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)