Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Gibraltar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not an active discussion page, but an archive of the discussion. Notification of the TFAR nomination was posted by me at Talk:Main Page/Archive 175#Notification of a TFA nomination, WT:Featured article candidates#Notification of a TFA nomination, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Notification of a TFA nomination and WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 42#Notification of a TFA nomination; there was also a discussion about it on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 135#Gibraltar pay for placement on the home page. BencherliteTalk 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


North View of Gibraltar from Spanish Lines

The history of Gibraltar (pictured in 1782) spans over 2,900 years. First inhabited 50,000 years ago by the Neanderthals, Gibraltar may have been one of their last refuges before their extinction. To the Carthaginians and Romans it was one of the Pillars of Hercules at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea. Moors from North Africa first settled and fortified it, calling it Jebel al-Tarik, later corrupted into Gibraltar. Castile contested it and eventually conquered it in 1462, after which it became part of Spain. An Anglo-Dutch force seized it in 1704. It was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht, signed on 13 July 1713. Spain unsuccessfully besieged Gibraltar in 1704, 1727 and 1779–83; its status is still disputed. The territory became a British Crown colony and an important trading post and base for the Royal Navy. During the Second World War it was a key British garrison, controlling access to the Mediterranean. Gibraltar's fourteen sieges have led to it becoming "one of the most densely fortified and fought over places in Europe." Today it is a self-governing British Overseas Territory with an economy based largely on financial services, shipping and tourism. (Full article...)

I don't normally close discussions here with an explanation, nor do I tend to announce what articles are going to run before I have to, nor do I tend to advertise TFAR discussions widely to solicit full input. But as there has been a considerable amount of discussion in the last six days, perhaps unsurprisingly given the G-word, and as I don't see further discussion as being helpful or likely to change the collective decision, I'm going to close this discussion now. It has been said on the talk page by an editor with considerable experience of TFAR that he does not remember a nomination with so many votes (and, for what it is worth, neither do I). Reading through the comments as they have come it, and again just now, it is clear that there is very strong support for this article to run on the nominated date, and I will therefore schedule it in due course. Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. BencherliteTalk 00:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8 points: 6 points for the tercentenary of the Treaty of Utrecht, the anniversary for which the article was written (as it marks the point at which Gibraltar became a British territory) plus 2 points for nothing similar in the last 6 months (or in fact ever).

