Talk:Basques/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

I'm deleting the latin american citation

Latin american is not an ethnic griup hence i don't have idea why latin american appears as a realted ethnic group???????????????????? What do you mean?? black dominican? indian peruvians? european argentinians and uruguayans? what the hell is a latin american ethnic group???? Basques are related to Argentinians and uruguayans since most of the population is spanish italian and 10% of the argentinian population is basque but it has nonsense cited as a related ethnic group i think since argentina as the united states has many ethnic groups.


This article cited

"Mr Kurlansky seems to ignore that there is an autonomous Basque government, comprising its own parliament, police, education and fiscal systems. Nearly one thousand people have perished as a result of ETA's terrorist actions. Both the Spanish and the regional Basque government are united in the fight against the threat that ETA poses to our society and democracy."

Carlos Miranda, Ambassador of Spain, published response in the Guardian The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs) 25 Nov 2005.

That is, Miranda was responding to the cited article Can you trust Wikipedia?. A precise citation for Miranda's remarks would be welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am Spanish, and I can tell you the discussions merits no further comment. Mark Kurlansky eanrs his living through heavily biased "culture" and "history" manuals, and his views on Wikipedia, an article thereof or the actual competence of the editors should have no relevance. The answer of the Spanish Ambassador only reflected these facts. --129.104.247.2 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But if he (Miranda) is going to be quoted here, the source of his remarks should be cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Googled it in five seconds flat: <ref name="miranda">http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1649174,00.html Letters:Basques and Spain Guardian Unlimited, Special reports: Spain. Thursday November 24, 2005. Accessed 2006-09-10</ref>

--Ling.Nut 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

1 2 3

Please, be serious

Sorry, but I had to erase this sentence from the article, after a laugh attack:

San Sebastian was totally destroyed and pillaged during three days, all women and girls being raped by the Anglo-Portuguesse-Spanish army.”

For a while I just imagined the evil Spaniards with their well known horns and red tails…You forgot the babies massacred and eaten by the evil Spaniards using their tridents…

The real problem of the Basque Country is all the sectarian neo-nazi garbage incrusted by the Basque nazinonalist leaders in the weak mind of the Basque teens, recruited among the nerds and worst students of the primary Basque School.

I don't know the facts, and there was no citation on the statement. My suspicion is that it is at least close to true, and that restoration of this, or something like it, with citation, would be good. And you aren't going to win any friends (or augment your own reputation for objectivity) by referring to "Basque nazinonalist leaders". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

San Sebastian was totally destroyed and pillaged during three days, all women and girls being raped by the Anglo-Portuguesse-Spanish army.” That action is true, It happened, and every year that day is remembered by locals. I think lots of stupid anti-basque(like you maybe?) come here to change the real history of Basque Country.Ikertxo

Excuse me? Who are you calling "stupid" and "anti-Basque"? This is immediately under a remark of mine, so I can only persume it is me. Is there anything in any of my edits that you are pointing to as "stupid" or "anti-Basque"? If so, please specify the edit. If not, please apologise for the remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if message is confusing but it´s not for you, it´s just a general commentary about some people´s action. For example for the guy who tried to delete that sentence. -- Ikertxo
It's easy to document, there are plenty documents that explain how it was like this http://www.gipuzkoakultura.net/ediciones/atzo/c152f24/ It's witness who counts it.
And if you want to know what was made by some men gone from Donostia to New York after that destruction: http://www.euskonews.com/0250zbk/gaia25002es.html and http://www.euskonews.com/0252zbk/gaia25203es.html Do you see? At the end the Donostia capitalist had to gone to New York... to build there the railroad! That was what the Spaniards won with their behavior.Idiazabal 13:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is far from tiring all the people that use the victim feeling, and call "anti-Basque" to anyone who is not nacionalist. I'm afraid that there is still a big average of the Vasc population that doesn´t vote to any of the nationalits parties, and they are still Vasc. And please be mature... really horrible things happened in all Spain during the Civil War and during all the wars. It is clever to hate also the French people for the Napoleonic occupation? And we migth also remenber that all the big invests of Franco after the war, were made in the north (Vasc country and Catalonia)because its proximity to Europe, and not in the South, so the people of, for example, Andalusia had to emigrate there. So please, stop keep on this pointless and futile confrontation between the "spanish" and the "vasc"... Do you still don't know that it is a very simple maneubre of some politics to remain in the power... Ein Berliner Preceding comment interspersed summer 2006.

Ein Berliner, you have your facts correct that Franco's government invested heavily in Catalunya and Euskadi, but you seem naive to the reasons why. First and foremost, Bilbao and Barcelona were two of the most important industrial ports in all of Spain (and continue to be so to this day), and Catalunya and Euskadi were decades if not a century ahead of the rest of the country in terms of industrialization. It was simply the cheapest way to expand the industrial base in the country in the shortest amount of time. Critics of Franco's economic policies readily point this out, and Spain still suffers from this inequity in that it is still recovering from these policies that left most of the country quite backward and agrarian.
Second, and perhaps more significant, the motives for development and investment in Catalunya and Euskadi were not merely economic. These two regions were two of the primary centers of Republican support during the Civil War, and by forcing non catalans and non basques to move to these regions for work, the native dissent was effectively diluted and drowned out by the wave of largely unskilled and non-union immigrants. In Euskadi in particular, because of the complexity of the language, Euskara was not learned by the immigrants from other regions in Spain. This coupled with the ban the central government put on speaking the language publicly nearly killed it off. So, while it is true that Franco's government invested heavily in both regions, it in no means that his motives were to promote their cultures and independent voices. Quite the opposite is true. Your oversimplification of political maneuvers to maintain power is both harmful and unfair to the complexity of the issues at hand. -Tim
Preceding comment interspersed summer 2006.

This is a direct response to Ikertxo's comments and Idiazabal's citations: I understand that this article touches politically delicate topics, and that they are furthermore dear to both of you (this is a polite guess based on your usernames), but you are not advancing the discussion or improving the article with your interventions.

First of all: euskonews or gipuzkoakultura are among the worst sources you could find to support your arguments. Show me an article written by a non-spaniard (implying non basque, too)in an international publication; that will help your assertions.

Secondly: the San Sebastian repression is documented, and it was as bloody as the rest of the war. The expression used in the article, however, is far from objective and distances itself voluntarily from the truth. I would eliminate the "totally" from totally destroyed, the "during three days" (it actually took longer), and the whole subordinate about raping girls and women (which would belong rather in propaganda).

