Talk:Basques

Race

Basques are historically a little people (about 300.000 in 1800, a 1,5% spanish population). It's impossible these figures of Basque descendants (about 10% argentine people and others). For example, in the list of 100 most common surnames Argentines, only two Basque surname: Aguirre (126.000), Leguizamon (48.000). In addition, the Basque emigration to America is very small, as the Basque Country became industrialized at mid XIX and there was little emigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.7.209 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Basques are a race, look at Armand Marie Leroi who proves that. We should add his article as a citation.

Basques are indoeuropean R1b haplogropup in 90%, the MOST RECENTS inhabitants of Europe. The basque lenguage its a koine of africans languages and celtic and latin. The basque myth... its only nationalism propaganda sustained by Basque government and institutions with much money and much violence.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

And... Argentina 3.5 million, Chile 1.3 - 2.6 million, Cuba 1.5 million? it's a joke? In Spain, much less than 40% of the Basque provinces inhabitants are 'Basques'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.74.94 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

JUST in Spain as a whole, there are 4 million spaniards (outside the Basque autonomus community and Navarre autonomous community) with basque surnames (and with that, having basque ancestry). This figures count people with basque surnames in the world. In Argentina, Chile, etc... there is a large basque descended community. JUst in Chile figures about Basque ancestry are in between 10% and 20% of the population. So The figures are not incorrect. Saying this, we have to be carefull in for example the philippines where some people may have basque ancestry and some may have a basque surname as a given name, given to his ancestors who converted to christianity and adopted a new surname. You are also forgetting about the french basque diaspora and the basque navarrese diaspora.

Race

Basques are a race, look at Armand Marie Leroi who proves that. We should add his article as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.154.71 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Basques are indoeuropean people like spanish and south french people. Their language is a koine of Iberian, Celtic and Latin, emerged in III BC. Basques was only 200.000 people (total in Spain and France) in 1700. Stop Basque nationalist propaganda in Wikipedia.

Blah blah blah, go away and find a reliable source (good luck) or your crap will get reverted out, that's how it works. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Global Basque populations

Basque diaspora populations need a source and one row is missing the country. [my first wikipedia post; probably did it wrong] - Nate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleomediaboise (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Right I have removed ALL of them for now. The ONLY verifiable number we have is that for the BC itself. The others seems to change without rhyme nor reason, whatever the IP editor in questions feels like. I will remove ANY of them which aren't refd in future. Please note: Having a Basque surnames does not make you Basque. So statistics on the number of people called Echeverria in Mexico are fun but irrelevant. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko! Indeed the infobox was badly in need of a clean-up. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, 85.84.34.93, but unfortunately the sources you're using are not reliable for this purpose. INE of course IS a reliable source in itself but it does not count members of ethnic groups, only 'citizens by birth'. So using those figures merges both 'ethnic' Basques and people who just happen to be born in one of the Basque provinces. There's most likely a large overlap, but the difference by no means will be trivial, given there is a significant population of migrants, both old and new. The Joshua Project does not seem to pass the criteria for reliable sources, they say themselves [1] that Each of these sources may have varying methodologies, standards and levels of accuracy. Therefore, the margin of error may vary from data point to data point.. So basically they trawl the web and collect data. Which again is nice but not very reliable. If they listed their sources individually, that might help for some but the way they present it, we might as well roll dice. Sorry. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 07 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Basque people → Basques – To match other similar pages (Swedes, Germans, Hungarians), and also to be more WP:CONCISE. The "people" is un-needed as there is an unambiguous non-gendered form available, as with Swedes &c. – --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A search on basques mainly gives results related to Basque (clothing) undergarments. This is common meaning of the term. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never even heard of a "Basque (clothing)", nor is that the "common" use of the word "Basques". The primary topic is clearly "Basques", the people. Basques already redirected here. Nothing changed by moving the article, other than to make it more concise and consistent with other articles. The word "Basques" plural only ever refers to the people. Perhaps if someone was searching for "Basque", they might be looking for this odd archaic piece of clothing. That's not a problem, though, because Basque is already a disambiguation page. If there truly is a concern, a hatnote can be added that links to the disambiguation page. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