This is the first featured article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, which I established back in 2007, and as far as I know would be the first-ever TFA on Gibraltar. For the avoidance of doubt, I originally wrote this article 3 years ago and got it up to FA standard to mark the tercentenary of the Treaty of Utrecht this July - there has been no external stimulus or involvement with the article. WikiProject Gibraltar has never been the subject of any controversy whatsoever and needless to say, there are no restrictions on Gibraltar-related TFAs, as there have never been any before. Prioryman (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support even though my cruise ship picked up the norovirus there to the (seemingly) lasting misery of other people last December, I will assume good faith here, and that the colony does not routinely engage in germ warfare. Or other things frowned upon by Wikipedia--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was told I had to be inoculated against yellow fever when going to the Falklands. Which caused me some puzzlement (given the climate), until I realised that the yellow fever wasn't actually on the Falklands, it was because we had to stop over at that other sort-of bastion of empire, Ascension Island. Even though it was only for refuelling! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. High quality article. High educational value. High encyclopedic value. Extremely relevant date. Unique topic. — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given the controversy around Wikipedia main page appearances of this topic. Andreas JN466 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayen466 fails to mention that he has been leading a campaign against running Gibraltar-related content on the Main Page, which culminated in him proposing a total moratorium on all such content in February (which was rejected by 27 votes to 2). He advocates an extreme view that any mention of Gibraltar on the Main Page is somehow "promotional". There are currently temporary restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs which require such DYKs to be reviewed by two editors, checked for COI/promotional issues and run at a rate of no more than one per day. No such restrictions apply to TFAs, nor would they ever have been necessary. There has never before been a Gibraltar TFA. The article has been through a GA review and FA review involving nine editors. At no stage has there has been any suggestion of COI or promotional issues, nor has Jayen466 made any case that there are any such issues with the article's content. I think it would certainly have been spotted after full GA and FA reviews in which, I note, Jayen466 played no part. I would also add that this article has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia; it was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed, for a WikiProject that was established five years earlier. Prioryman (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total moratorium for the next decade is a great idea. That will reduce Gibraltar's home page appearances on Wikipedia to a level commensurate with Gibraltar's real world presence and significance: tiny. Wikipedia is not for advertising by a micro-country, it's travel industry, nor anybody else. Jehochman Talk 09:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice to have some more geography here, rather than all those tedious warships! ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lovely article, just notify the airport and Gibraltar pollution control in advance, I anticipate a sudden dramatic increase of flights to the rock the next day...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ticks just about every box. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice, a tercentenary is a really auspicious date. It fits all of the reasons for TFA. SilverserenC 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am tired of seeing Gibraltar on the home page of Wikipedia. I think it would be best not to place any Gibraltar articles there. Let's show the full range of articles in Wikipedia, and stop over-representing narrow interests. Jehochman Talk 00:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gibraltar is part of the "full range of articles in Wikipedia", and we've never had a TFA. Rather than run three Indonesian films in two months (we have three already featured that haven't run, after all)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gibraltar has had an endless crapload of DYKs. There's been severe abuse in the form of a major public relations campaign involving editors sub rasa. Actions have consequences. We should not reward corruption. Jehochman Talk 09:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, between the lines you're saying that we should punish uninvolved users for the actions of others? Something's backwards with that argument. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't give a damn about punishing editors. Wikipeda is here for our readers. Home page appearances are not prizes given out to reward editors. When the home page has been abused as a billboard for the government of Gibraltar's paid publicity, we need to be senstve and stop placing Gibraltar content there for a long time, until everybody forgets, and an occasional article can appear without people saying, "Look those corrupt idiots at Wikipedia are back to promoting Gibraltar again." Jehochman Talk 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Edited by Jehochman after the discussion was archived. BencherliteTalk 11:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm neither pro nor anti Gibraltar, and I just comment here that though I look at the front page every day, I am not conscious of a surfeit of Gibraltar articles. I can't recall any in recent months, or indeed earlier. Would Jehochmann like to remind us of the occasions when what he elegantly calls the "crapload" appeared? Tim riley (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you feigning ignorance, or are you really unaware of this scandal: Gibraltarpedia. Read the article and address whether it is now appropriate to put more Gibraltar content on the home page of Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 10:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Come, come. Let us have no more unsubstantiated assertions. Kindly identify the "crapload" if it exists. Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Come, come, let us stop playing the silly game called WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've clearly identified what I'm talking about. If you refuse to address the significance of the Gibraltarpedia scandal, I'm not going to waste my time talking to somebody who ignores and belittles my concerns. Jehochman Talk 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's a perfectly simple request. If, as you assert, there has been a "crapload", then surely you can identify the occasions when the said defecatory consignments have been deposited on the front page in recent months. I am sure we could all hear you, but you refuse to say. All but one of the other contributors above have supported. Are we all being misled? Please feel free to enlighten us. – Tim riley (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Did you read Gibraltarpedia#Controversy? It's all right there. Jehochman Talk 10:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Three points: this article was written in 2010 for WikiProject Gibraltar, founded in 2007. It has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia, which was established in 2012. Second, it was not written to promote anything. It was written to resolve a dispute within WikiProject Gibraltar over the article that is now Timeline of the history of Gibraltar (check the edits for March-June 2010), and it was brought up to FA standard to commemmorate the 300th anniversary of Gibraltar's cession to Britain. Third, the controversy over Gibraltarpedia is essentially over. The last news item on that issue (which Jayen466 had a major role in prompting) was published in February 2013. By July 13, that will be 6 months in the past. Prioryman (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good choice for a relevant date and an unusual TFA topic. The article itself is great too, from what I recall of the GA review. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely improved since then, thanks to our FA reviewers. Prioryman (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A fine article, and a most timely occasion for it to appear. A topic of wide appeal, too, unlike some that are of national rather than international interest. Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wide appeal? You are kidding, right? Why is Gibraltar appearing on the home page of Wikipedia more often than New York City? Which do you think should get more coverage? We should not carry on the past corruption. Jehochman Talk 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly of wide appeal. Gibraltar is of interest to people in the UK, Spain, the rest of the EU, people with interests in military history, naval history etc etc. I don't know why you mention New York city but it is perhaps less so. Tim riley (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention New York City because it is a major center of population, arts, business, history, and it has received just a fraction of the attention of Gibraltar. This is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not here to promote the city, state or country that lavishes the most attention, favors and money on our editors. Clearly, some of you don't get that. Jehochman Talk 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • More unsubstantiated assertions. Please provide the facts: the number of Gibraltar front page appearances, say, since the start of this year? Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • More than 10. You are welcome to spend half a day going through the relevant history to come up with an exact count. Did you read Gibraltarpedia yet? Jehochman Talk 10:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting. Perhaps there is indeed possibly something in what you say about DYKs. Happily it is plainly inapplicable to this article, which as we have established above, is of impeccable provenance and has been throughly examined at GA and FAC. I don't really understand the current DYK process, but I think you might like to raise the DYK question there, rather than here. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • He already did, only about 3 weeks ago - see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 93#Gibraltar. Not a single person agreed with him or his demand for a total moratorium. There have been, I think, 6 Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page in the last three months. Nobody but him seems to think that an average of 2 a month on the same topic (out of some 4,500 DYKs over the same period) poses some kind of mortal threat to Wikipedia. I might add that none of the DYKs has attracted any kind of controversy whatsoever, and one of them, which I wrote, was only a few hundred page views off making the list of all-time most-viewed DYKs - there's no doubt that they're of interest to a wide audience. Prioryman (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If a group of editors (or one very busy editor) were to produce a series of high quality articles on New York City I'd really like to see them appear on the main page as well as the articles on Gibraltar. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Comments have been made in the past that potentially controversial TFA nominations should be given wider publicity to ensure a greater community input into the decision in advance, rather than present a fait accompli. As this is such a nomination, I am leaving notes at Talk:Main Page, the village pump, WP:AN and WT:FAC. That should draw the attention of a good cross-section of editors. BencherliteTalk 10:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy discussion on number of DYKs

