Talk:Gibraltarians

Ethnic group, cultural group or nation?

Should the article say that Llanitos are an ethnic group a cultural group or a nation? I'm not sure we can find citations for any of them, but if we can, that would be a good start. I don't like "ethnic group" because ethnicity means race. It would mean that the link between Gibraltarians was a genetic one, when in fact Gibraltarians are a mix of Maltese, Genoese etc. The term would also exclude Jewish Gibraltarians, Indian Gibraltarians etc. from being considered Gibraltarain people. More appropriate would be "cultural group" as what links us is our culture, language, community etc. Nation also works, but a citation for it would be good. Opinions? Saluton (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about "ethnic group" not being suitable here. I would say "nation" as "cultural group" seems to be used more to describe people with very similar cultures, from different geographical locations (eg. Latin Europeans). --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This was deleted as "trolling" by Gibmetal. Please, try to debate something before erasing it without explanation. The title of the section questions whether to label the Gibraltarian comunity as an ethnic group, a cultural group or a nation. This is an interesting issue, due to the differences within those terms. I tried to contribute by saying:

I don't agree. Indeed, Gibraltarians are not an ethnic group, neither are they a nation (From the definition of Nation in Wikipedia: "as an example, the United Kingdom is an internationally recognised sovereign state, which is also referred to as a country and whose inhabitants have British nationality. It is however traditionally divided into four home nations or home countries— - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.").

Llanitos share a culture, and to some degree, they are a cultural group. A nation is formed quite naturally and shares, in it's majority, a common history and ancestry. If you want to affirm positively that Gibraltar is a nation, you should provide sources and such as it is really hard to imagine a garrison as a nation. Even a city: Italian historic cities, which have been independent since ancient times and have a much richer history and a much more homogenous ancestry are not labelled as nations anywhere. Why is this the case of Gibraltar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarians are simply defined by living in Gibraltar, they are not a group defined in any other way. I have changed the introduction to say "a term used to refer to the inhabitants of Gibraltar". Pol098 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(Talk section without heading)

Thanks for sourcing it!

It would be great, though, if you can find a source not directly related to the "Oficial Government of Gibraltar" nor focused at "attempting to redefine the status of Gibraltar and thereby enable the discussions between Britain and Spain over the future of the territory to move forward". Not really neutral sources, don't you think?

Anyway, the article is better today than yesterday. Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are NO DISCUSSIONS between Britain and Spain about the future of Gibraltar possible according to unambiguous statements by HMG. --Gibnews (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I just copypasted the abstract of the book referenced. Those words are not mine, but literally taken from the provided webpage. If you do not agree, you can yell at Gibmetal (as he posted the source) or at the author of the book cited, namely, Peter Gold, also a fellow Gibraltarian, guess. Take it easy. Cremallera (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Native Gibraltarians

Unlike most other places, Gibraltar enjoys a very varied ethnic and religious demography. Indeed we have a Christian Chief Minister, an atheist Leader of the Opposition, a Hindu speaker and a Jewish mayor. All of whom are native Gibraltarians. RedCoat10 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait. The Chief Minister and the Mayor are not the same thing in Gibraltar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not the same thing. RedCoat10 • talk 10:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Native Population

The native population did not "quit". They not only left the Rock in 1704. They were forced to do so. Please, let's tell the story as it happened. The actual redaction is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.63.38 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they left the Rock out of their own volition (see the terms of surrender). -RedCoat10 • talk 10:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The terms of surrender do not prove an historical fact. You should not forget that Gibraltarian people surrendered after fighting. After being besieged. And that proves, indeed, that wasn't their will to leave their homes. It's not like they went out and told Rooke "be my guest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.63.38 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It has been historically documented that, after Gibraltar was captured, the inhabitants were given the option of staying provided they take the oath of allegiance to Charles III as required by the terms of surrender (that is to say, they were not "kicked out"). However, the article does not claim that they left contentedly, nor does it claim they were forced/coerced to leave—'forced' is after all a fairly strong word and not to mention subjective—but simply that they left. -RedCoat10 • talk 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately this article is clearly written from a neutral and unbiased point of view. Spanish people left. But British Minorcans (prior to 1802, that is) were forced to leave their homes, obviously (it must be obvious, because no reference is provided): Other groups include Minorcans (forced to leave their homes when Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.45.29 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit is cited, if you don't like it, that is not sufficient reason for removing it. If you wish to discuss an alternative you are welcome to do so. However, accusing other editors of bias is a sure fire way of entenching attitudes. I suggest you rethink your comments and refactor the above edit. Reviewing talk page guidlines would help see WP:TPG. You should also review WP:3RR and WP:NPOV. Regards. Justin talk 09:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And please drop the sarcasm, it's not helping. RedCoat10 • talk 10:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, it seems that we are reaching a new standard here in Wikipedia! Censoring comments in the talk pages because you feel that they are "bad faith comments". That's gross.

I'll just copypaste what you've erased on your account: It is not cited. A source supporting that "Minorcans" were forced to leave, please? And a proper explanation of why "Andalusia" should be preferred to "Spain" as a broader context? Gibraltarian people stays in Andalusia, really? If so, why don't we break up "Mainland UK" into Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland also?. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you feel the need to have your provocative posting remain so be it. You're the one it reflects upon. Justin talk 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason for listing Andalusia rather than the whole of Spain is because this section lists the Regions with significant populations and not just countries. Gibraltarians living in the UK are spread out fairly evenly throughout the entire country as they study in any of the UK universities (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). In Spain however, Gibraltarian residents are much more concentrated in this region, particularly the comarcas of Campo de Gibraltar and Costa del Sol due to their proximity to Gibraltar (as they tend to commute). --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, some Gibraltarian people live and work in Spain. And a significant portion of them does so in Andalusia. A reference should be great (just as the figures in Gibraltar and the UK are referenced). Anyway, 11.000 gibraltarians studying in UK's universities? And evenly spread? How is that so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, some sources would be needed, wouldn't they? Another objection to figures is that it's unknown whether the 12,000 referenced as living in the UK are included among the 28,000 Gibraltar Gibraltarians. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not, as that would mean the population of Gibraltar is 16,000. RedCoat10 • talk 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sounds sensible. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarians living in Spain

Isn't there any figure on such people? Are the Gibraltarians listed in the census only those with actual residence in Gibraltar? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove that mention as no sources are provided. It's a fact that lots of Gibraltarians has a second residence in neighbourhood cities but I haven't found any data on Gibraltarians with only residence in Spain. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers

Could you please add the page numbers (or chapters) of references Exit Britannia; Britain’s Last Conquest of Menorca 1798 - 1802 and Minorca, the illusory prize : a history of the British occupations of Minorca between 1708 and 1802? (from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article") Thanks --Ecemaml (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No because I returned it to the library and it was on special loan. Let me guess, the reference will now be removed for a specious reason and the section removed as uncited because someone thinks it may in some small way reflect badly on Spain. Justin talk 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the statement could be removed simply because it fails to comply with wikipedia principles as no proper sources are provided. It seems rather strange to me that provided you're an expert on wikipedia policies and guidelines you "forgot" to provide exact and not generic sources (and that you even forgot to photocopy them, as long as you know they can be obviously challenged). I've provided a link to the two "sources" you use (it was not that difficult). One of them is in full text, so it would be easy for you to find the chapter or section (let me guess, no mention to such sending off will be found). The other is in google books, so it would be simple for you to provide the page. Let me guess, the page supporting your statement is restricted and cannot be seen. Bet? --Ecemaml (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PS: it's really irrelevant for me if Spain is reflected in a bad or good light (curious principle you apply to wikipedia articles). However, I'm not a friend of lies, regardless of who says them.

Removed comment, I'll leave your bad faith comments to stand on their own. Suffice it to say that I have already supplied the chapter number to Ilambornoz regarding the second reference. The edit happens to reflect the truth of the matter, something that someone with an extensive library on Gibraltar would be able to find a reference for themselves. So in answer to your first bad faith accusation I've already supplied it, Chapter 10. 20:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at Google books and I believe the page number is around 214. Justin talk 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Justin, for complying with Wikipedia policies. It's a pity that following our principles is something I have to thank. Moreover, it seems a real joke that after saying "Let me guess, the reference will now be removed for a specious reason and the section removed as uncited because someone thinks it may in some small way reflect badly on Spain" you complain about my "bad faith". Anyway, the good news is that we don't have dubious content not supported by source. The even better news is that, as you say, I have "an extensive library on Gibraltar", and I've found just the opposite (don't worry, I'll add the sources during the weekend... I have a lot of new information about Gibraltar wishing to share with our readers; as an advance, you can read here, page 42, with no statements on miserable Minorcans being expelled from their island). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) PS: anyway, although protected, it's possible to search for specific works in the book. "Gibraltar" is mentioned in page 214, but with no relationship to the alleged Minorcans forced to leave.

My comments are entirely based upon my experience with your edits, not least of which was the throwing back in my face the suggestion to draw a line under the past and to try and work constructively in future. Clearly you don't wish to work constructively, your edits, your talk page comments are needlessly combative and confrontational.

Had you approached the matter in a relaxed manner instead of deliberately ratcheting up tension over the last week, I might have noticed earlier that the comments on the page didn't reflect the words I'd used elsewhere. Equally if you hadn't trotted over to this page like a Spaniel eager to piss on the lamp post, you might have noticed I'd changed the article. You'll also find the Treaty of Amiens mentioned on that page, one of the reasons for the influx of Minorcans.

I'd also expect a person with integrity and who is "not a friend of lies" to apologise for the accusation of lying but I won't expect one from you.

And in closing, that reference you quote has already been used on the Demographics article, the text there already reflects that source. If you're planning to improve the article, you might like to consider the consensus text already agreed. But on past performance probably not, consensus or working with others doesn't rate high on your priorities list does it? Justin talk 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you're free to assume bad faith "based on" my edits, but if I do the same, it's intolerable bad faith... interesting. However, I don't want to argue on how bad or how good is a given editor. I prefer to focus on the article. And I must say that although the text is nowadays better, it's equally unsupported by sources. First of all, you mention Exit Britannia; Britain’s Last Conquest of Menorca 1798 - 1802, chapter 10. I take that chapter and the only information that could be related to the emigration of Minorcans is the mention to Orfila and to "several individuals that, I am afraid, will suffer considerably for their attachment and good will towards the English". Well, those paragraphs obviously talk about the Minorcans that had collaborated with the British administration. They thought that their future could be dubious in the case of transfer of sovereignty. No source states whether such people were helped by the British, in which way they were helped (if so) and if such help (if existing) translated into movement to Gibraltar. That's simply, original investigation (interestingly, Minorca, the illusory prize : a history of the British occupations of Minorca between 1708 and 1802 clarifies that Orfila remained in Minorca and was tried and imprisoned in Barcelona) and it's good such a dubious statement was been removed by you. I'll provide better sources and rephrase the sentence. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarians are a nation

I have removed the "nation" statement because it is a complete misuse of the source provided and is not appropriate at this article anyway. The correct way to phrase it would be "which Peter Gold argues can be considered to be a nation". It is certainly not accepted fact that Gibraltar is a nation. And besides, this article is about the Gibraltarian people rather than Gibraltar. Note the abstract of the source says "it is possible to define Gibraltar as a 'nation'" whereas this article claimed "the Gibraltarians ... are a Southern European nation" which is a misrepresentation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the case for Gibraltarians being a 'nation' is a particularly weak one. Using the "which Peter Gold argues..." structure should, however, avoid this problem because we wouldn't be making an assertion either way. RedCoat10 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-British Gibraltarians

This article completely skirts over the Gibraltarian people (aka the people of Gibraltar) prior to the British takeover, and where they went. I'm not necessarily saying that we need to strictly define "Gibraltarian" to include them, but they need a proper mention to maintain neutrality. The current wording suggests that the people living there before 1704 were Spanish rather than Gibraltarian, which is putting a huge spin on the situation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That proper mention you speak of existed for sometime in the (unsourced) article Spanish Gibraltarians, which was recently deleted. In any case, I don't think anyone can deny that the people living there before 1704 were Spanish. But the claim that they were 'Gibraltarian' is rather more dubious, if only because said term didn't even exist back then and was created to define those Gibraltarians born in Gibraltar post-1704. RedCoat10 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research somewhat. In the same way we have the legal definition of "British" for citizenship purposes, we also use the adjectival form to mean "of Britain". So, for example, the "British car industry" isn't using "British" in its British Nationality Act 1981 meaning. Equivalently, there is the legal definition (for residency purposes) of the noun "Gibraltarian" (which was installed by the British and which you are referring to) and there is its simple use as the adjectival form of "Gibraltar". [1] "(Placename) of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants". To use the phrase "Gibraltarian post box" we do not need to check that it is carrying an ID card! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Gibraltarian' is a modern one coined post 1800, these is no evidence that the Spanish occupiers of Gibraltar pre 1704 considered themselves that.

We (in Gibraltar) do not refer to a 'Gibraltarian post box' its called a Gibraltar Post box and the service is the Gibraltar Post Office. Gibraltarian refers to and of the people of Gibraltar and has a legal definition. Free dictionaries are worth the paper they are printed on. --Gibnews (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of English. Note in that definition an example usage of the adjectival form is "Gibraltarian customs office". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking "Gibraltarian post box" is grammatically incorrect. The correct usage would be a "Gibraltar post box" – "Gibraltarian" is used exclusively to refer to those people who reside in Gibraltar. The word "Gibraltar" is used attributively as the adjective meaning "of Gibraltar", in the same way as "London" is used attributively in the "London underground". It is, at least, misleading to refer to pre-1704 inhabitants of Gibraltar as Gibraltarians; it is much less ambiguous to refer to them as "people born in Gibraltar". Using the comparison I used before: it would be inaccurate to describe the Pre-Columbian Lakota people as American Citizens – and the word "Gibraltarian" invariably implies that they carry an ID card. There was a long discussion about Gibraltarian versus Gibraltar (adequately summed up on Gibnews' userpage) where it was established that Gibraltarian should be used exclusively to refer to the people, because that's how it's done in Gibraltar and an article reflects the version of English used by the place to which it refers. RedCoat10 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not only misunderstanding basic English, you are also arguing against a dictionary there. What you've written above is pure original research. Furthermore, it's blatant POV pushing to say that the current residents of Gibraltar claim exclusive usage of that term to refer to themselves and that therefore this will also be implemented on Wikipedia, especially since (and I did not know this until the brouhaha on the Gibraltar page) the residents of San Roque consider themselves the "real" Gibraltarians. This will definitely be raised at the ArbCom discussion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research. The Gibraltar directory should suffice as a source; I think you'll find there is no such thing as "The Gibraltarian Museum" in much the way as there is no "Londonian Underground". I'm not arguing against the dictionary, but the fact of the matter is that the dictionary's definition is not used in Gibraltar and, as I said, articles make use of local varieties of English. And please assume good faith! RedCoat10 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is complete original research and now you are engaging in synthesis with this Gibraltar directory. Just because the directory doesn't have anything called the "Gibraltarian XYZ" it absolutely does not mean it's incorrect to use the adjectival form to refer to things of and relating to Gibraltar. The dictionary definition is there in black and white - you can't argue it away on the basis of logic I'm afraid. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The organisation is referred to as 'Gibraltar Customs' -or- 'HM Customs Gibraltar' see the phone book, and never that. You refer to a user contributed dictionary, not a reliable source. --Gibnews (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is 'Gibraltarian' is not used in Gibraltar as the adjective of 'Gibraltar', and the Gibraltar directory (not the 'Gibraltarian directory' I'd like to stress!) certainly corroborates this observation. The dictionary definition is irrelevant because its definition is not in usage in Gibraltar. It's a bit like using the OED to claim that the Americans are misspelling 'color'. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the adjective "Gibraltarian" is used in its adjectival form, just do a Google Books search on it [2] "Gibraltarian capital", "Gibraltarian national flag", "Gibraltarian politics" etc etc. On the one hand, we have a dictionary and plenty of uses of it on the internet. On the other we have the opinions of two Wikipedians. You have read and understood WP:NOR, right? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "Gibraltarian" isn't used in its adjectival form. It obviously is, as you've rightly pointed out. However, it's rarely used in Gibraltar and: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation (MOS:TIES). Seeing as you're not likely to budge on the issue of semantics, would you not agree that by using "Gibraltarian people" to refer to pre-British inhabitants of Gibraltar it is misleading to say the least (to a Gibraltarian)? Wouldn't it be best if, to avoid the problem, we just refer to such inhabitants as "born in Gibraltar in.."? Note I'm trying to be contructive here.

While I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you asked in good faith, the NOR question does has a patronising air. I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years am fairly confident in my understanding of policy. RedCoat10 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded patronising, it just I am extremely strict with myself about sources (I never, ever, make edits to Wikipedia without a reliable source at hand, and that gets me into arguments with the type of person that doesn't understand WP:RS/WP:NOR etc) and therefore expect others to be the same way. Anyway, not that I need your permission, but in the interests of constructive dialogue, I'll ask your opinion - would you be open to having this matter aired on the no original research board to get outside feedback? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means. I'm the meantime I'll see if I can find that talk page discussion in which the issue of "Gibraltar" versus "Gibraltarian" was debated. RedCoat10 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not used in Gibraltar? Perhaps you should take that up with the Director at the Institute for Gibraltarian Studies [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC) ps please don't make me post here the results of a Google search on the ".gi" domain

It seems to me that, in that context, Gibraltarian refers to the people (i.e. the Gibraltarians). In any case, "Gibraltarian" in its adjectival form is very much the exception rather than the rule in Gibraltar, as evidenced by the number of places which use the attributive adjective 'Gibraltar', e.g. the Gibraltar Airport, or the Gibraltar Tourist Office. I note the museum itself is the Gibraltar Museum, not the Gibraltarian museum. RedCoat10 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's exactly per the dictionary definition. "Gibraltarian studies" are studies "of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants". "Gibraltarian newspapers and magazines" [4] are newspapers and magazines "of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants". The only case in which you can properly restrict usage of the term "Gibraltarian" would be in an article on the term "Gibraltarian Resident" or something like that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your dictionary is user contributed, and clearly wrong because it refers to an organisation called 'The Gibraltarian Customs' which does not exist. Redcoat1 is quite correct. The flag is officially called 'The Gibraltar flag' or 'the flag of Gibraltar' like this. --Gibnews (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not true in the slightest that it is "user contributed". This particular definition is from the Collins English Dictionary. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it may officially be called (note, the source you provided absolutely does not say anything about its official name), I notice what you and RedCoat claim to be so didn't stop The Gibraltar Chronicle [5] referring to the "Gibraltarian flag". I'm sorry but what you both say holds no water at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely, if it held no water at all, you'd be citing the Gibraltarian Chronicle. You can't deny that in Gibraltar (which is what matters), 'Gibraltar' is more often than not used as an attributive adjective and Gibraltarian, almost always, refers to someone resident in Gibraltar as defined in Gibraltar law. RedCoat10 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is a meaning of Gibraltarian which is not the legal definition, and I have provided multiple sources which support that, many from Gibraltar. You, on the other hand, have provided a boat load of original research, and attempted to dismiss the sources. It's a sign you're on the wrong side of the WP:OR policy when you are doing this, as Gibnews well knows from past discussions on "British Overseas Territory" and "Gibraltar Pound". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of Gibraltarian

Two definitions from respected dictionaries:

  * Collins: adj of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants 
  * OED: adjective relating to Gibraltar

Can it be any clearer? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all nice and dandy but we must remind ourselves that the word itself did not exist in pre-1704 Gibraltar. It was coined ad hoc in the 1800s (see History of nationality in Gibraltar) to refer to those who were born in Gibraltar post-1704. Inhabitants of Gibraltar prior to the British takeover were Spanish and unless there is any evidence to show that said inhabitants referred to themselves as 'Gibraltarian' (which is impossible as it wasn't even in existence!) I see no reason why we should do so on the basis that modern-day dictionaries use 'Gibraltarian' to refer to anything related to Gibraltar. Were we to describe pre-1704 inhabitants of Gibraltar as Gibraltarians we would thus be doing so anachronistically. By way of example, the article People of the United States does not discuss Native Americans – there is the more appropriately named Indigenous peoples of the Americas. The equivalent used to be Spanish Gibraltarians, a poorly written and unsourced article which was, unsurprisingly, deleted. RedCoat10 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that People of the United States makes no mention of Native Americans is unforgivable, odd (they are after all US citizens) and irrelevant - if I go and change it now, it will mention it, so what does that prove? People of Australia mentions the aboriginals, Japanese people mentions the Ainu, but again, what does that prove?

Anyway, this article either needs to be moved to British Gibraltarian people or it needs to give due weight to the people who originally inhabited Gibraltar and who fled, and to the people who to this day see themselves as the "real" Gibraltarians. I'm not saying we should give undue weight to this, but it deserves more than there currently is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have written Pre-Colombian Native Americans, in which scenario your going over there and changing it wouldn't have made much sense as the United States did not exist in the Pre-Colombian Era! I see where you're coming from with the "British Gibraltarian people" proposal but, the way I see it, such an article almost at once implies that there are varying subsets of Gibraltarians: German Gibraltarians etc., whereas Gibraltarians are, by definition, British Citizens. It therefore looks like a tautology to refer to "British Gibraltarians". I’m quite sure most people who search for "Gibraltarians" are looking for an article about the present inhabitants of Gibraltar, not an heterogeneous cultural group that lived there in the past (i.e. Spanish people). Or for that matter, Spaniards, the descendents of whom left Gibraltar after the capture and whose town they consider some sort of Gibraltar in exile. I'm sure the articles History of Gibraltar and San Roque cater for those needs, respectively. If one were looking for information about Pre-Colombian Native Americans one would search for Indigenous peoples of the Americas not People of the United States. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure we're not overlooking the "Moorish Gibraltarian people" who after all had a much longer history (750 years), are we? Apcbg (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If I am getting it right (and I am not really sure of that, by the way), the discussion here is whether the word 'Gibraltarian' within the terms 'Gibraltarian people' is a legal status by definition or a regular demonym (just like Londoner, Berliner or Parisian). There are two possible ways to proceed:

• To consider Gibraltarians exclusively those fitting in the aforementioned legal interpretation. This option, for a start, is inconsistent with the current List of Gibraltarians, which includes people born in Gibraltar irrespective of their national status. For instance, Henry Francis Cary, Thomas William Bowlby, Frederick Stanley Maude, John Montresor, Edward Stevenson, Mike Campbell-Lamerton and William George Penney were the offspring of non-gibraltarian british subjects and therefore never have been Gibraltarians according to the legalist definition, as they were "full british" subjects by birth; yet they are liberally included in that list on account of being born in Gibraltar.
• To consider Gibraltarians the "natives or inhabitants of Gibraltar" per any dictionary. A concept which is demonstrably appliable to pre-1704 inhabitants of Gibraltar, Philip V of Spain refering to the residents of San Roque in 1706 as the "Muy Noble y Muy Leal ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar", being a suitable example. Not that it really matters anyway, as by definition there have been "natives of Gibraltar" since the foundation of the town (which predates the War of the Spanish Succession), regardless of their nationality. Cremallera (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries refer to Gibraltarians as the "natives or inhabitants of Gibraltar", that is, natives or inhabitants of the British Overseas Territory that is Gibraltar. Philip V's assertion does not demonstrate that the term is applicable to pre-1704 inhabitants as he does not refer to "[...]San Roque, donde reside los Gibraltareños". We can’t retroactively use a definition created ad hoc in the 1800s. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify. Then the term 'Gibraltarians' is used as a demonym here, not as a legal definition? Cremallera (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The same applies. We can't retroactively/anachronistically use a demonym that was created ad hoc in the 1800s. The demonym "Spaniard" wouldn't ordinarily refer to someone from Al-Andalus. We would use the more appropriate demonym "Moor" instead. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Gibraltarian Status is an artificial construct defined by law. On the other hand, a gentilic is just normal language usage derived from the name of a particular locality. The name 'Gibraltar' widely predates British rule, and in this case the dictionaries are pretty straightforward. Cremallera (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it was derived from and for the locality of Gibraltar in 1816. And it was coined because there was no demonym for the natives of the colony. "Gibraltarian" legally and nominally means "someone from post-1704 Gibraltar". A dictionary definition is no more a source for you than it is for me as it only say "Gibraltarian = inhabitant of Gibraltar" - there is no evidence that such a definition includes people who are no longer inhabitants of Gibraltar (and have not been for over three hundred years!). RedCoat10 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC) PS By the way, it's not actually "Gibraltarian Status"; that article should read "Gibraltarian (status)"

Huh? That is original research. Which source states that there was no demonym for the natives of Gibraltar? (Quote textually, please) Cremallera (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The word didn't exist until 1816 (see History of nationality in Gibraltar). RedCoat10 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources stating that the word isn't appliable to the inhabitants of Gibraltar prior 1704, please. Literal quotes whenever possible. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources can be found here. The burden is on you to provide a source proving that a then nonexistent demonym was used to refer to pre-1704 inhabitants of Gibraltar. RedCoat10 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gladly:

• Andrews, Allen, "Proud Fortress. The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar", p.34, textual quote: "One Spanish woman remained in the city, and Romero did not record her name, though he left an indirect indication. On Wednesday the 6th of August, three days after the bombardment and when the pillage was waning. Ana Jacinta de Alcasar, the wife of Cristofero Trujillo, gave birth to her baby. On the same day, in Saint Mary's, Father Romero christened the child Maria Josefa. She was the first Gibraltarian born under the British flag. How her mother endured the siege and sacking, or whether the baby lived long, will not now be known. But it is possible that she was the means of preserving one link between the Gibraltar of today and the ruin of 1704.".

• Hills, George. "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar", p.166, textual quote: "Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia. The number of refugees was probably about 4,000. Some found shelter in the mountain villages and towns as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga. The wealthier refugees owned property within the extensive city boundaries beyond the isthmus. One of them, the regidor (town councillor), Bartolomé Luis Varela, gave houseroom in his country mansion to the city's standard and records; the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque. Philip V, in granting the authority and in subsequent communications, addressed them always as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo".

Please, notice that this does not legitimise any Spanish claims nor does it deprive current Gibraltarians from their rights, culture or history. There's really no point in denying their condition to previous Gibraltarians. Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good finds. Bearing in mind these sources and the dictionary definitions of te adjectival forms can we please work out a form of wording here that gives due (but not undue) weight to the people of Gibraltar prior to British rule? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you started the pertinent talk page sections :) What did you have in mind?

I'd leave it up to you (if you are ok with that, of course), although there are a few things which in my opinion are relevant to this article. For openers, here's a brief (and merely indicatory in purpose, I am absolutely not suggesting to publish this) summary regarding the population of Gibraltar's history:

We can trace back the origins of Gibraltar and its people to the XII century, when the Almohad castle was built, later to be expanded as a fortified town. The next 3 centuries it changed a few times of hands (Almohads, Marinids, Castillians, Kingdom of Granada, the Duchy of Medina-Sidonia and ultimately the Spanish Crown) standing mainly under control of distinct Muslim factions. Following the Reconquista, the place fell under Christian dominion and was eventually handed to the Spanish Crown upon request of the Catholic Kings. I assume that the people were forced to convert or leave, as this happened throughout the Iberian Peninsula (Edict of Expulsion of the Jews, 1492 in the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castille, 1497 in Portugal and 1498 in Navarre; Edict of Expulsion of the Moriscos in 1609). To those who stood we could possibly add further Christian populators (although the only "Christian repopulation" in Gibraltar I am positive about -per George Hills, pp.39 & 40- occurred after the first Castillian takeover of the town in 1309).
In 1704 George Rooke seized the town and almost all the (surviving) Gibraltarians fled, most of them settling around a Shrine devoted to Saint Roch nearby. When the subsequent counter-siege was lifted in 1705 the settlement of San Roque had become permanent, and royal authority was granted to the refugees in order to establish it as a city with Gibraltar's former standard, records and City Council.

During the XVIII century, "the town and garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain" wasn't very populous as it was essentially a military outpost (of great strategic value). After the 1779-1783 massive Franco-Spanish siege the fortress proved impregnable, and the turmoil of the Peninsular War preceded the convulsed XIX century in Spain, which in turn brought a period of relative quietness to the Campo de Gibraltar area. A demographic boost ensued, and well into the XIX century Gibraltar was promoted to Crown Colony.

Censed civilian population in Gibraltar, 1725-2001. Thanks to Ecemaml!

My thoughts:

• Lead section - I think that the lede is already good (clear and to the point): "The Gibraltarians (colloquially Llanitos) are a cultural group native to Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located near the southernmost tip of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance to the Mediterranean sea".

• Origins - Pre 1704 Gibraltarians. Which, as drafted above, isn't black (Paco Pérez) then white (John Smith). But I've read some of your contributions and you seem to love history, so I am convinced that you are familiar with the shades of grey.
  Additionally, perhaps Peter Gold's "Gibraltar: British or Spanish" book (pages 8-9) may be of use to set a starting point for the Gibraltarian ethnogenesis in the XIX century, as it states how the huge population growth was -to a significant degree- artificial in nature and how the civil society was progressively built, particularly after the reclassification of Gibraltar as a Crown Colony:

"Towards the end of France’s involvement in the Iberian Peninsula between 1809 and 1813 as part of the Napoleonic Wars, British troops from Gibraltar were even sent to help the Spanish out against the French army in southern Spain: ‘Gradually Gibraltar changed from being the objective of the San Roque garrison into the supply base and refuge in time of trouble for the Spanish forces operating in Southern Andalusia’. Thereafter Britain and Spain began a period of friendly relations during which tension over Gibraltar diminished. For most of the rest of the nineteenth century Gibraltar was able to ‘enjoy unbroken peace and modest prosperity’ as it developed as a civic entity. As a consequence, it ceased to be seen by Britain solely as a military garrison and naval base that could be bartered in exchange for more advantageous territory.
By 1815 the civilian population of Gibraltar had grown to about 10,000 –two and half times the size of the garrison- thanks partly to an influx of immigrants fleeing Genoa and conscription in Napoleon’s armies earlier in the century. This growth was also in spite of outbreaks of yellow fever and other diseases; nearly 5,000 died in 1804 in an epidemic that was probably typhus. The Genoese constituted about one-third of the civilian population, with the rest being made up of Spaniards and Portuguese who had fled from the war, Jews mainly from Morocco, while the British represented only about one-seventh of the total.
In 1830 Britain took the significant step of changing the status of Gibraltar from ‘The town and garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain’ to ‘the Crown Colony of Gibraltar’, with responsibility transferred from the War Office to the Colonial Office. At the same time, legal institutions were established and a police force was formed. By now the population had reached 15,000, and it grew slowly but steadily so that by the end of the century it had reached 19,000, by which time the vast majority -nearly 17,000- were Gibraltar-born citizens with British nationality".

• Nationality - I think it is important to cite both the Gibraltarian Status Act 1962 and especially the British Nationality Act 1981 which as of 1983 granted British citizenship to the Gibraltarians (v. gr. Part I, Clause 5: "A British overseas territories citizen who falls to be treated as a national of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Community Treaties shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if an application is made for his registration as such a citizen").

Sorry, I feel like I've just written the Bible. If you managed to read through that... What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... The word's Gibraltarian? Most people (including the BBC) use Gibraltan... 217.174.211.1 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Cremallera's sources and RHOPF's dictionary quotes settle the issue of whether pre-1704 inhabitants of Gibraltar can be called Gibraltarians (unless someone comes up with a reputed reliable source saying the opposite, in which case I understand that the article should give due -not more nor less- coverage not to one but both positions).

My proposal about the text in the article (which I think should annoy nationalists from both sides, but IMHO might satisfy everyone in the current discussion):

• The lead: currently, it focuses in present day Gibraltarians. To be completely fair, the lead could mention Gibraltarians in general and not focus in present day Gibraltarians, but I think it can be left for later in the article (I hope this makes consensus easier). I.e.: I'm pretty happy with the current lead.
• Origins: I don't think it's justified not mentioning previous Gibraltarians in this section (without too much coverage, just enough). What about:

“ Present day Gibraltarians are a racial and cultural fusion of the many immigrants who came to the Rock of Gibraltar over three hundred years. They are the descendants of economic migrants that came to Gibraltar following its capture by Britain in 1704. ”

“ Since the XII century until 1704, the town of Gibraltar had been inhabited by people under Muslim and, later, Spanish rule. A pivotal change in the population of the town happened in that year, when Anglo-Dutch troops captured the town, the villagers suffered several atrocities and, in spite of certain assurances in the terms of surrender after the order was restored, all but 70 of the 4,000 existing Gibraltarians fled to the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar.[3] The few Spaniards who remained left in 1727 when Gibraltar was subjected to its second Spanish siege. ”

“ From that year, Gibraltarian population has grown again from being a simple garrison to form today, thanks to the migrants of mainly British and Mediterranean origin, a very diverse people with a very characteristic culture. ”

“ (Then the rest of the section about origins, and the rest of the article about religion, etc.) ”

I am sure that the language can be improved, but I think the text does justice to today's Gibraltarians, gives minimum coverage to the previous Gibraltarians, and explains the pivotal change from ones to the others. It just explains historical facts and does not try to support any irredentist claim or anything like that. What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence can also say "of mainly British, Spanish and other Mediterranean origins" (in case someone thinks the previous version is pro-irredentist) or just "of mainly British and Mediterranean origin" as Mediterranean includes Spain (if someone thinks that including Spanish is pro-irredentist; I am not too sure of what is irredentist and what isn't...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Gibraltarian' was not in use prior to 1800, although Hills and other Spanish sources have used it since to describe the Spanish residents of Gibraltar, they were not termed that at the time. The term only applies to the current population of Gibraltar and its application retrospectively is inappropriate. --Gibnews (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The term only applies to the current population of Gibraltar and its application retrospectively is inappropriate". Can you provide a source for this statement (better not coming from any of your web sites). Another source, from the diocese of Gibraltar:

Those that left Gibraltar in AD 1704 took with them the mutilated statue of Our Lady of Europe. A Chapel was constructed for her in Algeciras. These same Gibraltarians were able to continue their devotion.

So, again, it seems that Gibnews' statements are purely original research. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, you are right that no contemporary source for the term Gibraltarian has been provided. But that is no reason to not call them Gibraltarians retrospectively (the same applies to Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal, for example, or to the demonyms in English of probably 90% of the villages in the world pre- XIX century...) We must look whether there are any reliable secondary sources (contemporary or not) that say it's alright to use a demonym for a given group of people or not. In this case, we have -so far- five reliable sources supporting the demonym for pre-1704 Gibraltarians. Do you have any alternative reputed secondary source to support the opposite? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GIbnews - the Middle Ages weren't called the Middle Ages in the Middle Ages, people didn't go around saying "it's March 2nd, 20 Years Before Christ" in 20BC, and humans hadn't even arrived on the planet to be able to label that big scary thing with teeth a "dinosaur". Wikipedia is written in modern English, and if we want to find a source for modern English usage, we look in a dictionary, two of which have been provided. Not to mention the other sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, sources supporting the use of the term Gibraltarian for inhabitants of Gibraltar irrespective of the time period or -specifically- pre-British rule:

• Collins: adj of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants
• OED: adjective relating to Gibraltar
• Our lady of Europe website: Those that left Gibraltar in AD 1704 took with them the mutilated statue of Our Lady of Europe. A Chapel was constructed for her in Algeciras. These same Gibraltarians were able to continue their devotion.[6]
• Andrews, Allen, "Proud Fortress. The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar", p.34, textual quote: "On Wednesday the 6th of August, three days after the bombardment and when the pillage was waning. Ana Jacinta de Alcasar, the wife of Cristofero Trujillo, gave birth to her baby. On the same day, in Saint Mary's, Father Romero christened the child Maria Josefa. She was the first Gibraltarian born under the British flag".
• Hills, George. "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar", p.166: "the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque".

Like Cremallera said, the fact that a logical use of the normal rule for demonyms in modern English applies to natives of Gibraltar irrespective of the time period does not support any irredentist claim from Spain; it just supports the practical use of modern English and avoids unnecessary circumlocutions. Would someone mind if I copyedited the article to include that text? Do you have any suggestions beforehand? Would someone mind to check the wording (before or after editing the article)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you set something up in your user space and then show it here for others to comment? Editing the article itself may get you accused or this or that while ArbCom is under way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestion: I will, between this week and the next one. First I have to learn how to use my user space, and find some time for editing (I am horribly overwhelmed at the present moment with my "to do"s off-wiki: tons of e-mails, due dates, ...) and first I have to find some time for the Arbitration case about Gibraltar... Anyway, in the meantime, if anyone has some comment on my draft text above, please tell me. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A Gibraltarian is British in the same way an Englishman, a Scotsman, or a Northern Irishman is. Gibraltar is similar to these constituent countries in that it's inhabitants (or at least, the majority of them) consider themselves British. So someone can be a 'Gibraltarian' and British, in the same way as an Australian, Canadian, South African, New Zealander was, back when they were more closely tied to Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.62 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic descent

I do not think that among the ethnic groups of which gibraltarian people descend 26% were Spaniards, I think the percentage is less, I think 10% of the ancestors of the people of Gibraltar weres spaniard, and the rest were British, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese .. etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.113.144 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR - M0rphzone (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Surnames

I added section on major family names of Gibraltar by origin (Italian, Maltese, Portuguese etc...) Since Gib has a small population I thought this would be feasible and interesting. I'm missing quite a few so any help would be appreciated. I still haven's started the Sephardic Jewish section or the Portuguese.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504031258/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames

I have removed an unsourced statement claiming "numerous nicknames" are used by Spaniards to refer to Gibraltarians. As far as I know and by what can be seen in a quick google search they are referred to as either Llanitos or Gibraltarenos.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No you added your personal opinion, as usual edit warring to force it into the article. WP:BRD.

BRD - Bold edit, when reverted, you discuss.

This is not Bold edit, reverted, immediately revert war and start a talk page discussion as a fig leaf. WCM_email 09:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a citation needed template. Please provide a source for the statement or it will be removed. Thanks.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[7] I note this cite does not support the claim you made. You're also being rather silly about the citation you're demanding but no matter. WCM_email 13:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[8] Diff of edit war warning, I don't propose to continue indulging you in this ridiculous nonsense any further. WCM_email 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I´m just being thorough. I provided the RAE dictionary entry for "llanito" as a source - defining it as a "colloquial appelation for Gibraltarians", although I could provide any of the dozens of Spanish newspapers which refer to Gibraltarians as Llanitos. However, these "various nicknames related to the rock" remain a mystery to me. I personally have never heard of any of these nicknames and would like to know what they are.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've clarified the term. In fact, it is the term used in the local language as well. --Discasto (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discasto Your edit doesn't sound right in English. Suggest you rephrase.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

May ask you rephrase it? I can't really do it better :-) --Discasto (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Will doDiscasto. Can I ask out of curiosity what sobriquets are used for Llanitos according to the source? Can't access it. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I've just added a reference for supporting the term "llanito/yanito", which is used bot in Spanish and in Gibraltar's vernacular (which also is given the same name). No idea about the next edition (in fact, I'm not even able to understand what it's referring to). The source provided, as I can read it in Google Books (and given its title), refers to place nicknames and seem to support the user of "Gib" as nickname of Gibraltar. Nothing more. --Discasto (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok Got it.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic galleries

Have these not been forbidden in Wikipedia? I thought of deleting right now but maybe for such a small population an exception can be made?Asilah1981 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Would like opinions prior to proceeding with deletion.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it and you know I created it. For a small population it makes sense. WCM_email 10:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have to say, I kind of agree on this one. I didn't know you created it. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/statistics/Census_of_Gibraltar_2001.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013194341/http://gibraltar.gov.uk/hol/people.asp to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/statistics/Abstract_of_Statistics_2008.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Text Removed

[9] Checked cited source and it doesn't support the claims made. Hence, I have removed the text. I would remind editors that any new text would require consensus before it is added. WCM_email 22:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the cited source supports the claims made. Please take a look at it (page 6):

“ After three days of battle, on 4 August, Gibraltar was successfully seized. Of the 4,000 inhabitants, all but 70 fled across the isthmus into the hinterland of the Campo de Gibraltar, many settling temporarily (or so they thought) in San Roque, which two years later King Philip V of Spain dubbed ‘My city of Gibraltar resident in its Campo’. ”

Your text is also cited by the same source and adds interesting information. I will boldly merge your text with the previous one. - Imalbornoz (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous text didn't cite that page, so was unsupported. I could, if I applied the standard you do, demand you self-revert and discuss the sentence interminably for a month. Instead, I'll be constructive and continue to adapt your bold edit to reflect the weight of views in the literature. WCM_email 13:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OMG. You have removed a sourced text saying that it was unsourced. I have assumed good faith and supposed that you just hadn't looked hard enough. Instead of reverting, and asking for discussion, I have accepted your edit and merged it with the previous consensus text (thinking you would see it was a sign of constructive attitude).

Now, even though you see it was a sourced text you still want to remove some of the information???? I will restore the information, which is sourced. If you still want to remove it (I don't know why you would want to do that), let's discuss it here. For the moment, I will not revert to the previous consensus text as a sign of good faith (and pray that we don't start yet another long discussion). Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I did look and follow the cite, the text wasn't there. And as for your suggestion I didn't look hard enough, I am not expected to scour an entire reference to try and find text to support an edit made by someone else. So your suggestion otherwise is indeed yet another indication of your lack of good faith. You also edit warred to re-impose an unnecessarily large quotation, the source is online in google books in any case, which is potentially a copyright violation - something you were recently warned about by Thomas.W [10]. If you're talking about sources, I also moved the sources to demonstrate that the precise phrasing used was supported by sources. If you're going to continue in this vein, I'm reluctantly once again reaching the conclusion I should simply remove the text whilst it's discussed. Is that what you want? WCM_email 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems with "Regions with significant populations" section

The only source for the figure for the Gibraltarian population in Gibraltar is dead with no archive or reupload, in addition to it being from over 13 years ago, and the source for the UK, US, Spain, and Other population figures measures nationality, not ethnicity, meaning its of dubious relevance to an article about an ethnic group. In addition, the figures listed for Gibraltarian populations in Morocco, Spain, and Portugal need clarification as to whether their respective figures include occupied Western Sahara, Ceuta, Melilla, and Olivenza. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

After reading the references again, it turns out there is a page listed as an archive of the "Abstract of Statistics 2008" PDF, but it is not an archive of the PDF itself, nor its contents. Rather, it is an archive of a page that states the population of Gibraltar as of the page's creation, which appears to have been 28,605. In addition, the page dates to February 8th, 2006 at the earliest according to the Wayback Machine, and likely to sometime in 2005 judging by the copyright date, which is three years earlier than 2008. There are no verifiable sources for that "at least 23,757" figure. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Quick correction, turns out the source for the UK, US, Spain, and Other population figures doesn't measure how many Gibraltarian nationals are living in any given country, but rather how many people born in Gibraltar are living in any given country. Still not measuring how many ethnicity though. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have found the page you were looking for. The source refers the Gibraltarians as a nationality, at least compared to UK British people. 2x2leax (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I took a look at it and it seems to be referring to nationality judging by the use of "UK British". Sometimes the word "nationality" is used in place of ethnicity, though I don't think that's the case here, but it's quite hard to tell. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)