None of this should prevent this page from being at the concise and consistent title. It is clearly the primary topic for the word "Basques". RGloucester — ☎ 23:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, whilst I'm weary of Google searches as a means of determing titles, a more proper search would be "the Basques", which yields more results than just "Basques", all of them dealing with the people. The only reason we have no definite article is because of our title guidelines, the same way our article is not at The Czechs, but instead at Czechs. RGloucester — ☎ 23:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also by the way, if the primary meaning of "Basques" was "an obscure lady's undergarment", how did The Guardian get away with this headline? RGloucester — ☎ 23:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I see no point in changing the name. That does not mean "Basques" is not used or should not be used. For the WP purposes, the thing is the name is too short, so confusion can easily arise. We have Basque (the clothing item), so someone looking for the term should s/he go to a disambiguation page? Then we have Basque, the language. There is also a point on keeping it stable, especially in articles that may be sensitive like this. As opposed to the examples you cited, we have the Sami people, much more the case of the Basques, or the Hmong people (both not very well known peoples/nations without a state). Iñaki LL (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the only time "people" is appended is when there is no unambiguous engendered form of the name. That's why "English people" is not at "Englishmen", or Japanese people is not at Japanese. However, that doesn't apply in this case. With regard to "Basques" plural, that never refers to the language or anything else. It only ever refers to the people. In the interest of consistency with other peoples who have an unambiguous non-gendered form available, and in the interest of concision, the title should be changed. "Basques" already redirected here. Nothing is changed. Basque, on the other hand, which can refer to the clothing and the language, has never redirected here. It has always been a disambiguation page, and will remain so. It solves the problems you mention. RGloucester — ☎ 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The need for conformity is overstated. "X people" is a common article title on Wiki. It is innocuous and helps disambiguate not only from objects, but also from language, country, etc. I don't see a need for changing the current title. Case not made. The singular versus plural is not disambigous enough. Moreover, "Basque" is also the demonym for a resident of the "Basque Country" (the land), who may or may not be of Basque ethnicity. Walrasiad (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's idiotic. It already redirects here. Look at Czechs, for example. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support as per eu:Euskaldun which translates as "Basques" and as per @RGloucester: though conformity clearly works either way as with: British people, Catalan people, Cornish people, Dutch people, English people, Flemish people, Gagauz people, Galician people, Kalmyk people, Livonian people, Maltese people, Occitan people, Portuguese people, Sami people, Scottish people, Spanish people, Swiss people, Turkish people and Welsh people. I accidentally deleted French people and am concerned about my psychology. Most forms appear in single word form as in: Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, please let me make it clear. The reason "English people" or "Dutch people" are at those titles is because there is no unambiguous gender-neutral term. We can't name those articles Englishmen or Dutchmen, and we certainly can't call Portuguese people as Portuguese. As such, they have people "appended". In this case, that does not apply. In almost every case where there is a gender neutral unambiguous form, that form is used, which one will see in the category. I'm trying to introduce uniformity because the status quo is dumb. It fails WP:CONCISE. The primary topic of "Basques" is this article, and that's why it has always redirected here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A common response to someone supporting your proposal is "thank-you". This is obviously important to you and that was for me a deciding factor in researching for support and this was a motivation to check the Basque language page for the subject. I had come back after doing my own research and was about to walk away again.

In general, 'if there is an demonym like Bosnian which may be used to describe something like the Bosnian language and which has a change of form when going into the plural as with Bosnians, that form of wording, in English Wikipedia, is used to describe the people indicated by the demonym. This is the trend that is followed in all but one example in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe with the single exception being the Asturian people. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) does not prescribe either way (but, strangely enough, it cites the example of the Basque people as an example of a method of presentation). However, I am satisfied that Basques can work and is used and the single word usage within the Basque language swings it for me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:CRITERIA consistency applies re: Origin of the Basques Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Within http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/55335/Basque there are repeated references to Basques. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if you perceived me as being brusque. I was merely clarifying it for other parties, who might've read your comment as supporting the idea that the "x people" form is commonly used in cases where there is an unambiguous non-gendered name available. RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