I have done as Jehochman suggested (took 25 minutes) and there are eight DYK mentions of Gibraltar this year, three of them arguably relevant to his complaint, viz:

The other five are mentions in articles on anthropology, naval history, military history (x2) and art: namely:

Other front page mentions this year:

  • News: Gibraltar football team is accepted as a full UEFA member
  • Anniversaries: three Provisional IRA volunteers who had been killed in Gibraltar ten days earlier; and SS Utopia accidentally collided with the battleship HMS Anson in the Bay of Gibraltar

None of which seems to me to support any kind of conspiracy theory or charges of bias and – I quote – "corruption" among WP editors. Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to do that Tim, I posted more comprehensive figures at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 93#Gibraltar in response to earlier complaints from Jehochman. Please see my comments there and immediately above your latest post here. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient choice of dates, Tim riley. Could you look at the figures for all of 2012? You'll see evidence of extreme manipulation and abuse. One year later is too soon to forget, and too soon to let some of the same players have their way with Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. 8 DYK mentions of Gibraltar this year?? 13 Gibraltar hooks ran in January 2013 alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2013/January

  • 31 ... that Martin's Cave (pictured) is named after the man who found it when he fell off the Rock of Gibraltar?
  • 29 ... that the Fifth Siege of Gibraltar came to a sudden end in March 1350 when King Alfonso XI of Castile (pictured) became the only monarch to die in the Black Death?
  • 28 ... that Green's Lodge Battery was so successful during the Great Siege of Gibraltar that the British decided to construct what became Rock Gun Battery above it?
  • 27 ... that the keys of Grand Casemates Gates are a symbol of office of the Governor of Gibraltar?
  • 24 ... that the Soldier Artificer Company (members pictured in working dress) was the British Army's first unit of military artificers and labourers?
  • 23 ... that the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party proposed that a main road in Gibraltar should be Devlin's instead of the Devil's?
  • 20 ... that during the eighteenth century, guards posted at Middle Hill Battery on Middle Hill, Gibraltar, to prevent desertion sometimes deserted themselves?
  • 19 ... that Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid, the one-eyed son of Moroccan sultan Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman, captured Gibraltar in 1333 but fell victim to a Castilian ambush six years later?
  • 18 ... that the 9.2-inch gun of Spur Battery, one of fourteen once mounted on Gibraltar, was moved to Imperial War Museum Duxford after its role was taken over by Exocet missiles?
  • 8 ... that O'Hara's Tower was built in the mistaken belief that it would enable the garrison at Gibraltar to spy on ships massing at Cadiz?
  • 6 ... that the top secret, World War II dual observation post of Operation Tracer was constructed in the tunnel system of Lord Airey's Shelter?
  • 4 ... that William Green, who served as chief engineer throughout the Great Siege of Gibraltar, was later depicted in two paintings of the siege by John Singleton Copley and George Carter?
  • 1 ... that the Spanish nobleman and soldier Luis Bravo de Acuña played a key role in improving the defences of Gibraltar in the 17th century?

