Talk:Demographics of Gibraltar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ethnic origins

I reckon that at least the Moroccans deserve a paragraph of their own. Thoughts? --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would have included it in my edit if I had found some information. With a bit more time I am sure we'll be able to find some info. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, responding to your changes:

• Spaniard (subsection) -> Spanish (subsection): I can agree with that.

• Deleted the reasons for Spaniards to leave Gibraltar: If the article explains the reasons why some Minorcans or 200 Catalans moved to Gibraltar, then it should not silence the reasons for the most significant single migration in Gibraltar (almost all Spaniards moving out and leaving room for new inhabitants). For a long time, this section explained the reason why Spaniards left Gibraltar (only, as you can see in the source, that reason was not complete) -> why change the approach now? Besides, it is sourced text what has been deleted (while keeping the citation and the source that supports it...) I am restoring that deleted text. I hope you don't edit war with it. Instead, please discuss with me why you don't consider it verifiable.

• Several individuals from Minorca moved because of fear of Minorcan families -> a wave of migration from Minorca because of fear from the Spanish: I have looked hard to find the verifiability of this sentence. The source[1] cites that one individual feared reprisals because the "priests had 'indisposed' him to several powerful families of the island": Nicolás Orfila. He died on May 20th 1810 in Menorca at the age of 66[2]p158. Then it mentions "several individuals" (not seemingly enough to be a "wave of immigration") "that, I am afraid, will suffer considerably for their attachment and good will towards the English". But the source does not say whether they left Menorca neither whether they went to Gibraltar. Also, the source cites that "Charles Viale, the governor’s secretary from the beginning, also asked for a fixed salary and pension, and for an appointment as consul in some port of Italy or Spain. He was recommended by Fox.(...) He is a native of Gibraltar and is, on his mother’s side, descended from a most respectable English family". So he was not a Minorcan, but a Gibraltarian; and we don't know if he ended up in Spain or Italy -as was his intention- or in Gibraltar. As you can see, I have not been able to find support to a "wave of Minorcans" migrating to Gibraltar because of fear of the Spanish. Therefore, I am asking you to please tell me where in the source is the support for that (if I had found it, I would not be disturbing you with this question). I will wait for your answer and not touch this sentence (but, please, give me an answer).

I hope you agree that I have made an effort to contribute to the article. I have also kept a text defended by you, even though I disagree with it, waiting for you to explain its sources and then discuss about it. Please, do the same and let's just discuss contents. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence because the English was poor, its also become unnecessary as the sources you quote explain it. Why are you reverting again? Don't be so touchy "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Its a collaborative project and people will improve your text. The article doesn't suffer for its removal.

Spanish is correct English usage, Spaniard is simply incorrect.

I've copy edited your comments on Minorcans, the edit is supported by the TWO (emphasis added for clarity) references and we've been through this before. I am really tired and fed up with your constant badgering about my edit, I'm not going to do it again; stop quibbling about it. You strangled the English in a desperate attempt to avoid using the word Spanish. Rest assured we're not being nasty about the Spanish, it doesn't reflect badly on the Spanish. For god's sake don't be so sensitive. This is not the evil British painting the Spanish as a bunch of meanies.

And yes it makes a pleasant change to see a positive contribution, for once assume good faith and accept that my edit was to improve your contribution not to damage it. Justin talk 23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, if the English is poor, I will thank your proposing some alternative text without changing the sense (as you did with Spaniard->Spanish). Please do not just delete sourced text a third time. Regarding quotes: the use of quotes is supporting text in the article (otherwise, let's just leave a list of quotes and delete all quoted text!) In fact, the previous version (which was defended by you in a previous discussion long ago) had both text in the article and a quote.

Regarding Minorcans, I am not assuming good or bad faith. I am not complaining of your treating Spaniards in any way. I am just checking that the text is verifiable. Let's not waste time discussing about it. Please, just show me where in the sources you can see evidence for a wave of Minorcan migration because of fear in 1802, and let's get moving on with Moroccans and other issues. You have talked about Chapter X in Sloss' book, but I haven't seen any evidence of people moving to Gibraltar (see my previous comment). Could you please show me where you see evidence in that source? Regarding the other book: here you have a link to Desmond's "Illusory prize" in google books, maybe it helps you remember where in that book we can find some evidence (it would be easier if we had the page number in the citation...). Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia and contributions should be in reasonable English, so expect and bad usage to be corrected without any discussion, as it says If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. --Gibnews (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The English usage is just plain wrong but it doesn't matter as the text is redundant anyway. What is your problem, can't your ego accept removal of material. If you cannot accept your contributions will be edited and changed don't submit it. I explained why above and here I am again. Will you stop being so needlessly confrontational abotu everything.