NP bro, as you know I first queried the move which I still think was a fair thing to do despite having since developed perspectives in favour. I first started with a simple search on "Basque" but have since refined this to ("Basque people" OR Basques) AND "Basque language". This is a search that ensures that the topic mentioned connects with the Basques, as a people. Predominantly the term "Basques" is used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ... of ALL the problems with this page, the title is not one of them. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: lol, I just wanted to draw you attention to my last argument above in case you thought it might have relevance. sry to bother you otherwise. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This type of argument is not helpful. Does anyone have common sense anymore? RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people in this thread have good arguments. That's not the point. The article name is not offensive, wrong or contravening Wikipolicy. Which makes this a pretty pointless debate over minute shades of better or worseness. Just leave the article where it is and work on the content or hunt some of those pointless school articles the Indonesians are putting on Wikipedia... Akerbeltz (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Having consistent and concise article titles is in the interest of Wikipedia, and is in fact supported by our title policy. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the main editors of this page, like Akerbeltz. As pointed by him, a name change is not a priority for this article (that is actually an "external" demand), stability is a cherished value, and further good content is welcome (needed). Now that said, search stats (the Basques) as tested by Gregkaye support a change, disambiguation does not seem to pose a problem (since it is usually in plural), and at the end of the day the article is on the WP context. So if the rest of the names of peoples in the world follow the pattern stated by RGloucester (specific sing/pl terminations, the English vs the Basques...:o, and it looks like it does!), I won´t oppose a standardization of that pattern. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester One can take issues of consistency and conciseness too far. As you are. Basque people vs Basques is an awe-inspiring letter saver of 13 vs 6. Be still my beating heart. As for consistency, we're dealing with human language here and every now and then, that means we have to allow a little wriggle-room, we're not talking binary code. And as it has been pointed out before, the pattern x people is not unheard of on Wikipedia. So please get off your mission of trying to achieve 100% consistency in a system that will never achieve 100% consistency and move on to something more pressing. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not being constructive. This is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal that is rooted in our guidelines. To me, this is pressing. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fffff ... seriously? Me not being constructive? Excuse me while I waste my time being unconstructive chasing a few vandals, correcting some typos, fixing poor language, add some refs, upload some sound files to Wikimedia rather than re-live Monty Python's classic People's Front of Judea vs the Judaen People's Front re-run aka Basques vs Basque people - the dramatic conclusion to an age-old debate rooted deeply in Wikipedia policy... Akerbeltz (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making bad faith presumptions about my character, implying that I only care about so-called "trivial" matters and that I have nothing to do with content. I have done plenty of good content work recently, and it would not be difficult for you find some of it and read it. However, I believe I'm allowed the prerogative to care about both matters of content and matters of organisation and style. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Akerbeltz please see WP:NPA and also the more succinct discussion at Talk:Slavs#Requested_move. Please strike your aggressive Fffff and unwarranted vandals comments. They play no part in Wikipedia discourse. The fact is that RGloucester has made valid points regarding advantages of a proposed change and your questionable interpretations or triviality are irrelevant. There are 15 million people in the total Basque population and the topic is not trivial. If there was an article Londoners and someone wanted to rename it "London people" that would need to be addressed with similar care. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, this kind of stuff is why I increasingly restrict myself to watching a few articles on the English wiki I care about a lot but that aside participate more on non-English Wikis. Do what you will, I'm honestly past caring. Just one last thing. There are not 15 million Basques. Thank you for so eloquently illustrating my point about focussing on trivial issues while losing sight of the bigger picture. That list is so un-sourced it hurts and vastly unrealistic. The figures for the Basque Country itself aside, some of those figures are based on a raw count of Basques looking surnames in places like Chile or Argentina. There may be many of those, just as there are many MacDonalds and MacDougalls in the USA but that does not make them Scots. So while getting off on debating an irrelevant issue, the page content continues to blare out false information. Well done. As for striking Ffff, not a chance. And as for the vandal bit, you may want to actually read what I wrote. I did not call anyone on this list a vandal. I just referred to vandals on Wikipedia in general. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I bear witness to your excellent work (on Akerbeltz), constructive contribution, and patience on the WP. That is out of question. Sadly WP is what it is, requires loads of patience, knowledge of rules, and too many time wasting edits, I can bear witness of that first hand, I do have my bit. Now I find that a good deal of my interventions on the wikipedia is about keeping accurate and relevant information and revert sweeping statements with no factual grounds. In the case here, it is not an internal need of the article to change the title (totally agree, the infobox needs to be changed for sure, I advocated for that myself), but in the wider context there are good grounds to standarize the pattern. It's not about obedience to an ethereal technical requirement, "Basques" is the most widely used name. Furthermore, it is about not being the exception on the WP. Us the Basques have too many exceptions to tackle with. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, "Basques" is the more commonly used term used. See search above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