5 Gibraltar hooks ran in the first half of February:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2013/February

  • 12 ... that civilian government in Gibraltar only emerged in the 20th century because its governors gave priority to its role as a military fortress?
  • 8 ... that tourism in Gibraltar was boosted when the territory's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built in 1961?
  • 6 ... that the 9.2 inch Mark X gun at Breakneck Battery (pictured) was described as one of the "crowning glories" of the defences of Gibraltar?
  • 4 ... that although the Fourth Siege of Gibraltar ended with Muhammed IV of Granada still in control of Gibraltar, he was assassinated by his nobles soon after?
  • 2 ... that Bruce Cooper was the last surviving member of a six-man team who volunteered to be sealed in a World War II observation post discovered by the Gibraltar Caving Group in 1997?

That's when I stopped counting. Perhaps someone would like to go through the remaining months with a fine-toothed comb. Andreas JN466 17:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are not mentioning is that all of those DYKs were nominated between October-December 2012 but didn't run until 2013 because of huge delays caused by the current restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs. The figures for March, April, May and June are 0, 3, 2 and 1 DYKs to date. That's 6 DYKs in the last 3 months, out of approximately 4,500 DYKs that have run over the same period. If you think 6 DYKs in 3 months are excessive then you are frankly crazy. Prioryman (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your figures usually turn out to be wrong, and always in the same way. And so it is in this case. There are 21 DYKs a day. That makes 630 or 651 a month. Less than 2000 over three months is not "approximately 4500". Even a cursory look at the DYKs for March and April and May, without checking for Gibraltarpedia hooks that don't mention Gibraltar, shows:
  • 31 March: ... that a view of the Rock of Gibraltar (pictured) has hung since the 18th century in a lady's art gallery in the Netherlands?
  • 12 April: ... that there have been fourteen sieges of Gibraltar, making it one of the most fought-over places in Europe?
  • 14 April: ... that King's Bastion (model pictured), instrumental in defending Gibraltar during its Great Siege, was later used as a generating station and is now a leisure centre?
  • 29 April: ... that the Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar ended in defeat for France and Spain, which lost 10,000 men while the English and Dutch defenders lost only 400?
  • 8 May: ... that the Neanderthals of Gibraltar (male pictured) were among the first to be discovered and may have been among the last surviving members of their species?
  • 13 May: ... that the workers' association CITYPEG has criticised both the Gibraltarian and Spanish governments for their policies affecting Spanish workers in Gibraltar?
  • 27 May: ... that the destroyer HMS Versatile once rammed and almost sliced a submarine in half during a military exercise off the coast of Gibraltar?
Then there were also hooks in in April mentioning the "gardens of Gibraltar in Wilmington, Delaware" (by Prioryman), and a hook mentioning that "Norwegians built Gibraltar's first school (pictured) in the 1860s?" (related to a school in Gibraltar, Wisconsin), part of an insider game to get the word "Gibraltar" onto the main page in order to poke fun at the situation; not a particularly mature response, but hey, this is Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 18:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three DYKs for April, just as I said. I'm not counting the 31 March or 27 May ones because the articles weren't about Gibraltar. The hooks were incidental mentions from editors who didn't even know that there was any issue with mentioning Gibraltar in DYKs. Check the review for the 31 March article and as you'll see from the 27 May article review it wasn't treated as restricted. As for the "insider game", I guess you haven't cottoned on yet to the fact that it's intended to make you look foolish when you complain about it. So far it seems to be working 100%. Prioryman (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we shouldn't count the 31 May hook. It only had a picture of the rock of Gibraltar, and was written by a member of WikiProject QRpedia. :)) I am quite aware of your schoolyard antics; I'll say my piece regardless. Best, Andreas JN466 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a fine article and significant anniversary, and its main page appearance should be a no-brainer. I'm really sick about the grumbling about Gibraltarpedia (I appreciate why some people were concerned, but think that the issue was blown way out of proportion and it's time for everyone to move on). Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That the Gibraltarpedia ridiculousness is still going six months later is mindblowing and ridiculous. At a certain point, for certain editors, playing Gibraltar-related games seems to have become an obsession. Let's stop this silliness right now.