M --129.104.247.2 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

...needlessly provocative argument deleted... By the way, there are very famous characters with Basque last names and little Basque genetic imprint such as baseball player Edgar Renteria, among many other half black, filipino, indigenous South Americans, etc. My point being there is no practical, realistic, let alone useful way to establish a differentiating factor in a population that has been so many years embedded into the Spanish and French states. Basque "national identity" should be realistically limited to "cultural" expressions such as their beautiful dances and exciting sports, like rock lifting and hen decapitation on barges along the river. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.189.246.197 (talk • contribs) 3 Jan 2006.

About the Carlist Wars

After having read the article, I see there isn´t a clear idea of what the Carlist Wars meant for Spain in the XIX century, in the article it seems as if they were some kind of fighting for the fueros but that is not true. The fact is that the fight in these wars was purely a dinasty problem, and the truth about it is that the Carlist kings were fighting to conquer the whole Spain. This movement was truly very supported in the Basque country as it was in Navarre, since one of the Carlists objectives was the defense of the fueros, but it was a movement of the whole Spain (it was a civil war), and the defence of the fueros was just one of the objectives of the Carlism, being the main one the conquer of the throne of Spain.

It has several aspects: a family feud, a war among economies, among classes, among regions, a religion war. Each of the fighters would have his own purposes. --Error 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The most important reason was "the fueros". In this "bertso"(Traditional basque song)is clearly explained by a basque carlist "bertsolari"(song maker) during First Carlist War: Euscaldun garbi sendo/ prestu ta nobliac/ Gorde gure ditubez/ Asabeen leguiac/ Mutillac orretaco/ armetara dira/ Zarrac bere nai leuque/ gaztiac balira/ Orain sei ehun urte/ gutxi gora bera/ gaztelako reinura/ unituak gera/ gaztelun zein buru dan/ ura guk artzera/ Fueroak gordezkero/ Egintzan paperan/ Disputarikan bada/ zeinentzat koroa/ erabaki bear da/ gaztelan pleitua/ errege edo erregina/ gure deretxua/ beti gorde digula/ garbiro fuerua/ zertan sartu gerrara/ juez inorentzat?/ madrilen da tronuba/ gaztelaubentzat/ an koronatzen dena/ guztion burutzat/ fueroa gordezkero/ ona da guretzat/ adixkide maiteak/ orra klaro gauza:/ bakarrikan fueroak/ dira gure kausa/ aiek defenditzeko/ deretxua dauka/ probintziko semiak/ ori ezin aka. Summarizing says: " We go to Madrid because the king is there". "Everybody knows our only reason for the war are the fueros". Other carlist song was(In second carlist war): "Eta tiro eta Tiro Belarri Motxari" translated means: "Shoot and shoot to short ears". "Short ears" is like "maketo" a contemptuous way to call spaniards. Other basque song(In second carlist War): "Gora Euskal Herriak" transalted: "forward Basque Lands". So...like conclusion we could say most of the basque went to war because fueros, and they used to considere liberals spanish or pro-spanish.--Ikertxo 09:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

-About the aspects of the war, it is a mistake pretending it was a war among regions, or religions since in the three wars, the northern regions which mainly supported the carlism (Navarre and the Basque Country) were divided among carlists and liberals, for instance, the main cities were never conquered by the carlists because they were liberals ( see Bilbao, Pamplona). The same happened in the other war fronts (the center and eastern front) in which though there were carlist armies and support to them in many villages, there was also support to the liberals in the main cities (see Teruel, Albacete, Gerona), so the main aspect of these wars must be that they were civil wars, neither liberation wars, nor regional wars , nor religion wars since everybody in that time was catholic in Spain (Carlists and liberals). The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.55.170 (talk • contribs) 7 Sept 2005.

Well, if you are confused about what realy were the Carlist wars, I can upload some pages of an English book writen by an English general or correspondent in that war and see what a neutral viowpoint told then, in 1840. I have not problem finishing the discussion reading what an external witness saw and told. In fact, I have yet the book pages saved in my computer previously, and can say that it wouldn't like to our Spanish debatient here. Besides, obviously in that age there were yet considerable publishing production, so there is no doubt that the Basques fougth for their Fueros, which were like their Constitucion. Any one can know it, but it's normal the Spaniards believe otherwise because it was what we were learnt in our schools. But I'll upload the pages for Wikipedia betterment in the proper place (a figure out it should be in Carlist Wars. Idiazabal 14:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, after trying to upload the images I've found that there are yet in my personal page and I suppose in the Carlist Wars Wikipedia entry. So, our unsigned companion could read there.Idiazabal 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is again the same story, again and again... It is so easy to maniputate people to figth for something acording to other interest. The Carlism was a conservative movement, so it was not a regional war, it was a political war, what we call basically civil war. Easy. And then, sure that the vasc were figthing for the fueros, but are you sure that it was the origin of that confrontation, or maybe just a way the carlist had to convince the vasc to join them? Ein Berliner.


It seems already a tradition commenting your comments (again, I refer to Idiazabal and Ikertxo): the grandparent is right: some of the main urban areas where never conquered by the carlist army, mainly due to the strong liberal positioning existant in them. Claiming that the only reason for the war was basque identity or the political status of the basque country is as shortsighted as affirming that didn't have anything to do with it.

M --129.104.247.2 20:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The best source on this issue could be neutral observers such as Humboldt: they had quite clear that Basques fought for their traditional rights (fueros), that it was a national war under the guise of dynastic conflict.
Anyhow, the Carlist party had two internal factions: the Apostolic or Castilian party, comprising the elite of the pretender's advisors, who understood the conflict as a merely dynastic issue, and the Navarrese party that comprised the masses of Basque fighters, financed not by any pretender in exile but by the provincial governments (diputaciones/aldundiak). It were the circumstances of these ones which eventually dictated the reality of war and peace.
In this sense it's worth noticing that general Zumalakaregi was offered a renewed throne of Navarre by members of the Navarrese (Basque)faction and it's speculated that he could have been killed by the pretender's physicians after that (after all his injuries weren't severe).
It's also worth commenting that modern Basque nationalism was fed by those wars and the proto-nationalist feelings they fed and by which they were fed. Yet some Basque Carlists never became nationalists, while some Liberals and Republicans (who would have never supported the Carlist faction) did.
Additionally it's worth mentioning that Spanish nationalists from the goverment to other peple with the same motivation often put a lot of zeal in distorting Basque history and trying to present the issue in their parameters. That's why I don't even worry about writing in the Spanish Wikipedia: I would be all the time bouncing heads with loads of Spanish nationalists (it's like for a Kurd or an Armenian to try to present their situation in any Turkish-language media: desperate and somehow masochistic). --Sugaar 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I add some new information

I add Nafarroa o Navarra in the article, because it´s one of the 7 provinces. And how 3600000 basque people are living in Argentina.--Ikertxo

  • Do you have some citation for this very large number newly added to the article? Demographics of Argentina does not even contain the word "Basque".-- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the article becomes rather ridiculous when you start mentioning basque descendants in Argentina. Following this line of reasoning, we could easily affirm that there are in Spain a couple more millions of "basque descendants" carrying basque blood in their veins (I suppose you are admitting "half-breeds" in this exclusive conception of ethnicity of yours; otherwise I dont think you'll find even a couple of thousands in Argentina).