...O, before replying did you happen to read what I wrote? Iñaki LL (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I was all ready to oppose--I've never heard "Basques" before in my life. These are Basque people, but as far as I knew, "Basques" was not a word. Then I checked ngrams (a source!! Who knew!!) and apparently it is a word. So let's go with it! I learned something today!! Red Slash 02:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Basques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509190215/http://www.ehu.es/cpvweb/pags_directas/euskobarometroFR.html to http://www.ehu.es/cpvweb/pags_directas/euskobarometroFR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New info on Basque ancestry?

Published a couple of days ago by the BBC: [2]. Original journal article at [3]. I didn't add anything to the article; just wanted to note this in case someone else came along and could do some editing. cluth (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Basques. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100510193253/http://www1.euskadi.net:80/euskalterm/ to http://www1.euskadi.net/euskalterm/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070302214808/http://www.euskara.euskadi.net:80/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07/en_integraz/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07.html to http://www.euskara.euskadi.net/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07/en_integraz/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070302214757/http://www.euskara.euskadi.net:80/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10/en_aurreiri/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10.html to http://www.euskara.euskadi.net/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10/en_aurreiri/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100613210338/http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=2&b=1&c=1&d=0&idi=2 to http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=2&b=1&c=1&d=0&idi=2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080405232839/https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040203075016/http://www.ethnologue.com:80/show_country.asp?name=France to http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=France

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basques. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070302214808/http://www.euskara.euskadi.net:80/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07/en_integraz/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07.html to http://www.euskara.euskadi.net/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07/en_integraz/artik9_1_integrazioa_06_07.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070302214757/http://www.euskara.euskadi.net:80/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10/en_aurreiri/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10.html to http://www.euskara.euskadi.net/r59-3693/en/contenidos/informacion/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10/en_aurreiri/artik12_1_aurreiritziak_06_10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The flag thing

It does seem the case that few - if any - ethnic groups have flags in their infoboxes (Cornish people and Sorbs seem the only ones I can find but neither of those have flag disputes). So I guess we'll have to roll with that. However, while looking at Sardinian people, Welsh people, Bretons, Frisians and various others is for flags to be displayed for the regions - if the people in question inhabit a region that's also a political entity (like a province) of some sort. So we could do without the big flag but go with the flag of the BAC and Navarre and use (if we can find numbers) the Spanish flag for the rest of Spain and though that leaves us with a problem in France - I guess we could do 3 for Soule, LN and Labourd? Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

"Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) have long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons."