    —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the nth time, this has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia. The article was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed! Prioryman (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question, Prioryman - Did the article in its CURRENT (or close to current) state exist 2 years before Gibraltarpedia, or was it improved during, or after Gibraltarpedia? From the way things are pointed out here, it appears to be the former. Also, when did the article become featured? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another lengthy discussion on DYKs
  • WikiProjects claiming articles written by others is nothing new on Wikipedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was hardly claimed against Prioryman's will: [1]. In fact, my recollection is that Prioryman took over from Victuallers at DYK when the latter was banned from continuing his work there. This is what leaves a funny taste in the mouth. Prioryman was the main engine of continuing the Gibraltarpedia main page push, in the face of widespread media criticism. It's a bit hard to decouple this nomination from that history, regardless of how worthy this article itself is. Andreas JN466 00:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Prioryman, the primary writer of the article says it has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia, shouldn't the Gibraltarpedia claim over the article be removed? TheOverflow (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WikiProjects are entitled to add their banners to articles. I've never objected to any member of a WikiProject adding their project's banner to an article I've written, so I'm not going to start objecting now. I would defend Gibraltarpedia's right to add their banner, just as I'd defend WikiProject Spain or WikiProject Military History's right. My point is that the article was written two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed, for reasons completely unrelated to anything Gibraltarpedia was set up to achieve. Gibraltarpedia was not involved in any way in the writing of the article and the timing of this TFA nomination is dictated solely by the Treaty of Utrecht anniversary, not by anything involving Gibraltarpedia or any events on the ground (I don't know of any real-world commemorations taking place - there may not be any, given that Spain is still pretty sore about it). Tom Morris, Jayen466 and most egregiously Jehochman have all claimed that it has something to do with Gibraltarpedia. It does not. Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, given that you essentially took over from Victuallers when he was banned from processing Gibraltar DYKs, ensuring that the stream of Gibraltar DYKs would continue, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that Gibraltarpedia is nothing to do with you. Just the other day you said, with regard to having another go at having the existing and very weak Gibraltar DYK restrictions lifted, "I'm planning to run a Gib-related TFA in July; the response to that should hopefully indicate whether the temperature has dropped sufficiently to make a lifting of the restrictions viable. Let's have another chat on this in about six weeks' time." To me it all looks the same: the same person pushing Gibraltar onto the front page, again and again. If someone else had written this article who was entirely unconnected to the Gibraltarpedia effort, and who had not made some sort of commitment to getting regular Gibraltar material onto the front page, my response might have been quite different. As it is, it is tainted to me. But consensus is leaning your way, with support from fellow DYK authors, so you shouldn't let that worry you. Regards, Andreas JN466 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "with support from fellow DYK authors". Erm... Wehwalt has never (to my knowledge) self nominated at DYK, Cirt has not been involved with that project for almost two years, Sturmvogel 66 is at DYK perhaps twice a month (based on my previous experience); Demiurge and Dr. B are highly active at DYK. That's just from the first five supports, and looking below the majority of supporters are not active DYK writers. Facts, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wehwalt has a list of over 70 DYKs here, and it seems you usually do the nominations for him: "I've just completed (or at least good enough to be moved from userspace) a revised version of Eisenhower dollar. Want to do the usual on a DYK nom? It looks like 5x from here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)" I didn't even have Wehwalt in mind, but Gerda for example is well known as one of Wikipedia's most prolific DYK writers, going at a rate of one every three days, Hawkeye has about 100 DYKs, Resolute 80, Tomobe03 has close to 50, you have close to 500, Sturmvogel lists 239 on his subpage, and so forth. I don't think you can claim that DYK writers aren't well represented here, or that the average number of DYKs per support vote here corresponds to the community average. Andreas JN466 09:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Glad to see that Wehwalt has been getting some self noms, and note that some of these people got their DYKs well before the Gibraltarpedia issue (I think I've only had 120 in that time frame). I did not say that that "DYK writers aren't well represented here", but that (to paraphrase) "presently active DYK writers aren't well represented here"; many of them have DYKs, but not a significant amount in the past several months. Others are more active in the featured content area, or likely arrived here through the main page. That being said, what (if any) effect does having DYKs have on a person's opinion of this article, or Gibralatar in general (Cla68 and Herostratus are both staunchly anti-Gibraltarpedia, but they each have nine DYKs)? I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by certain people with personal vendettas, which have been placed above content. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for exactly the same reasons Tom Morris opposes. Let's return to the status quo: Gibraltar is not to be treated any different than other locations, be they countries like Indonesia (mentioned / relevant to at least 2 TFAs so far this year and something like 65 DYKs), city states, or just plain cities — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article meeting all TFA criteria - and set to appear at the three-centennary! The combination of the three does not come by that often, therefore supporting.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this very nice article as TFA on a very relevant date. The Gibraltar issue has been dealt with at DYK, and the number of articles is not above that of any other topic which has an interested editor working diligently. Editors work on what they are interested in, and what this editor is interested in happens to be Gibraltar. If another editor wants to work on articles related to New York City (to use the example above), more power to them, and I'll support having their articles on the front page, too. Dana boomer (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors have been interested in Gibraltar because they've been paid off, or recruited by those were paid off. We should stand firmly against that sort of manipulation. This article might be perfectly good, and I am sure that you personally are 100% acting in good faith, but because of past manipulations, at the end of 2012 they were curtailed but not entirely stopped, we must be suspicious. It's become a test of wills: some of those who were corrupted want to keep bulling ahead as if that will prove they've done nothing wrong. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reasoning of the opposers above (if you can call it that) is unconvincing. I see no evidence of a link between this and Gibraltarpedia. If the DYK issue has been dealt with, TFA is self-governing against overrepresentation. If they are neutral and up to standards, who cares what the motivation is for improving these articles? We are here to build an encyclopedia, are we not? And TFA is one method of encouraging people to build the encyclopedia, is it not? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Time to get rid of the anti-Gibraltar faction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Get rid of" where, mate? Carrite (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here, preferably. Prioryman (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "factiousness". The article is a fine one, the anniversary is appropriate, and there are no better claims on the date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quality article of historic relevance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is of proper quality and is nominated for a relevant date. The anti-Gibraltar arguments hold no water for me, particularly the complaint about too much main page exposure. By that argument, there are numerous topics that would be similarly disqualified (e.g.: athletes, pop culture, video games, etc.) and unless the same arguments are being made in TFA noms about those topics by the same objectors, I find it very easy to dismiss said objections. Resolute 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is clearly a fantastic article, it has plenty of points, it's of broad interest (anyone interested in any part of European politics for the last thousand years should find something interesting here) and how often do we get a tercentenary at TFA? The "controversy" is the result of a handful of people who are determined to quash a conspiracy (even where no such conspiracy exists) instead of just being happy to see quality contributions to the encyclopaedia. You won't get me to agree with everything done in the name of Gibraltarpedia, but it's undeniable that it has resulted in hundreds of high-quality articles and that nobody involved had any ulterior motive. Or has the mainspace finally become less important than wiki-politics? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tercentenary is a significant commemoration. --Flexdream (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only reason to oppose this is to continue a silly Wikipedia political battle and to "punish" people who got mixed up in it. A reader who didn't know anything about the Gibraltarpedia controversy would not find this topic controversial in the slightest, only those who feel upset about the way that paid editing got mixed up with the improvement of Gibraltar-based topics and feel the need to take revenge by actively opposing Gibraltar based topics without regard for the quality of the article itself or the relevance to the date in question seem to be opposing this, and really, I've read the article, and can see no reason why it wouldn't be an FA, and given the relevance of the date in question, I also can't find any good reason why this shouldn't appear on the main page that date. --Jayron32 17:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - High quality article. I don't have an objection to this one. Spamming the main page to keep Gibraltar constantly in view is quite another thing. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps support, at the price of never seeing another Gibraltar DYK ever again. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive to continue this particular discussion, I think. BencherliteTalk 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You might as well oppose then because there most certainly will be more Gibraltar-related DYKs - just not very many and not very often (there have been only 6 in the last 3 months, out of about 4,500 2,000 DYKs in that period). If you want to make a case for banning future Gibraltar-related DYKs, WT:DYK is the place to try, not here. Prioryman (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Prioryman gives figures, always follow the maxim: Trust, but verify. (See above.) I've never known them to be correct. Andreas JN466 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I overestimated the total number of DYKs, but the number of DYKs actually about Gibraltar (6 in the last 3 months) is accurate. The point stands. If you think that 6 out of 2,000 is excessive then you're crazy. Besides which, it has absolutely no bearing on whether this article is a suitable candidate for TFA on this date. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: a beautiful article on a significant and unusual historical topic, coupled with an excellent anniversary. --Mirokado (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: As the person who in all probability will be making the final decision here, can I make a few general points?

  1. There is no need for supporters or opposers to feel obliged to reply to points made by the "other side", especially if it would just be repetition of earlier material. I suspect it is unlikely that threaded discussions underneath someone's expression of opinion will lead to a change of heart anyway(!) and I should be capable of remembering and applying arguments made earlier to responses added later.
  2. Please would all participants do their best to keep the temperature cool here. Inflamed passions do not help.
  3. (I ought to be able to think of a third general point, because three is a good number for rhetorical purposes...) Oh yes, it's lovely to see so many new faces here. Please do remember to come again soon, either with nominations of your own or to comment on other nominations. Thank you all. We now return to our previously scheduled programming... BencherliteTalk 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A 300th anniversary is a legitimate reason. The usual (and legitimate) objections to Gibraltarpedia's spamming don't, IMO, apply. – iridescent 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an aside, note that Treaty of Utrecht says the Treaty was signed April 11, 1713. According to Britannica, the Treaty of Utrecht was "a series of treaties between France and other European powers (April 11, 1713 to Sept. 7, 1714) and another series between Spain and other powers (July 13, 1713 to June 26, 1714), concluding the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14)." So the July 13 date is in there, as one of the dates on which the Spanish signed one of the constituent treaties (and it's the right date for this article), but you wouldn't know that from Wikipedia's article on the Treaty. Andreas JN466 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From the conversation above, I see no indication that this is actually linked to Gibraltarpedia. Hot Stop 22:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the first line we say it was inhabited 50,000 years ago but the history is only 2900 years. Shouldn't the first words say "The recorded history of Gibraltar"? Moriori (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What other sort is there? History is about recorded events. We might even say that 50,000 years ago is before history - pre-history even. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually agree with me that history is recorded events, and that's why I suggested the word "recorded" be added. Just seems to me to be very ambiguous to say in the same breath we know there were occupants in Gibraltar 50,000 years ago but the it has a history of only 2900 years. Not a biggie. Moriori (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Recorded history" is a tautology. If it's not recorded, it's not history. In the case of the 50,000-year-old occupants, that's paleontology and archaeology. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TFA is indeed separate from DYK and that controversy is long past. So I believe there is no reason not to have the anniversary featured on the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't DYK, please take up issues about that at WT:DYK
  • It's not eligible, I shouldn't think. The article was created in September of 2008 by User:Ecemaml. What we have is a complete rewrite (but not a manyfold expansion) on June 6, 2013, by User:Gibmetal77. Complete rewrites are fine (or can be), but are not the same as new article. The existing material was not overwritten but was moved to Timeline of the history of Gibraltar; the date stamp on History of Gibraltar shows a June 6 2013 creation because of this, but an article has existed under that name since 2008. If User:Gibmetal77 had not had the material moved to another article and had just overwritten, this article would certainly not be eligible for DYK
This may be nitpicking, and I don't feel super-strongly about it, since after all all the material in the article is new. But if this article is accepted, the DYK folks should add a line to eligibility rules the effect of "Completely rewritten articles (90% new material, or whatever) are eligible, even if this is not a fivefold expansion, provided the old material is moved to another article" or something. This is not a door I would want to open, for reasons you can probably imagine yourselves. But to publish this article and not add a rule allowing other articles to published under the same criteria would be mediocre, I think. So this is an issue.
I'm glad that User:Gibmetal77 had the old material moved because it looks worthy at first blush. It's not really a timeline in the sense of being a bare list, but more a regular article that instead of beginning its paragraphs "In 1749, the King of Spain..." begins them "'1749: The King of Spain...". I haven't compared the two articles in any detail, but I wonder if we really need what looks to be two separate articles covering the same subject in essentially the same way, albeit using different format. Not sure if this is a good trend. If it's not a good trend not sure that DYK should be encouraging it.
FWIW I'm also tired of hearing about Gibraltar, and more importantly I'm tired of hearing about the whole Gibraltar thing, and I don't understand why the DYK folks would want to chance bringing more opprobrium upon their weary heads, but whatever. (I'm assuming that of course User:Gibmetal77 has no connection with Gibraltarpedia and all that and this is just a coincidence.) Herostratus (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is TFA/R. DYK is outside, down two flights, past the large toppled statue, and across the courtyard.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, very true, Mr. Wehwalt. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for AGF, but considering this page has a big header which says "Today's featured article" its hard sometimes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got lost, Herostratus. :P SilverserenC 04:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*blink* Prioryman (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did get lost, sorry, and sorry for wasting your time. I've been a little loopy ever since the retreat from Mons I guess. Herostratus (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Given the balance of the modern Gibraltarian economy the emphasis on tourism over its tax haven activities seems rather odd.Geni (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the last sentence of the blurb, it refers to "financial services, shipping and tourism." Only the last is currently linked but there are articles in preparation on the first two, which will tackle the tax haven issue. Prioryman (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for this - I needed a good laugh this morning, and I am delighted to see this on the front page. Oh and BTW if anyone has any ideas for working on a New York City DYK-scandal, pls. let me know, because I have plenty of ideas to make DYK entries there too. From my desk with coffee in the Netherlands (and still not bored of Gib), I greet all of you Gib bickerers, as well as any Treaty of Utrecht fans. Jane (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – IMO, it has little or nothing to do with the Gibraltarpedia issues. HueSatLum 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be super-exciting if we could work with our dear friends at Wikipediocracy in order for them to inform their favourite journalist of the appearance of this TFA on the main page well in advance. That way, instead of merely providing a screenshot of the article being on the main page, as has been the practice in the past, the journalist in question could publish a whine piece of journalism specifically linking the WP main page as being the place to find the outrage in question. This would help under-educated people who frequent technology websites (like myself) to reach the sum of all human knowledge accessible at the Wikipedia main page, as well as helping to educate them about the History of Gibraltar if they subsequently view the article itself. It might even be possible (this is a technical thing, y'know) for the site in question to automatically post a pre-written piece by the prize journalist in question, at 00:01 on July 13. Win-win for everyone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sardonicism has no place in discussions such as this. --Jayron32 21:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ancient Greeks believed it to be the world's biggest island. Ah, perhaps that was Sardinia instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per every other support above. Russavia (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I hate to oppose it, cos it looks a fine article, and I congratulate the main editor(s) for fine work, and I'm not really against having more Gibraltar articles featured per se (I am somewhat weary of the Gibraltarpedia thing, but that's a DYK issue and I suppose this article isn't related to that anyway). But, the very fact that featuring this article will make some non-trivial number of editors unhappy militates against featuring it. Why make editors unhappy? That is not a useful function for the main page to fulfill, I shouldn't think. Why engender strong negative feelings if it's not necessary? I can understand (although not agree with) a stance regarding an article along the lines of "Featuring this will make some non-trivial segment of the general public unhappy, but too bad for them", but here we're talking about editors. We need to keep the editor community humming along happily! So sorry, must suggest putting it on hold for a year or something like that. Herostratus (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're shitting me, right? A featured article should not run on what will be a 300th anniversary because of a very small number of people throwing a temper tantrum? Boy, does that ever open the entire process up to abuse. Resolute 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are against articles being on the main page just because they may hurt someone's feelings, you're going to love what's scheduled for the 24th. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The timing seems quite appropriate. Just one thing though; the intro says "one of the most densely fortified and fought over places in Europe..." Shouldn't that be, "...in Europe and Wikipedia..."? :) Warden (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that you can source that. My guess would be the infobox is that place ;) (human sacrifice included, I could source that, no more smiles) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a clarification to everyone who is reading this propossal. It appears that Prioryman had been possibly deliberately misleading when they said that the article has nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia. True, the article was made in 2010, but substantial improvements were made in 2013, which is why it became a GA and an FA only recently. My stand on this TFA however, still stands, and I would like to see this article on the main page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's complete bollocks. I founded WikiProject Gibraltar in 2007. I wrote the article in 2010. When I realised at the start of 2013 that the anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht was coming up in July, I got the article up to GA and FA standard. None of those steps had anything whatsoever to do with Gibraltarpedia, and I would have done them with or without Gibraltarpedia's existence - it's an entirely irrelevant consideration. There's nothing misleading about it. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Therefore, your reply at this edit could be considered possibly misleading. I only object to the phrasing in that diff because it makes it appear that the article was of this class right from 2010, when it's rise could have been due to Gibraltarpedia, whether directly or otherwise. [No comments on wether it actually did] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. The article was written in 2010, two years before Gibraltarpedia even existed. That's a fact. Getting an article to GA or FA status is not "writing" it, unless you have a very different definition of what the word "writing" means. Second, you have absolutely no basis to suppose that Gibraltarpedia had any involvement with it. As I've said, it didn't. For my part, I find it rather irritating that some people appear to think that Gibraltarpedia is some kind of sinister outfit secretly coordinating every Gibraltar-related article that's been published on Wikipedia. It isn't. In my particular case, it's had no involvement whatsoever in any of the DYKs I've written this year or last, nor with this TFAR, nor with any aspect of the GA or FA process related to this article. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's nothing wrong with a Gibraltar TFA, this is a great time to feature this specific article, and it's way way past time to stop picking on all things Gibraltar. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/History_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1138372095"