On another note, I consider the total quantity showed of 7 million to be in the best case, a gigantic exaggeration (and in the worst, a complete lie).

M. --129.104.247.2 20:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing popularities

I think it should be great idea to list popular basque people on the history, like Lope de Aguirre, Simón de Bolivar, Elcano...Lots of them did something interesting for the world.--Ikertxo 09:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Basques --Error 20:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New Links

I add a link for that Book in amazon: "The Basque History of the World" by Mark Kurlansky . One of the Best Book I have never read about Basque Country. And made by a foreigner. So, its neutrality must be considered.--Ikertxo 09:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as an Amazon advert. The proper and neutral way is inserting the ISBN, that magically links into a page for searches. Besides, not everybody thinks Kurlansky is so great. I personally disagreed with something that I cannot remember when I browsed it. --Error 19:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I later saw that it is already in References. --Error 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Todays nationalism

Hi there, I've deleted a sentence about racism in todays nationalism. It's rubbish. Honestly. It's bad enought to say the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) was racist in it's origins, but pretending that it still is today is plain silly. Someone has said before me that the ideas of the founder of the PNV were quite common at the time, beign the political situation of the USA or the very queen of Spain (Isabel II), great examples of it. I won't delete that sentence because I would be accused of sectarism or perverting the wikipedia (even though there are no mentions to all the racist francoist crap in the article about Franco, or the concentration camps of Spain, the last of wich closed in 1974 in Miranda de Ebro in the article about the history of Spain). But I can't take bullshit like saying that todays basque nationalists are racist (or nazionalist nerds as some arse said above -it's not like there's a lot more to expect from some people, anyway-). I've also added that TAU Baskonia, Vitoria's basketball team is one of the biggest clubs in Europe, not just in Spain, with two european championships, and 3 second positions (yap, I do support them ;) ), and the name of the world's best mountaneer: Juanito Oiarzabal. Hope this is all fine (I forgot to check the discussion before making the changes, sorry about that, but they're pretty logical changes so it should be fine). Apart from those things and a couple more (like calling the three historical territories -Álava, Vizcaya, and Guipúzcoa- provinces, is a common mistake, but still a mistake), I reckon is a quite accurate description and an overall good article, much better than the spanish version where the censor most spaniards have inside has made it impossible to produce an average text. Cheers, Mikel

OK, again, someone restored the absurd racism comment with a link to an article (in spanish) in wich a writer (in what can only be taken as a joke) takes the autochthonous species protection law and tries to make it look racist, he even dared to say my edit was vandalism without reading the discussion page (now that is vandalism). It was a very big thing in Spain when it happened (whenever something sounds like a good excuse to attack basque nationalism, the spanish media make a big thing of it there). Absolutely all the countries in the world have indigenous species protection laws (in Australia for example are very strict in this matter), and Spain itself has laws to protect the "toro de lidia" (or "bullfight bull", completely useless for anything else), the iberian Linx ("Lince ibérico"), the boar, the brown bear ("jabalí" and "oso pardo"), and so on. This was a great example of the kind of crap basque nationalists have to go through: lies, manipulation, insults, disrespect, constant attacks in the media... I leave a link to the article here in the discussion for everyone to see the extent of the stupidity of some people and the abhorrent manipulation of everything in this demonization process (the problem is most spanish people love to believe this lies, if all this campaigns were directed against any other ethnic minority - let's say of a different faith or colour- things would be treated differently and no one would be so ambiguous about this ruthless discrimination).


Well, I acknowledge that the link was not totally relevant. Therefore I will remove it myself. In the menatime, I am trying to find a news item in English, quoting Xabier Arzallus' —PNV's strongman back in the nineties— comments on immigration, saying things such as: "Any immigrant who does not want to take up 'Basque Nationality' will be treated as German tourists in Majorca [...] It is because those same immigrants that Euskal Herria is not independent yet". Any of the books written by Basque historian (former poli-mili)) Jon Juaristi would be a good reference point, as he has been very critic of the racialist current of Basque nationalism Asterion 15:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Addition and removal of comments

User:80.58.55.237 removed comments on this talk page variously made by User:80.58.55.237, User:80.58.55.172, and User:80.58.55.170 (along with the pseudo-sigs I added to those). I'm assuming that these are all the same person and so this is kosher, but please, if you are going to do stuff like this, open an account so we can tell that you are not removing someone else's comments. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead paragraph

From the lead sentence:

It is important to note that through history, some people have been identified as Basque people who may or may not have spoken the Basque language.

Confusing and almost vacuous: Why, and according to whom, is it "important". Who are the "some people" alluded to? Descendants of Basques in the Americas who have assimilated? So what: the same is true of any other ethnicity. Something else? Then say so, or this is vacuous. "…may or may not…"? Can we be more vague? Unless someone clarifies this in the next 24 hours, I will feel free to remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • No one has stepped forward on this, I am deleting. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"Common" joke

There is a common joke in saying that Basques are not racist, since they are not a different race; they say they are a different specie.

I don't think it is so "common" a joke. It also does not seem very relevant nor very funny. I decided to remove it. --Error 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Haitz words

Somebody has mentioned the hypothesis that since aizto (knife), aizkora (axe) and some other word are similar to haitz (rock), the Basque language could come from the Stone Age.

ca:Basc says:

D'altres dubten d'aquesta etimologia, basant-se la posibilitat que la forma primitiva de haitz fos *anetz o *anitz. L'exemple de aizkora sol ser contestat amb què també és probable que provingui del llatí asciola "destral petita".
Others doubt this etymology, basing in the possibility that the primitive form of haitz were *anetz or *anitz. The example of aizkora is usually refuted with it probably being from Latin asciola (little axe).

The Catalan article gives no reference. I have included a reference to Kurlansky for the hypothesis. Certainly he is not the originator. I guess it's from Jose Miguel de Barandiaran. It would be good to have references for both opinions. Asciola is attributed to Luis Villasante: Honen ondorioz aipatzen du Aita Villasantek bere La declinación del vasco literario común liburuan euskarazko 'aizkora' hitza asciolatik datorrela.

I think I saw a proposal from haritz (oak). After all axes and knives are partially made of wood.

--Error 01:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Aizto is not any common word (seemingly existed only in the dialect of Erronkeria, now extint). Words that do clearly from (h)aitz (rock) are aizkora (axe, probably axe and Spanish hacha also have the same archaic root, btw), aitzurra (hoe, its Spanish name azada may also share that archaic root) and aizturrak (large scissors).
Error: why do you mingle on what you don't know: haritz is a type of oak (Quercus robur) but has nothing to do with wood. Wood is said zur and it's likely that the name for white (zuri) derivates from it, the same that urdin (blue) comes probably from ur (water).
Honestly I'm pretty much tired of the people who pretend to know and have no idea. --Sugaar 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hiztegia 3000 gives as a translation of "cuchillo": aizto, ganibet, kutxilo
But: Aizto- (E) vide ganibet. E stands for Erronkera, the extint dialect of Erronkerria (Roncal). In colloquial Basque, at least in Biscay and Gipuzkoa, the common word is labana, no matter what the dictionary says. --Sugaar 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Morris gives: labana, ganibet, aizto
Labana is navaja (jacknife) in Hiztegia 3000.
For aizkora see above the asceola hypothesis.
Current Batua form is haitz. Is it normal for Basque to develop a word-beginning h from nothing or did all the compounds lose it?
Batua has those unconfortable "h" harcters because in some dialects of the North they are pronounced (aspirated). In southern dialects they are just mute and traditionally were written without them: "haitz" was just "aitz". Batua is not necesarily based in the most correct ethymology, but rather in the most frequent or inclusive usage; it required many compromises and many were not fully satisfied. In brief: Batua is not a reconstructed proto-Basque but a modern synthesis of the different dialects, with greater weight for the central ones (that are also those with longer literary tradition). --Sugaar 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Joan Corominas gives for azada Latin *asciata from ascia "una especie de hacha o azuela" with a quotation from Paladio: ascias in aversa parte referentes rastros (ThLL). He doesn't give Basque cognates, but gives (a)jada in Navarre and jade in Ulzaure valley (Navarre).
Maybe. It doesn't dismantle my idea, as it would anyhow derivate from "ascia" (axe). --Sugaar 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall the details for the haritz hypothesis. By the way, urdin is also applied to gray hair.
Urdin was originally used for blue, green and grey indistinctly, gorri for red, yellow and brown. Modernly they are used basically in the standard European sense of blue and red, with a lot of loanwords (and a few native ones - hori, uher) being used for the rest of colors (i.e. errosa - pink, from es "rosa"; berde - green, from es "verde"; etc.)--Sugaar 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Error 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Review of this article in the Guardian newspaper

Mark Kurlansky in The Guardian gives this article 7/10, but gives three points of concern to him. I don't know this subject, but the Guardian article should be of interest to those who do. 86.132.137.141 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I did some research. From the article:

Three things bothered me about the entry. 1. It says: "Aquitanians spoke a language which is proven beyond doubt to be akin to Basque." I am not familiar with the Aquitaine language but would be very surprised if it bore any relation to Euskera, the Basque language." (snip)

All we know about Aquitanian are some slabs of Roman times with names such as Belasko (little crow) and Aherbels Deo (to the god Aherbels, probably Akerbetz: the black he-goat, attested in Medieval akelarreak or sabaths and also, as symbol of Mari in Basque mythology). Aquitanian/Gasconian toponimy is absolutely Basque, that's beyond any doubt. Finally the Aquitanians are described by Caesar as "not Gauls but Iberians" (normally understood as not Celtic but pre-Indoeruopean). Aquitaine (Gascony) become in the Early Middle Ages the Duchy of Vasconia or Wasconia, name that would evolve into Gascony.
In general there's little or no doubt about Aquitanians being related with Basques or rather being the same people (notwithstanding tribal or dialectal differences). --Sugaar 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cambridge University language centre says:

"Basque is one of the oldest documented languages. It has been attested in a fragmentary form from c. 1000 AD onwards, but it was almost certainly spoken in Ancient Aquitania..."[1]

  • I think the article needs to reworded to "it is very likely that" instead of proven beyond doubt. I am not sure why he is so surprised at a the suggestion that people of Aquitaine spoke a Basque related language, it seems logical that Basque was eventually pushed further South by latin influenced Occitan languages. Aquitaine, Gascon and Basque all have the same root, Aquitaine being a romanization of the inhabitants the Vasco (+ Roman "tania") (the V becoming silent). Arniep 00:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to a reminder on sci.lang, I can now provide a reference: Larry Trask's article "Prehistory and Connections with Other Languages" concludes "The identity of Aquitanian and Basque may therefore be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt". See the article for an explanation of the evidence. —Naddy 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who originally added the mention of the Basque Aquitanian link back in 2002. I still have my notes from back then, according to them that factoid came from page 9 of R. L. Trask's The History of Basque. - SimonP 20:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

We have to distinguish two things: one thing was the language that, 2.000 years agos, was spoken in Aquitania (this is the language similar to Basque); another thing is the language that, since the Middle Age, is spoken in Aquitania. The modern Aquitanian (and Gascon) is a latin language, very similar to Catalan, and had nothing to do with Basque.--194.65.151.249 11:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it really called Aquitanian? Anyway there has been at least a lexical and phonological mutual influence between Basque and Gascon.
--Error 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It is called Aquitanian (for lack of a better name). Aquitanian is extinct (unless you consider Basque as its descendant). Gascon is a different language, belonging to the Romance (Latin-derived) family, but it is also the one that shows more Basque influences of all, specially phonetic ones (more even than Spanish).
Gascon is not so simmilar to Catalan. Nowadays it's being happily joined with Occitan, which is extremely close to Catalan, but actually it is quite different. Catalan and Occitan are much closer than Gascon with any of them. --Sugaar 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial to say that the Aquitani are assumed to have been Basques. "proven beyond doubt" is pov-pusher wording, though, I don't see why we cannot just state it without rhetorical fillers. A statement "Basque is one of the oldest documented languages. It has been attested in a fragmentary form from c. 1000 AD onwards" is extremely silly. We have language documents from as early as 3300 BC, so it is beyond me how they can claim that 1000 AD is a particularly early date of attestation. They mean to say that precursors of Basque were spoken in Iberia before the arrival of Indo-European. How that makes the language "older" is anybody's guess (IE is just as "old", it was just spoken elsewhere, they somehow confuse "age" with "location", and they implicitly assume identity of the known Basque with its ancient precursors, a common fallacy among non-linguists, but to read this un a University website is rather sad) dab () 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't have any document older than Roman age (unless you are estimating via toponimy or ethimology). Recently it's been discovered plenty of brief texts from that period in Basque, near Vitoria-Gasteiz [2], [3] but only fragmentary results have been disclosed yet.