Does that help? Doug Weller talk 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If this applies to the little icons I'm talking about, this rule seems to get completely ignored across Wikipedia. That aside, it's a very thin argument to say that a flag icon in an Olympics article is useful but in a page on regions it isn't. Why? If the flag icon helps me digest information more quickly on one, that also applies to the other. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For the French Basque Country, the corresponding quarters of the Zazpiak Bat could be added (not an administrative reality though). However, I would just give it a miss, the presence also of the Ikurriña representing three provinces will shed more confusion for a reader that does not have an insight into present-day social and political dynamics in the Basque Country. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles breach WP:NOR is irrelevant. Editors should focus on the article/s they're working on. Ideally, it would be lovely to be able ensure parity across articles, but that isn't going to happen. No original research should be the primary rule of thumb: misleading is always misleading, and it isn't Wikipedia's place to create mythology surrounding flags, emblems, or anything else. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just remembered why I'm scaling down my involvement on the English Wiki. Whatever. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: This isn't intended to be personal. It simply isn't our role as editors to pick and chose what we, as individuals, believer to be interesting or edifying. There are ample internet sites that promote information forming people's ideas about what is true and what is not true: Wikipedia is not supposed to be one of them. I'm sorry if you find English Wikipedia too demanding, but how do unverifiable flags and emblems improve the quality of knowledge imparted to the reader? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This has to do with what the WP policies are, and it is a matter of concern that those policies are not implemented evenly. The flag does not show in an administrative official entity, and not need for that, there is a wide consensus within the Basque community that it represents the Basques. Admittedly, if you push it you may find that in all non-official national communities have people who do not agree with their emblem. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you might care to explain to me why the "Basque flag" used for the Basque culture template, and the flag featured on the side of the tent in the photograph at the top of the "Basque diaspora" section don't even feature the same colours. That's a fairly hefty discrepancy... so you have an argument with images before reliable sources even start to come into play. It appears that there are whole groups of Basques who disagree before the start whistle has been blown. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? I take it you are not familiar with the matter, which is fair. Colour brightness may vary, that is just a technicality according to the materials available. I just support giving a close to the matter since that seems to be WP Policy. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is not the Ikurriña the official flag of the Basque Autonomous Community and the Basque country in general? There are sources for this in that respective article. The only other flag I've ever seen waved by Basques is the flag of Navarre. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't take it personally. But Wikipedia has become a place where people fling WP: about like it's stardust. Just because something is policy doesn't mean it's sensible or indeed applied equally. Some pages always seem to get stick for minor issues when there are scores of seriously bad pages about which need fixing a lot more. The flag in the diaspora section, if you look at the picture has different colours because it's home made, someone took some red fabric and cut some green fabric and some which fabric and sewed it together because they were not aware that World:Flag Policy dictated certain RGB values. Probably because Basque flags are not that easy to come by everywhere. Just about the worst argument I've heard in a long time. Wikipedia may be a place where everyone can edit but unfortunately that has elevated the topic ignorance of many people to editor level, meaning those few with topic knowledge of a matter (the less mainstream the topic, the worse the ratio) are faced having to explain the most banal of things so many times you get tired of it eventually or indeed you get drowned out by possibly well-meaning but otherwise non-subject specialists. I wonder if NASA would allow that approach... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, so true... Iñaki LL (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that someone is claiming that ethnic flags, referenced everywhere as sources of identity, can not be used as images in the infobox. Frankly, there is no Wikipedia policy saying such. First they were against galleries, without any foundation for that, now they are against using flags which are used by almost every ethnic community ? This is foolish. The argument that there is more than one flag is also not an argument, as often people will fly more than one flag to show their ethnic identity. This Russian editor "Iryna" is spewing nonsense, and I'm not going to stop including flags in ethnic group infoboxes. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A reminder to the above editors: read WP:TALKNO. Derision and personal opinions are not acceptable. Stick to discussing content issues. This is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not attack you personally. Read it again. I am talking about Wikipedia in general. If you chose to apply it to yourself, that's really your call. Report me, I really don't care about being on the English Wikipedia much any more. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention to the full gamut of WP:OFFTOPIC discussion ending in "This Russian editor "Iryna" is spewing nonsense..." When you start using an article talk page to make complaints about how Wikipedia doesn't do it for you, you encourage trolling behaviour. This article is not about my complaints, your complaints, Iñaki LL's complaints, and certainly not about 173.238.79.44's complaints. If you don't want to edit English Wikipedia civilly (or otherwise): don't. Stop writing walls of text on article talk pages about how much you don't care about it. Methinks thee doth protest too much. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The reference to you being supposedly Russian wasn't me. That was some IP editor and I'm not him/her. And you're very eloquently proving my point about people sprinkling WP: about like fairydust. It does not impress me the least. And I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement you got the flag image think oh-so-wrong by being to busy quoting WP: and not actually looking at the image close up. But perhaps there's a WP: for that too, so you're good, I'm sure. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, gawd. There are three flags, and using them in the infobox is cruft. You've completely missed the point of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: there you go, no WP:! The predominant flag is already used for the Basque culture template used in the body of the article. How many times does it have to be used in the article? Should all three flags be there with a lengthy explanation as to what they all designate? Have you not noticed that the article, in itself, is a mess and lacking in reliable sources? I'm trying to clean up link rot and find good sources. What are you doing? If you're such a specialist, please assist in cleaning up and bringing the article up to par. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

With all respect Iryna Harpy, you are missing (confusing) the point, whether the flag has a brighter or darker colour in an unofficial flag is not a matter of concern, ever mutating aggresive WP:OR usernames/IPs (with an apparent matrix username) is, like the one you or other productive collaborators are experiencing first-hand. And clearly that is not the my case, or Akerbeltz's. However, I made my point above about content in this specific issue. ←Iñaki LL (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Invoking anthropomorphised imaginary beings surely contravenes WP:ThereIsNoGod? As to what I'm doing on the English Wikipedia, nothing much any more apart from watching a few pages I care about for vandalism because this place is becoming unbearably annoying for subject specialists. As to what I used to do, if you're that interested, I wrote pages like Erromintxela, Baserri, Basque breeds and cultivars, Elizate, Txoko or Leaf boat (including the video) and edited and expanded a great many more like Txakoli, without having to fling WP around like fairydust. What's the wc I have to meet to make your cut? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Data missing.

I think there are data missing in the article, and the page is incomplete and by that unfinished. As it is done in other wikipedia's pages, such as the Polish people, the German people etc..., I ask for data on populations having basque ancestry. In this pages about etnicity, figures not only indicate the native population in the national country but also minorities in other countries the diaspora and descended people of this etnicity in countries such as Brazil, Australia, USA and Canada.

So I would like to say that those figures are missing in this Article. There is a large community of Basques descended people in Argentina, Chile and other countries of Latin America as well as Australia, Canada etc... The figure about the Basque American population does not include Latin americans of Basque ancestry residing or borned in the US.

Basque people are know for being a very migrant population due to inheritance and scarcity of land in the region they lived. This article should indicate that. There are large descended populations abroad.

In Spain, outside the basques inhabited regions (Basque country and Navarre), there is a big number of people having Basque surnames and ancestry since Basque not only migrated abroad but to other regions of the same country. Same with France the basque regions of Labourd and Basse Navarre. This article does not reflect that. 

It should be noted that in the Basque country and Navarre as well as Labourt and Basse Navarre, other groups coexist (Spaniards, Gascons, French and Occitans). So not all people living in the Basque region has basque ancestry either. So I kindly ask for this article to be reviewed and finished, adding the final information needed.

The total amount of 3 million basque as an estimation is simply a bit ridicoulus. Since its not counting basque ancestry people living in Latin America and other regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.164.30 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gascon

Many Basques in the French Basque country also speak Gascon - literally means Basco and Basque - not just French and Basque. Gascon has massive Basque influence in its language. This article is about ethnic Basques, but if Spanish and French are included as other languages than Basque spoken by them, then Gascon surely must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.80.219 (talk • contribs)

I reverted this. French and Spanish are included because they are the respective state languages that Basques typically acquire through state education and often enough as the only languages they speak. Gascon is not a language typically associated with Basques, Basque ethnicity or culture, whatever the historic roots. Add to that the severe decline in Gascon speakers, this is perhaps worthy of a footnote within the body but not the infobox. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Basque language is the main ethnic language of Basques and Basque culture, but many Basques shifted from Basque to Gascon language (Basque substrate) first in the French Basque country, long before they ever shifted to speaking French. The name of the language itself literally means "Basque" in Latin. Gascon is today spoken specifically in traditionally Basque and Aquitanian lands and is a major language of the regions Basques live in, in the French Basque country, where Gascon has recognition and is found on road signs along with Basque. Most Basques in France live in areas traditionally also Gascon-speaking, not French. Given Gascon is a language of some Basque people themselves in the French Basque country, it needs to be included without a doubt here.174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. There are literally only a small handful of Gascon speakers - an ageing population - left in France. I suggest that you actually keep up with mainstream linguistic research rather than make things up as they appeal to your own point of view. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. You are the one "making things up". And the number of Gascon speakers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is natively spoken by thousands of people in Aquitaine and specifically in the French Basque country. You provided no source whatsoever for your claim, and there is still some 50,000 native speakers of Gascon in France. The point you are missing is that of the remaining speakers, some are Basques and Gascon is spoken in the French Basque country. It is on road signs in Bayonne, alongside Basque and French.

Trilingual sign in Bayonne, French Basque Country: French, Basque, and Gascon("Mayretat", "Sindicat d'initiatibe")

Numbers of Gascon speakers in Aquitaine, including the French Basque Country: Béarnais and Gascon today: Language behavior and perception

"In the Gascon-speaking region, the number of speakers, at all levels, varies from 3% in Bordeaux to 35% in the Hautes-Pyrénées. That means more than 500,000 people in total."

Béarnais and Gascon today: Language behavior and perception. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249929962_Bearnais_and_Gascon_today_Language_behavior_and_perception [accessed Oct 13 2017].

