't feel that we need that. At most, I feel that the article would be improved by including one or two historical facts in the demographics section that reliable sources say inform us about the ethnic makeup of Gibraltar.
Do you want to comment on the issue of whether the words "after the original population left in 1704" says the pre-1704 population is or is not relevant to the ethnicity of Gibraltar? Because I still think I'm missing the point of some of your objections. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The relevant historical facts that have led to the evolution of a unique Gibraltar identity are: A) its role as a British military outpost for the RN, which in many ways retarded the development of self-government and B) demands by the people of Gibraltar for a role in how they were governed and the conflict between the two. In many ways it parallels the situation in many of the smaller British possessions where in the past the needs of local people were ignored by civil servants who thought they knew best. I say this as someone who has read extensively on the subject and formed a view based on the prevailing view in the literature. The problem with the proposal, is the demand to mention the Spanish exodus and then looking for sources to justify mentioning it. Its putting the cart before the horse but symptomatic of an editor whose been doing it for well over a decade. The second problem is you Bryan because more than once you've assumed bad faith in people suggesting this was inappropriate. If you were talking of historical facts relevant to a social construct like ethnicity, such as the ones I suggested, that may be appropriate. What modern relevance is people who left in 1704, when we don't mention the arabs who left, the conversos or anyone of a number of past groups who are no longer relevant to the ethnic make up of the modern Gibrltarians? WCMemail 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Bryan as I was about to log off when I noticed I answered the same question of yours on the 10 May. Did you expect a different answer by repeating the question? This proposal is clearly going nowhere, someone should close this pointless discussion. WCMemail 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no answer on May 10, just as now, unless it is to say the question is moot because there's some other reason the words "after the original population left in 1704" should not be included. But when Kahastok said at least twice more that the words should not be included because they mean the population that left in 1704 is relevant to the ethnic groups in Gibraltar, I had to assume he didn't think the question is moot and the question just got lost on May 10.
I have not assumed bad faith. I have suspected bias. Bad faith is editing in a way you believe hurts Misplaced Pages or at least breaks its rules. Bad faith is arguing something you don't really believe. Acting with a bias is not acting in bad faith.
This discussion has been half about article content and half about editor conduct from the beginning. (It actually begins with "We have an editor ...", and is sprinkled with ad hominem throughout). I am just not interested in the editor conduct issue, but you switch to that when you say the problem with the mention of the 1704 exodus is the thought process of the person who put it there. It doesn't address my question about how a reader would interpret this phrase. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
But why would the section mention history at all, other than incidentally? The question that this section is supposed to be answering is "what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?". There's no reason to mention history in answering that question. Let alone the history of groups that aren't even present in Gibraltar.
The problem here is fundamentally that we don't have much information to answer that question in a modern context. The best we've got is the CIA. I suppose you could argue for this (which argues explicitly that a common Gibraltarian ethnic group exists and was written by some of the authors that Imalbornoz claims argue the opposite). But I don't because it's answering the wrong question. Just like most of the other sources listed here.
Because the question "what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?" is not the same as the question "what is the history of ethnic groups in Gibraltar?". An answer to the second question does not work as an answer to the first, unless you deny the possibility that ethnic groups can emerge and can disappear. And if you do deny that possibility - as Imalbornoz implicitly does above - you are forced into some very odd conclusions. By this logic, there are no Irish people in Ireland, no Spanish people in Spain and no German people in Germany, because all of those ethnic groups - along with all other ethnic groups on the planet - emerged from disparate predecessor groups.
The fact that Imalbornoz is not trying to find an answer even to the question "what is the history of ethnic groups in Gibraltar?" (but rather trying to source an answer he already had based on his own prejudices, sometimes to the point of cherrypicking quotes to try and make authors reach a conclusion diametrically opposed to the conclusion they actually reach) is almost irrelevant, because it's the wrong question. Ultimately, you cannot say what ethnic groups there currently are in Gibraltar or any other place based solely on history.
To write this section properly - to answer the question of what ethnic groups there are in Gibraltar - we need to discuss modern statistics based on modern surveys like censuses. The only source we have on this is the CIA, which repeats the census nationality data. There is no law saying we have to have a section at all. Spain does not have one. But the worst thing we can do is try to hide the lack of data through off-topic waffle and irrelevances. Kahastok talk 11:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Kahastok: You say that in order to answer the question "What ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?" "There's no reason to mention history in answering that question." The wikipedians who have contributed to the Ethnicity section in the United Kingdom article (for example) think otherwise. Their answer in the case of the ethnicity of the UK is:

Historically, indigenous British people were thought to be descended from the various ethnic groups that settled there before the 12th century: the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans. Welsh people could be the oldest ethnic group in the UK. The UK has a history of non-white immigration with Liverpool having the oldest Black population in the country dating back to at least the 1730s during the period of the African slave trade. During this period it is estimated the Afro-Caribbean population of Great Britain was 10,000 to 15,000 which later declined due to the abolition of slavery. The UK also has the oldest Chinese community in Europe, dating to the arrival of Chinese seamen in the 19th century. In 2011, 87.2 per cent of the UK population identified themselves as white, meaning 12.8 per cent of the UK population identify themselves as of one of an ethnic minority group.

It clearly mentions historical dates: before the 12th century, 1730s, 19th century. That is only logical, taking into account that almost all sources about ethnicity take historical ancestry as the most important factor, or at least one of the most important ones.
In any case, the criteria should be "How do reliable sources answer the question of what ethnic groups are there in Gibraltar?". Then we take a look at Archer's book, and the answer is very similar to the UK ethnicity section:

As regards the ethnic component, Gibraltar's past reveals a complex racial mix reflecting immigration into an abandoned territory from various Mediterranean sources, notably from Genoa and other parts of Italy, from Minorca, Portugal, Malta and Spain, as well as from North Africa.

You don't have to interpret that. It is literally right there: a diversity of ethnical groups that immigrated into abandoned territory in the last 300 years. With regards to Gibraltar's identity (which includes additional things to ethnicity, like culture, general beliefs, etc.) Archer says what you're saying: Gibraltar has its own identity which has evolved along the years, and one of the key factors is indeed its multiethnical mix. But "national identity" is not "ethnicity". The UK ethnicity section does not deal with national identities or whether the ethnic groups it mentions have evolved into one ethnicity; it just mentions them and gives some historical context. Although, if you want the article to also talk about Gibraltar's national identity, go ahead, I will not be against it.
Then we have the other British and Gibraltarian sources as well: Alvarez, Luis Martínez, Andrew Canessa and Giacomo Orsini, UKOTA,... And there are also several Spanish sources, which I have not brought here in order to avoid a discussion about Spanish POVs.
There you have it: (i) it makes sense (of course!) to mention some historical facts when talking about ethnicity; (ii) most sources do mention the ethnic groups that you deleted; and (iii) many of them mention the fact that they immigrated into an abandoned territory.
Do you think that the Gibraltar article should be different from the UK article? Can you cite other sources that discard the facts that you deleted in the Gibraltar article? Are they better sources with regards to the content of an ethnic groups section?-- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Their answer in the case of the ethnicity of the UK is... - no, it isn't. Their answer is a large table giving the number of people in each ethnic group. Everything else in that section is just there to give context to the table.
I note that you again explicitly claim that the authors of this support your position, even though they in fact reach the opposite conclusion. As does Archer.
In the case of Spain they decided not to have any section at all. Again, this doesn't match your approach. Your approach would have said that the ethnic groups of Spain are Celts, Tartessians, Lusitanians, Vascones, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Visigoths, Vandals, Arabs and Berbers. But no Spanish people, obviously. Because Spanish people are a modern group, not a historic group.
Not having a section is an option here as well, if we feel that the CIA and the census results - our only relevant source - isn't good enough to tell us what ethnic groups there currently are in Gibraltar. But your approach - to waffle about a different topic to try and hide the fact that we have little good data - is not going to become acceptable just because you decided to repeat the same argument 300 times. Kahastok talk 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. Bond 2003, p. 100. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBond2003 (help)
Categories: