Talk:Gibraltar

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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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.[1]. 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. WCM_email 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, Wikipedia'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

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.[20] As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked.[21]

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.[20] As of March 2023, talks seem deadlocked.[21] 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. WCM_email 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

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 Wikipedia, 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[[2] 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 [or the native 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 [3] and preview some of the content in Routledge[4]. 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[5]

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[6]:

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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. WCM_email 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree [with removing the section] and suggest [also] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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)