Repression

2. The current spanish constitution was sanctioned and approved by the basque people in 1,978 by 70.24% on the votes in el Pais Vasco and 76.42% in Navarra. http://www.elecciones.mir.es/MIR/jsp/resultados/index.htm (look for referendum 1,978 and then for results by regions)

The PNV, main party in the three Basque provinces, participated in the Constitution debates, but later decided to promote abstention, disagreeing with something. The precedents of Herri Batasuna called for 'no'. As a result:
Basque Country: Abstención:         859.427         55,35%
Navarre:        Abstención:      120.548         33,37%
Compare with:
Catalonia:      Abstención:         1.411.447       32,09%
Later PNV politicians have asserted that the Constitution hence lacks legitimacy in the Basque Country.
--Error 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Guardia Civil" is a part of the spanish security forces and is present in all of spain. It mainly deals with trafic and frontiers but it has other exclusive missions:

http://www.guardiacivil.org/quesomos/misiones

In the Basque Country, the GC is only dealing with frontiers and terrorism. Traffic is fully Ertzaintza and terrorism is shared with Ertzaintza and Policía Nacional.
Policía Nacional is not present, I think (maybe as issuers of Documento Nacional de Identidad). --Error 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The only repression in the pais vasco is targeted towards the terrorist organization ETA which is listed as a terrorist organization by international standards.

Besides the other minor terrorist organizations, Basque nationalism complains of repression against, say, Egunkaria, Egin which they see as unrelated to ETA. --Error 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fighting terrorism is another exclusive mission of Guardia Civil. I do not understand the quote by mr. Kurlansky 'Over the years, Eta has grown ever smaller. But there has been no comparable lessening of repression by the Spanish.' as he acknowledges the existence of ETA why would repression of terrorism have to lessen. The closure of newspapers or shut down of political parties is down to the judicial power which is subject to European and Human Rights Legislation. Any way I don´t see how this could fit in a wikipedia article.

With all respect to everyone:
1- the "Cuerpo Nacional de Policia" (national police corps) has also as a mission to fight against terrorism, Therefore the preious coment is wrong.
2- the reson for ending the some media companies (example: egin) was due to it's relation to ETA, mainly as a funds cover. Closing a newspaper or radio station could be a very dificult decision, but if they are providing money, something better left to the court to decide, I think it is undestandable that the goverment decides to close them.
3- Finally, when a political party promotes, hail and exalts violence agains groups as: police, reporters, soldiers, politicians, civilians, employers, employees.... because the "think" diferent, speak different, or come from somewere else, and they have as members confirmed killers/terrorist, and use some public office position as a way to evade justice... You probably understant my point.
Nevertheless, It is a sad true that discusting groups as the GAL (Grupo Antiterrorista de Liberacion) happen in a democracy as Spain is nowadays

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.39.155 (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005.

Navarre

3.Wikipedia article especificaly mentions Navarra as part of the Basque country in its first parragraph. I don´t know which version of wikipedia did Mr Kurlansky read. It is true, non the less that basque nationalist are minority with far less votes in Navarra than in the other basque provinces. (excepting the french provinces where they are almost non existent). But again this is not for wikipedia to comment.

I have ammended it. For a Navarrese being Basque is more feeling Basque than "being" unlike among three-provincers. I have told elsewhere about a Navarrese saying "I am not Basque but my father was" linking it to the lost of the Basque language. --Error 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm out of my subject area, but unless I'm missing a subtlety I'm sensing a "Guardian pwned coming on. What do the subjects experts say? If we can challenge the expert and any other points in the article we should formulate a reply and send it in. --bodnotbod 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Guardian_article --bodnotbod 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the expert was strongly in favour of the Basque separatist cause, and to have his version as the article would break our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, SqueakBox 00:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, the claims the expert makes are either verifiable or not, and doesn't claiming that persecution of Basques ended when Franco died also break NPOV if there's significant claims the persecution continued? GhostGirl 00:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Our challenge is that balanced article, SqueakBox 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More errors

Kurlansky is wrong here:

For the first time in Spanish history it made Castillian the official language of Spain. It also forbade any discussion of the break up of the Spanish state, so there cannot even be a referendum on the Basque future.

That depends on POV. For the first time in Spanish history, Basque was made co-official in the Basque Country and Navarre (I don't remember the situation in the 1936 Euzkadi). As anybody reading current Spanish press can say, discussion is free. ERC, Batasuna, Eusko Alkartasuna have been calling for breakup for years (Batasuna was forbidden but on other formal grounds). The Basque Parliament even declared for self-determination. Spain, though, like most European and American states (bar Canada, Czechoslovakia and probably Switzerland), forbide the actual breakup.

Newspapers and political parties are shut down.

Make it two newspapers and one political party (unless you count HB, Batasuna and AuB as different parties).

There are actually seven Basque provinces, each with its own dialect of Euskera and slightly varying traditions.

The dialects and the provinces do not match. Bonaparte calculated at least three in Navarre, methinks, and Alava speaks Biscayne or Batua if at all. --Error 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Effectively, the dialects don't match the provinces but they largely do with the tribes described by Strabo:
  • Bizkaiera fits prefectly with the borders attributed to the Caristii
  • Gipuzkera fits perfectly with the borders of the Varduli, including parts of Navarre (Sakana) but not the St. Sebastian area.
The rest are less clearly fitting. Laputera could match the territory of the Tarbelas but the (High and Low) Navarrese dialects, and the Pyrenean ones (Erronkera and Xiberuera) don't match anything but sub-regions.
Basque can be divided in three rather homogeneous groups: Western (Bizkaiera), Eastern (Erronkera and Xiberuera) and Central (the several Navarrese, Lapurtera and Gipuzkera). It is possible that the Western and Eastern dialectal groups (dubbed languages by some) could have a greater extension in the past.
In the few parts of Araba that keep their ancestral language, it's basically Bizakiera what is spoken, again fitting with the territory of the Caristii, that extended in the north and central part of that region. --Sugaar 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer from Kalebeul

Another answer to Kurlansky.

Garza

Is Garza a Basque surname? I don't see it in the Auñamendi Encyclopedia. --Error 01:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. Garza is in principle the Spanish name for a long-legged fishing bird.
But García (the most common Spanish surname, once a personal name) has a Basque origin. Also most animal-related Spanish names and surnames are thought to be of Basque origin somehow and spread out in the Middle Ages: Bela-Vela-Vélez-Belasko-Velasco-Velázquez (from eu bele/bela: crow), Otsoa-Ochoa-Lope-López (wolf), Urraca, etc.
Hypothetically Garza could be related to García, I really don't know. But claiming that is probably beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article, more proper of an specilized essay. --Sugaar 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Declared by whom?

"…in Nafarroa (Navarre), Basque has been declared an endangered language…": declared by whom? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that was declared by EU linguistic institutions, that are usually critical with the policies followed in Navarre and the North (France). Maybe it was UNESCO, not sure.
I've read about that (and recently) but can't find anything by search (at least in English).
In any case, it's quite correct: the linguistic policies in Navarre are strongly anti-Basque.
Situation of Basque in the three administrative areas. It is illustrative to see that while 40% and 35% of the population can speak Basque in the West and the North respctively, in Navarre they are only 17%. --Sugaar 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Issues of Persecution"

There are some real problems with the recent additions to the Issues of Persecution section. I have copy edited, but by no means endorse it. The fact that the author could not even bring him/herself to say "France" or "Spain" but wrote of "the French Power" and "the Spanish Power" or the "North" and "South" (I've changed that)) speaks volumes. Much of what is here is probably true, but there is absolutely no effort at balance. You would never guess that there was such a thing as violence by Basques, or that ETA (which goes unmentioned) mainly targets Basques, or that the issue of at what geographic level self-determination occurs might be problematic, or even that polls suggest that the majority in the Spanish Basque Country today, given a choice, would choose to remain part of Spain.

Anyway, I leave it to someone else to take the next step in sorting this out. I think that, properly integrated, much of this material belongs in the article but, as now presented, it is a biased polemic. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have advanced. Some of the information was misleading or false and other should be backed with references. --Error 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the POV. If you are trying to state a legitimation for French and Spanish powers... obviously you'll see no point on what a Basque has to say. But since the article goes about Basques, I believe that you should let them explain how we see it. 80.58.42.107 (Sorry, I didn't logg in.)

"native from Navarre"

What is the basis of the claim that Basques are "native from Navarre"? I realize that that is the site of the earliest known Basque kingdom, but "native" is a tricky word in these respects. Just what does this mean and where (if anywhere) is it cited from? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Basque people were registered by romans as Barscunes/Vascones, the core living in the actual Navarre and also in the surrounding regions. Check it your own. —Barasoaindarra 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but, again, they did not miraculously come into being there just before the Romans noticed them. I see you have restored this. Can we say "recorded as being in Navarre as early as Roman times"? Because "native" in this case is not at all clear. Some theories have them migrating earlier to that region as an already identifiable people. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course basques did not appear miraculously in Navarre, but that is not the definition for native people. I wrote this just to remark what not so many people know, that basques first recorded homeland is Navarre, and not, for example, the actual Euskadi. Have a look at Indigenous peoples about the meaning of native peoples. —Barasoaindarra 13:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the article should make it clear (as it does, elsewhere) that history first finds the Basques east of their main homeland today, but I still find the term "native" inappropriate in this context. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
What I don't see is why do you find the word native inappropriate. Just to let everything clear, we could link native to Native peoples. —Barasoaindarra 12:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And remember that the word Euskadi is a invention of Sabino Arana, fundator of the PNV (Vasc Nacionalist Party.

The Barscunes mint is unlocated yet as far as I know. Their coins appear in some parts of Navarre though. --Error 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't really see what the whole fuss is about concerning the description "native to", but I would propose a wording like "historically associated with" or "traditional homeland in". With all the migration that has been going on, it is not always straight-foward who was "there first" (who is "indigenous", "autochtonous", "aboriginal" etc), but much less crontroversial to simply state long-term ocuupation extending back into antiquity. Will that work? It has for other similar wording disputes.... 8-] --Big Adamsky 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
We already have elsewhere in the article, "The key sources for the early history of the Basques are the classical writers, especially Strabo, who in the 1st century AD reports that the north of modern-day Navarre and Aragon were inhabited by a people known as the Vascones (this is not the area of the modern-day autonomous community of the Basque Country (here 'the present Basque Country'), but an area immediately east of it)." I have no problem with that, except its slightly clumsy wording.
I'm not sure anything about this is really needed in the lead, but if it is, how about rather than "Basques, being themselves native from Navarre, are predominantly found…", we could use "Basques, first known to history as natives of modern-day Navarre and Aragon in the first century BC, are now predominantly found…" Note the shift from saying that the Basque people collectively were native to Navarre to saying that the Basques, as individuals at that time, were natives of Navarre and Aragon.
BTW if I'm overruled here, wouldn't "native to" be more correct than "native from"? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This may be a breach of etiquette, but as this eminently reasonable suggestion has gone uncontested for months now I'm seconding it and carrying it out at once. If I'm wrong, please tell me why (preferably, where it says so.) --Homunq 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Religion at the present time"

We could read that sentence in the article: "Most Basques are practicing Roman Catholics." I´d like to emphasize certain points. Although It was very religious, currently it is not. I think it must be mentioned and this section must be corrected. In this case, Basque situation is not very different in comparisson with Spain. Statistics say only 25,5% of population is self-considered christian, 22% catholic, 26 % between atheists, agnostics or pseudoagnostics...and the rest choosed another options...So.. This section is wrong.

Religion in Spain(and other countries): http://www.religionstatistics.net/norelesp.htm --Ikertxo 10:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I edited to tone down the claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Focus of this article

I am relatively new to wikipedia, so my excuses if this is some kind of "newbe" comment:

I don't understand the focus of this article very well: it claims to be about the Basque people - I suppose from an ethnologic, cultural or demographic point of view - but then goes on and on about history of the basque country, Spain, and others. Doesn't there exist a separate "history of the basque country" or "basque country" article? If so, what is the purpose of this one? My honest impression is that the dupplication of content serves no informative purpose at all; even more so when (in my opinion), much of this article is written in a style more similar to an op-ed than to an encyclopædia.

M --129.104.247.2 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First legal document in North America

Since Basque diaspora has been merged here: I read that the first legal document in North America (bar literate Mesoamerican civilizations, I guess) was the testament of some Basque sailor in Newfoundland, but I find nothing on Google. I have found though allusions to the Mayflower Compact from 1620 as such first document. --Error 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, it's certain. I'll see tomorrow (if I remember Wiki) where you can find it. Although if I'm right, it could be in Basque. There also another fund of papers that used a notary (notario) to write some books about Basque whalers, etc. and he red some ancient testaments form Newfoundland in the radio, and almost every year he publishes a new book with his last findings in the archive in which he works at present. Tomorrow I'll try to find something.Idiazabal
I don't think Basque diaspora should be merged here, since the article is large as it is. --Vizcarra 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Text on repression removed by User:217.216.149.97

In the fight against ETA, the Spanish government and courts have taken controversial measures like:

  • Banning of the democratically elected political coalition HB-Batasuna in 2002 (and successive coalitions) as well as other political organisations, thus disenfranchising a significant proportion of Basques. The candidature of the new Herritarren Zerrenda (HZ) in the European Parliament election, 2004 has been banned in Spain, although it is legal in France. Despite the banning, 120,000 Basques voted for HZ with illegal ballot papers in the last EU elections (15% of Basques in Spain and 7% in France voted to HZ).
  • Closure of the only newspaper fully in Basque language, Egunkaria, in 2003. Many personalities associated to this paper have reported tortured by the Spanish authorities while under detention. Amnesty International has questioned the closure of this newspaper. Several other cultural publications and organisations have also been banned, such as the bilingual nationalist newspaper Egin and the radio station Egin Irratia. The newspapers Berria and Gara have taken their niches.
  • Severe political repression has long taken place in the Basque Country, and today the Basque Country has one of the highest ratios of police/military per inhabitants within Europe, the highest being in Northern Ireland . Between the Spain and France, there are over 22,000 security personnel in the Basque Country, one security person per 136 Basques. The repressive situation in the Basque Country takes many forms such as:

Prisoners:

Currently there are more than 700 Basque political prisoners in jails throughout Europe and the world. Basque prisoners are not afforded political status and many countries operate policies of dispersion locating Basques prisoners far from their homes, which is a policy that diferentiates these prisoners from the wider prison population and punishes their families as well. Denial of political status is the authorities' way of denying that a political problem exists and therefore any attempt to find a solution. Since 1975 there have been over 44,000 politically related arrests in the Basque Country, an average 4 per day. Spain detains prisoners for as long as 4 years without trial, often in isolation; many are released without charges and without compensation. This amounts to internment. This is directed mostly at politically and culturally active youths.

GAL:

In the 1970s and more particularly in the 1980s, the Spanish State funded and controlled GAL, which was a right-wing paramilitary force that attacked and killed Basque citizens in both the Spain and France. Between 1983 and 1987, the GAL murdered over 30 citizens. In the 1990s several high-profile investigations were conducted in Spain, which led to the imprisonment of high-ranking police officials and a former government minister. There is evidence to suggest that control of the GAL went to the highest levels within the Spanish State Government.

Torture:

Currently, Spain has a policy of detaining prisoners for 5 days incomunicado and without representation. This has been independently proven to facilitate and cause torture. This policy has been condemned by Amnesty International and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, something which is continually ignored by the Spanish State. In February 2004 the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated that "the degree of silence that surrounds the subject and the denial by the authorities without investigating the allegations of torture has made it particularly difficult to provide the necessary monitoring of protection and guarantees". He also states that "in the light of the internal consistency of the information received and the precision of factual details... these allegations of torture cannot be considered to be fabrications."

The organisation Torturaren Aurkako Taldea has documented that 90% of Basque political prisoners are convicted based on information obtained under torture.

Links:

  • Anti-repression:
    • www.stoptortura.com/index.php?newlang=eng
    • www.behatokia.info/index.php/index.php?newlang=eng

General information:

  • www.contrast.org/mirrors/chi
    • www.euskalherria.info/index.php?newlang=eng
    • www.basque-red.net

Basque papers online with documents and dossiers: www.gara.net/english/index.php www.berria.info/english/azala.php

--Error 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any doubt, Error? Sorry, it seems I'm lost..Idiazabal


I removed a lot of this text as (at least some of them) are completely false. Spain does not have jails in Europe to torture prisoners, nor "has a policy of detaining prisoners for 5 days incomunicado and without representation" (BTW who has "independently proven" it?). It is also false that "Spain detains prisoners for as long as 4 years without trial". As a simple prove is that a known terrorist (there were proves that he murdered a lot of people) was going to be freed because the maximum time to be retained in jail before the judge was about to expire. (Luckily he was not freed)
How long is the incommunicado term under Ley Antiterrorista?
I don't remember the details, but isn't the fact that he was not freed a counterexample on limitations of pre-trial imprisonment?
--Error 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Remark that it is a policy of ETA to claim have been tortured when they have been arrested, even if only some hours, as it says an internal ETA newsletter. I have no notice about such "denial without investigating".
Some GAL data was wrong, i verified it against es:GAL.
The organisations were (and still are, as they continuosly create four when one is proved to be guilty -note that they must be proved, although citizens usually know perfectly they are terrorist supporters) used to contribute ETA financiation. There is also interesting the paying of the revolutionary tax imposed by ETA. If sellers do not pay it, some Kale Borroka (young nationalists making havoc, kind of hoolingans, they are used by ETA) may break its shop window/the complete shop when making havoc (firing baskets, 'the hole in the wall'...).
It's also interesting the article doesn't talk about it, nor about the non-nationalist politics, which must have escort because their lives are continuosly in (high) danger due to ETA.
The links are also related to ETA influence activism so they are not neutral. ETA members (remember, the terrorists) afirm to be very opressed, but it is ETA who is making the basque conflict, with all those terrorist activities, about 1000 killings, unnumerable wounded people (including children, like Irene Villa, about 30 of the deaths were children).
Platonides 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Basque diaspora

Is there any material remaining to be merged here from Basque diaspora? If it has all been merged, we should turn that into a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the articles should be merged, since Basque people is, as it is, a large article. --Vizcarra 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Image in infobox

I think the new set of four images in the infobox look very sloppy; also, each should have "alt" text to indicate of whom it is an image. And Che Guevara was, at most, partly Basque, since he also had Irish ancestry. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ain't no sisters in here! I checked the women articles in List of Basques and we only have pics of Catalina de Erauso, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and Eva Duarte de Perón. Perhaps we could exchange one Argentinian for another, though the pics don't merge very well. Other iconic Basque women would be Cristina Saralegui, Dolores Ibárruri or Máxima Zorreguieta, but they have less universal fame. --Error 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Sor Juana would be a fine choice. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I put Sor Juana instead of Ramón y Cajal (barely Basque) and substituted Zumalacárregui with Ignatius, that seems more recognizable. --Error 03:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Juanita is cool but she's Mexican. It may be the same case as with Che Guevara and Simon Bolivar: they have Basque ancestry but are Americans, not Basques. They probably never identified themselves as such. What about Joanna III of Navarre? There were several Basque queens but this one is the only one with a wikiportrait (that I know of). --Sugaar 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, Daguerre, though the surname is obviously Basque, was French born in Paris. I suggest to replace him for maybe the most important Basque in World history: Juan Sebastián Elcano (Elkano), the first one to sail around the world. --Sugaar 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've followed my own (unanswered) suggestions and changed that. I think it's much better without people of just alleged Basque ancestry. Elkano could not be absent anyhow. Joana wasn't born in the Basque Country but she was an important political leader of it, being the one who introduced Calvinism in Navarre.