I did not change the sense between Spaniard and Spanish, your use of English was grammatically incorrect. It is that simple.

Look I can't remember the page number and I'm not going back to the library to get the book again. You're being unreasonably pedantic about this. I really have had enough of being badgered by you about this. Justin talk 09:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And yes I have changed my mind about whether that is necessary or not, I tend to be less stubborn when people stop being confrontational. Justin talk 09:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, given that you have deleted the previous version (3 times) saying it was "poor English", I have changed it trying to improve it. I hope you like it. If you don't consider it good enough English, I would ask you to propose an alternative text containing the same concepts. Please do not just delete or edit war: discuss with me. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not going to delete it but ask yourself it is really needed. Justin talk 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and edit war? You kept on re-introducing the same edit after I'd pointed out the English was incorrect and that it had become unnecessary. I did discuss it, you stubbornly re-introduced it. Will you just quit with always assuming the worst of people. Justin talk 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for not deleting it and sincere apologies if my mention of edit warring offended you. I thought that the procedure for a not totally correct sentence (not a whole article or a massive edition) was to improve it, not delete it. If the normal procedure is deletion, then I judged you mistakenly. My apologies, once more. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For information deletion is an acceptable way of dealing with a problem if it eliminates it. You can improve it, if its worth it. I really don't understand why you assume that removing text is somehow making the article poorer. Again I ask yourself to consider whether it is in fact still needed. Justin talk 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, to answer your question: I honestly think that the explanation for the Spanish population leaving Gibraltar is relevant and consistent:

• 1) It is relevant: the migration of 4.000 inhabitants in 1704 has had a major impact on Gibraltar’s current ethnic mix (i.e.: that mix would be very different had that migration not occurred). It is relevant to explain why that happened.
• 2) It is consistent with the rest of the section: It seems that there is consensus to explain -among other things- the reasons for the migration of different demographic groups (even for pretty small groups like Minorcans or 200 Catalans) in order to explain the origin of Gibraltar’s current ethnic mix. I agree with that criterion (it is very consistent with the topic of the article and the section). It seems only consistent to explain the reason for Gibraltar's largest single migration (around 4.000 inhabitants moving out in just a few days).
• 3) It is consistent with the previous version (which was proposed by Pfainuk and Narson [3] and implemented by yourself[4]). I haven't suddenly decided to include this explanation out of the blue. In general, I have only reorganised the content of the article and expanded it. In the case of Spaniards leaving town it's the same: I have expanded the previous citation including more relevant facts -from the moment of the surrender- and tried to better explain the reasons.

I hope that explains why I consider that this sentence should be in the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess we just differ, whatever. It needs a precis. Justin talk 09:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I can see your problem. Its difficult to achieve a concise text that conveys all the nuances. What do you think of the copy edit? Justin talk 09:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, my honest opinion:

• I think it is far too long (much longer than the previous version). In case that you think that all "nuances" (as you say) should go in the text, I can think of a few more. But I would rather go for a shorter text.
• I also find it biased: "the behaviour of British sailors (despite the efforts of their commanders to maintain order)..." vs. "a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors"? It doesn't explain what the "behaviour" of English sailors might have been, but says that actually senior officers tried to stop them. On the other hand, it says that inhabitants "murdered" English and Dutch sailors but doesn't say that they were murders in "reprisal".

The previous text just said that atrocities and reprisals were commited without assigning guilt.

• It assumes things that the source does not say: 1) it does not say that inhabitants feared reprisal (it just says that few of them "wished or dared to remain"). 2) It does not say that British sailors had any specific behaviour, but crewmen and marines (not British sailors); also, at does not say that English and Dutch sailors were murdered (it talks about bloody reprisals taken by inhabitants on Englishmen and Dutchmen, not necesarily sailors). 3) Also, the promise of liberty, etc. was done before the atrocities and reprisals, not after.

The previous text did not say anything that the source does not say.