Furthermore, this does not account for you removal of my valid citation about the numbers of ethnic Basques in the Basque diaspora. You have no citation to refute this, so indeed you are the one who is POV pushing with OR. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, where did you get the impression that Eke.eus in an independent, objective (i.e., reliable source)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is your reasoning or citation to support your claim that it is not independent or unbiased? What criteria are you using to consider it "biased"? It's a valid website about the Basque diaspora. It meets Wikipedia standards. I clearly mention that the number used is the website's estimate, and not a hard figure. There's no reason to exclude this estimate of the size of the Basque diaspora.174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This website, while not a reliable academic journal like the other, states the following: "On both sides of the language border we find a number of bilingual communities. In these communities, speakers (from the age of about 40 to 45 upwards) who define themselves as Basque or bilingual usually speak Basque, Gascon, and French with equal native or native-like proficiency. " [4]

(edit conflict) ... And where did you pull the figure of 50,000 speakers from? A single research paper by a single - presumably - academic. At that, you've pointed to an abstract of the work, and I can find no reviews or citations by peers. Then you've tacked on Martin Haase as a source. This is known as WP:CHERRY. At best, there are a broad range of guesstimates as to how many speakers there are... and as to native-speakers... well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ResearchGate isn't exactly a reliable source in itself, reading the article on it. Look, 174.119.80.219, nobody is disputing that there are areas of the BC where other languages are also known. Bilbao is full of Galician speakers and on the western fringes, at least historically, Asturian probably also featured. The question is, is this notable or significant enough (that we can verify) to be included in the infobox. It just does not seem significant enough, certainly not in 2017, compared to diglossia in French/Spanish amongst Basques. I'd be totally ok with a section on historic Basque/Gascon bilingualism within the body. But it does not belong, the way I (and apparently Irina) see it, in the infobox. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Most certainly not for the infobox. Any salient content deemed WP:DUE could only be considered in the body of the article, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just to add my bit. Generally I should take EKE as a reliable source in the Basque context no matter what the WP policies are, but it provides some loose, subjective statements, like here, where it does talk of descendants, yes that is true, but also saying that 10.000.000 "have kept their language", well, sorry, no. I think you both had it right in that Gascon cannot be taken presently as a widespread or frequent reality of the Basques, but confined to certain areas, especially around Bayonne (BAB) and outlying areas of the Basque Country in France, so agree on not including it in the infobox. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have provided several sources here, including one academic journal specifically detailing the use of Gascon in Gascony, and especially in the Bearnais region and the French Basque Country. The other editors here have provided NOTHING but opinion and hearsay. They not provided any evidence or support for their contentions. Gascon is used as a lingua franca by Basques in Soule in the French Basque country and is a recognized language in Bayonne, appearing on street signs. To equate it with the presence of Galician immigrants in Bilbao is, frankly, absurd. Gascon has been spoken in the region of the French Basque country for centuries. Their descendants themselves were Basques who switched to the local Vulgar Latin dialect (which became Gascon), and there is a massive Basque substrate in Gascon. Gascon, again, itself means literally "Basque". If you do not wish to include it, then that is your choice, but Gascon is a language used and known, either passively or fluently, by tens of thousands of Basques in the French Basque country. [5]

With regards to the objections against the inclusion of the estimate of ethnic Basques in the Basque disapora, both Basque speakers and non-Basque speakers, the source I have provided is perfectly valid under Wikipedia standards. Thus, objections against its inclusion in the infobox will now be disregarded. This figure will be included, because it is based on a valid source about vibrant Basque diaspora communities such as in Colombia (Basque Colombians) or in Argentina (Basque Argentines). Until you provide an actual valid objection to this, based on some cited statistics, the diaspora number will be included in the infobox. Good day. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Population figures

Please note:

• ideally only census data with self-declared national identity (like in the US data)
• no estimates of "descendents", there are millions of Americans descended from Germans but that does NOT make them German
• no blogs/news articles that don't actually specify the source for their data, there's all sorts of crazy claims out there

Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note:

There are many sources for ethnicity and ancestry data which are valid apart from government statistics, regardless of national identity; ethnicity or racial identity are not the same as national identity. The is about Basques as an ethnic group or ethno-nation, which is based on descent and ancestral/racial origin, culture and language, not as some looser definition of nationality.

There are indeed tens of millions of Americans of German descent, some of whom can claim German citizenship via jus sanguinis. Regardless of nationality or citizenship though, it doesn't change their ethnicity/race/ancestry as being German or German American; they are not genetically, physically or culturally the same as other ethnicities in America. Being of German descent does make you German in terms of ethnicity/race/genetics and/or culture and/or language. FYI, over 1 million German Americans speak dialects of German at home. Ethnicity/race is not the same as citizenship, and often is not necessarily the same as nationality.

The sources I provided are valid academic sources for Colombia, either from books or organizations or academic articles. You made a fair point about the citations for Argentina though, which I removed. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these "sources" use very iffy methods to come up with their figures. Many rely solely on counting Basque surnames for instance and while Basque surnames are often easy to spot, there are all sorts of reasons why that is not a reliable way of counting ancestry. The infobox is just the wrong place for that - I'm even somewhat uneasy about including the US figure. Mostly infoboxes state the figures for members of the ethnic group today and significant diaspora members who emigrated during their lifetime and/or still hold citizenship or are still speakers of the language (like French Canadians). Most of the figures you keep trying to add are neither of those. We already have a section on the diaspora which contains various nebulous claims about possible ancestries... No one disputes that there was a significant number of Basques who ended up in the New World. But inflated/unreliable figures serve no one. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The US figure is a valid figure, from a reliable source. The numbers of ethnic group diaspora members is not just about members who still hold citizenship to a state or who can still get citizenship, but those who are part of the shared descent from that ethnic group. Most ethnicities are distinct from that of any existing nation-state. There is no Basque citizenship yet, last I checked, and Basques are ethnically completely distinct from other members of the nation state of Spain (genetically, physically, culturally, historically and linguistically distinct to be specific). Likewise, not all people living in the Basque Country today are ethnic Basques. To elude to your original point, 1 million German-Americans still speak German at home, and even those who do not, German languages have influenced regional American English dialects in the American mid-west. Ethnicity numbers from diaspora communities are thus not restricted to use of language or possible citizenship to a certain state. The ethnic group and disapora numbers are members with shared linguistic and cultural feautures and/or a shared descent/ancestry (which includes shared genetic, physical and cultural/behavioural features). Those of full or mostly German descent still are genetically part of the German ethnicity or "volk", and closest to them in genetic and physical, and some behavioural attributes. Thus, numbers based on ancestry/descent are included in infoboxes, because descent is part of being a member of that ethnic group, regardless of the varying levels of cultural, religious and linguistic similarity. Of the 40 million or so German-Americans, some retain more German cultural and linguistic features than others, and arrived in the US at different times. German-speaking Hutterites, for example, in Germany, Canada, the US, and Brazil are of a common German genetic/ancestry to a specific region of southeastern Germany and Austria, and also speak similar German dialects, and have shared cultural customs with those who have ancestral roots to the indigenous population in Germany or Austria. A German-American who speaks Hutterite German has a better linguistic and genetic connection with an Austrian German from Tyrol than that Austrian German from Tyrol has with a German from Hamburg who speaks an unintelligible Low German dialect. Libertas et Veritas (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Maps

The world map has different colors than its key has. /For example, the U.S. is pale pink. There is no pale pink in the legend.

The Basque regional map gives no indication of where it is. Kdammers (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the same colours in the key as in the map. The US shade of pink is the one directly above the white box. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I also see it as Akerbeltz, I see no problem with those colours. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 11:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there was a major problem with it: no data or less than 10,000 was being depicted as white (i.e., no, I don't expect you'd find terribly many Basques living in the world's oceans). I've now fixed the legend to represent the grey areas of terra firma to reflect this stat. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole map is problematic in that it relies on data that is hard to verify... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. It lists no sources whatsoever therefore, for the purposes of use in a Wikipedia article, it is WP:OR. Having no justification [[WP:PG|policy or guideline justification for its use, I'm going WP:BOLD and removing it. If any editors can come up with actual reliable sources for the postulated map, they're welcome to bring their arguments to this talk page and actually table the sources for discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basques. 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://www.webcitation.org/5qYGtTnn7?url=http://www.eitb.com/argazki/forum_re/caracterizacion.pdf to http://www.eitb.com/argazki/forum_re/caracterizacion.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) 20:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)