For all those reasons (more concise, less biased, and more accurate), I think that the previous version is better. I will support full-heartedly any copy edit that is at least as concise, neutral and accurate. Meanwhile, as the current version says things that the source does not support, I will restore the previous one.

Anyway, you still have not said what was wrong with the previous text. You just said that it was not necessary (and then you copy edited all that amount of text). What do you think of it? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Length is not an issue, the article is not overly long.

It is most definitely not in the least bit biased. Assuming good faith, perhaps your language skills are misinterpreting the text but it isn't. That sentence conveys their conduct was unacceptable. It doesn't assign guilt.

Your final point isn't contradicted by the text. You are starting to exhibit WP:OWN.

I'm also beginning to think you don't read the talk page - I've explained above that I tried to precis the text but discovered that in doing so crucial elements were lost - ones not included in your edit.

Now will you please stop reverting all the time. And will you do people the courtesy of reading the talk page, then you might stop pissing them off when you ask them to explain things they've already explained. Justin talk 12:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to edit the text a bit. It has exactly the same length as yours (91 words) and presents more facts. It also is chronologically more accurate (first the terms of surrender with promises of freedom and civil rights, then the behaviour of crewmen and marines, then the bloody reprisals, then population not wishing or daring to stay). It has all the facts that you included in the previous text, plus a couple more that better explain the story (with same length). I think it's better, and I hope you don't think it's worse (deal?). --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded your rewording. I have split a very long sentence into two, and clarified what is meant by "bloody reprisals" - as well as who took reprisals against whom. In the last sentence, I have changed the wording as your one was a bit too close to the source's wording - we want to say what the source says, but it's better that we say it in something a bit closer to our own words IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copy edited further, the phrase with "crewmen" was poor English, the source does not support the claim that churches were desecrated, it says they were used as stores. The comment that women were outraged is also a little strange. "Bloody" reprisals is a peacock term. Justin talk 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I agree with your changes, but think that "fled" might not be too precise. Gibraltar's previous inhabitants went through "a self-imposed or forced absence from their home", and therefore "exile" would be a more precise term[5]. See this source (in the second paragraph of p33).

Justin, churches in Gibraltar were not only "deprived of their sacred character" and turned into stores and other military purposes: they were sacked and, indeed -as another source more specifically explains-, "Every church in the city was desecrated save one"[6].

The comment about women being outraged sounds strange probably because it is an old fashioned euphemism for "rape"[7][8][9]. I thought that "women were outraged" would be nearer to the source and less offensive, but if you think it sounds strange, I will update the term to "raped" (which, actually, is not too offensive when you are talking about the historical sacking of a village in an encyclopaedia).

Finally, given that each migration of a demographic group gets an explanation of the origin and destination, I have included that most of the previous townsfolk founded the town of San Roque nearby (it is sourced, of course).

OK about your copy edit on "bloody" reprisals (I wrote "bloody" when the term "murder" was not there, but now it is not necessary).

Thanks for all your comments. I hope that you agree with the text now, so that we don't need to change too much and can concentrate on other parts of the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

In my honest opinion I think there's a bit too much background information now, with the reference quotes also being too lengthy. The article should concentrate more on those who did stay in/immigrated into Gibraltar creating the ethnic melting pot that makes up today's Gibraltarians. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia, a copy edit of it can be moved to a more relevant article. --Gibmetal 77^talk 08:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Justin talk 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have gone through several revisions and copyedits of that paragraph, maybe we should agree on as maximum size, so that we can work with that target in our mind. I'm including a history of edits and sizes, so that we have some reference:

• 68 words (Imalbornoz)[10]
• 82 words (Imalbornoz)[11]
• 82 words (Gibmetal) [12]
• 122 words (Justin) [13]
• 122 words (Imalbornoz) [14]
• 131 words (Pfainuk) [15]
• 125 words (Justin) [16]
• 146 words (Imalbornoz) [17]

What size range would you consider more appropriate as a maximum size? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not a case of a word count, the subject of the article is the demographics of Gibraltar. We now have a section on the Spanish demographic that is now dominated by the departure of the Spanish in 1704. You're also counting as valid, edits where your use of English was incorrect. I personally think I had the sentiments about right with my edit of 125 words, your expanded edit of 146 words is just too much. I would just revert it but I'm just really, realy tired of the constant accusations of bias and having to explain things to you, only for them to be ignored. Justin talk 08:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the size of the paragraph to 125 words, which Justin considered just about right. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin and his edit wars (again)

Well, Justin seems to have sort of obsession with my editions. Provided that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia ("There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page") and that the information is not duplicated at all, since the chart does not include the figures and the dates of the censuses, I can't see any reason to edit warring. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave a perfectly reasonable edit summary that having a table and a graph duplicated the same data twice. There is no need for it. It takes two to edit war, you edit warred to put it back. I don't see any reason for you to do that. Justin talk 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Could I suggest you read WP:BRD. Reverting is a normal part of Wikipedia and there is no problem with it if the bold-revert-discuss cycle is respected. That means that if you make an edit, and someone disagrees with it, they do not have to leave it there. Instead, they revert. Then you both come to talk.

If Justin or anyone else reverts a new edit of yours in the future, don't revert the revert as that just leads to an edit war. Instead, come on to talk to discuss the issue at hand.

You're repeatedly accusing Justin of edit warring, but it takes two to edit war and you are edit warring just as much as Justin is. If Justin reverts an edit you make, you should bring the issue up on talk, discuss it, and try to come to agreement with Justin on the way forward. Don't go straight to ANI, and don't come on to talk complaining about him edit warring - that doesn't improve relations and makes consensus very much harder. And it's hard enough to get consensus on Gibraltar pages as it is at the moment.

Similarly, if you revert an edit Justin makes, he should bring the edit up on talk, discuss it, and try to come to an agreement with you on the way forward. Pfainuk talk 22:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which by the way, in the example on History of Gibraltar you'll notice I did and only reintroduced text when after explaining it there were no further objections. Till you brought it up again weeks later. Justin talk 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As to the graph itself, if it is "duplicating data", why not put the graph next to the data it is duplicating? The whole purpose of a graph is not to introduce information, but to demonstrate it in a way that helps people see a trend or make a visual comparison. I understand objecting to the text accompanying the graph, if that text is already present elsewhere, but that's why I suggested moving the graph itself. -- Atama頭 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just don't get what you're suggesting? Can you give an example, as an engineer I would put raw data in an annex, I wouldn't put it next to a graph in the main text of a report. Justin talk 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the chart does seem redundant as it duplicates info in the graph. With the graph present, the chart isn't needed. (I mistakenly thought the graph was what was being fought over, I was wrong.) I do think the accompanying text with the graph was helpful, maybe if trimmed down to 2 or 3 sentences it can be included in the text under the chart? It does seem nice to have a bit of explanation for the population changes shown in the chart. -- Atama頭 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

By chart I presume you mean table? Yes I agree, two examples of presenting the same data is redundant. 2-3 sentences of explanation and the graph would suffice. Justin talk 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

As seems common in a lot of Gibraltar articles, this article contained extensive text related to the take over in 1704. Tangentially relevant and per WP:COATRACK, this edit [18] has removed a lot of that extraneous detail. Justin talk 13:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed about this over and over again (see above). A consensus had been reached a year ago. Going over the discussion above, I must say I have been surprised by the use of the term "COATRACK" from someone who wanted the article to mention some (unsourced) exodus of Minorcans due to their collaboration with the British (???)... Every ethnic group gets a mention of their origin, the causes for their migration and their destination. In the case of the whole population of Gibraltar that lived there for generations before the capture it should be the same (even if they were Spanish, don't you think?). Let's talk again about it if you want, but please follow BRD. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No there wasn't a consensus, I wearily gave up arguing the toss in the face of tendentious editing and edit warring by yourself. The same text is not appropriate on each and every article. As was pointed out at the time, the article was distorted and spoke not so much of demographics but historical events. I also resent the deliberate implication in your statement that this is because they were Spanish. Its a bad faith comment and impugns my motives. If you're accusing me of racism, come out and say so. Otherwise that comment is completely inappropriate. I've removed the text again, because it is a classic WP:COATRACK and thus violates our policies. If you wish to add some details back, then I'll consider it but they will be brief and the coverage appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Gibraltar. 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/20060304033327/http://www.iteg.org/documentos/spaniards_in_gibraltar.pdf to http://www.iteg.org/documentos/spaniards_in_gibraltar.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)