Request for Opinion

I have been working on the Che Guevara article "off and on" for several years now. During the past week, I have observed that someone has inserted a sentence concerning Basque people in the section "Youth". This sentence seems extremely peculiar to me, and I would very much appreciate hearing from a person (or people) of Basque ancestry as to whether it makes any sense, or is offensive. I am inserting the paragraph here, with the unusual sentence highlighted in blue.

Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of mixed Spanish, Basque and Irish descent. One notes with dry amusement that some versions of the Song of Roland refer to the Basque, a famed warrior nation, as demons, when at worst they were mere Cromagnon descendents [1]. The date of birth recorded on his birth certificate was 14 June 1928, although some sources assert that he was actually born on 14 May 1928 and the birth certificate falsified to shield the family from a potential scandal relating to his mother's having been three months pregnant when she was married.

If you would like to express an opinion about this sentence, perhaps you could do so on the Talk:Che Guevara page where it will be read by all those who are working on the article. Thank you very much. Polaris999 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is mildly offensive and utterly irrelevant to that article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Update: The aforementioned sentence was removed at 12:17, 10 January 2006 by editor Junes, as follows:
12:17, 10 January 2006 Junes (→Youth - removed irrelevant POV about Basques).
Polaris999 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

One notes with dry amusement that some versions of the Song of Roland refer to the Basque, a famed warrior nation, as demons, when at worst they were mere Cromagnon descendents [1]. As basque i can say that:

1- All the people in the world is cromagnon descendent

2- "La Chanson de Roland" speaks of basques in the point of view of french army, is wroted three hundred years after the battle, so i think its irrelevant to categorize basque people.

3 In the Song, the basque people is transformed in demons and muslin. Not now, not ever we be demon. Muslin, maybe a little of us.

Che gevara was basque origins, true. Nothing else to say

Children language politics

I have removed this:

or having people at schools to play in basque at the break-time when they found them playing in spanish (this was done when they found that although classes must be given in basque, children were still speaking spanish when dining or playing between themselves)

since I don't understand the syntax. --Error 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It refers to the policy in some Basque schools that consists on punishing children that speak Spanish and not Basque in the playground. Sometimes it is physical punish, but this is not so common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sorry, but that's completly false. I go to an Ikastola (a basque school) and I know lots of people who goes to others ikastolas, and any of them have been punished for speaking spanish, not only that, most of teenagers speak spanish in the playground. So please, before writing those things, inform and contrast the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.77.236 (talkcontribs)

So you first say it's a policy of eikastolas and then that it's completely false? Either one or another. They're two different anons.
The original text didn't talk about punishment, but if you're playing in spanish, came here with us to play... in basque. With kindy people, gaming, not punishment. It was some kind of project the Basque Country goverment had. It was developed facing the problem you ratify: most of teenagers speak spanish in the playground not basque. Don't know how much has been implanted. Platonides 14:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty confusing, because of broken English.
  • "…any of them have been punished…" is not quite right, and I can't tell just what it means to say. (¿Quiere decir ninguno, unos, o muchos? Sería "none", "some", "many" respectivaments. "Any" no sea posible aquí.)
  • Platonides addition is also confusing. I'm guessing "kindy" means to be either "kind" or "kindly", which are pretty much synonyms. "It was developed facing the problem you ratify": can I assume that this means "It was developed in order to address the problem for which your remarks provide further evidence"? And that "implanted" here means "put into practice"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence above probably was written by someone that had heard something about an isolated case of a Basque-only summer camp in which some children were scolded for speaking Spanish. It was a polemic case but, as far as I know it was totally isolated. Yet the Spanish media usually inflate such things with twisted political intentions. --Sugaar 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ununderstandable sentence

I have removed the following

However, some people whose family was basque, found them treated as foriegners when returned to the basque country

It is too unconcrete and disconnected from the rest of the section. --Error 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

¡Basta Ya!

I've done my best to decipher and rewrite the poorly written description of ¡Basta Ya!, but I must ask:

  1. Why is this translated as "Stop Now!" when the obvious translation is "Enough Already!" Is "Stop Now!" an official English-language name, or simply someone's dubious choice?
  2. Is this a specifically Basque group? If so we should say so. If not, its relation to this article is a bit tangential. We have articles on the Basque Country, ETA, etc.
  3. I find the decription a bit confusing, even as I rewrote it. If anyone knows much about this group and can write a clearer description, please do.

Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's there to counter-balance euskalherria.info. --Error 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but that doesn't answer any of my questions. - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"¡Basta ya!" should be translated as "Stop now!" This is what this group and the democratic Basque society want ETA to do. They want them to stop killing people... I live in San Sebastian, so I think I'm right. Joul

My question isn't about their goals, it is about the translation of the name. They are not called ¡Parad Ahora! - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Enough Already is the most accurate translation and should be used. Stop Now is secondary school English. Asterion 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, in Spanish, "basta ya" is exactly the same as "para ahora", but they are used in different situations, depending on the grammar of the sentence. "Enough already" is translated into Spanish as "ya es suficiente." I hope you can understand what I mean.
"Enough is enough!" seems more idiomatic. Anyway, I say remove the euskalherria.info and the Basta ya links. They are too specialized for this article. --Error 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Enough is enough!" vs. "Enough already!" may be a dialect issue in English. In my (originally New York Jewish) English "Enough already!" is more colloquial (and it happens to match the Spanish literally), but I suppose that it is a bit non-standard. Let's go with "Enough is enough!" -- Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Reference Converter is still being tested. Apologies for accidental deletion. --Asterion 04:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Should he be one of the faces of "Basque people"? He was only partially Basque in heritage. --Grocer 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like someone agreed. He's been removed. --Grocer 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"An end to repression"

From the article: "Franco's death and the end of his regime saw an end to repression…" Certainly, a great reduction in repression, but whether there was an end to repression is a bit of a point-of-view matter. I'm sure that many Basque nationalists would say otherwise. Can someone suggest a better wording? This is taken up in more detail elsewhere in the article, perhaps some material needs to be moved around. - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Repression has continued in form of arbitrary detentions, torture, arbitrary special measures (dispersion) for so-called "political prisioners", restrictions to the right of demonstration, strike, to free press or to democratic participation in elections, paramilitary organizations, etc.
But I've done enough for today in this article. Maybe tomorrow. --Sugaar 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Population

I haven't been keeping up on all the changes to this article, but I note that with no citation given the 1993 population estimate for Basques in France was dropped from 730,000 to 250,000 and the number of French-speaking monoglots from 654,000 to 150,000. Since no source was given for any of these numbers, there is little I can do other than to point out the discrepancy. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

What is the basis for capitalizing the Spanish vascos and vascongados. I see that an explicit note not to do so has been removed. I am unaware of any case where Spanish-language orthography capitalizes the name of a nationality or ethnicity. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"One frequent theory", "it is now believed", "there is another theory", etc. No citations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You know: many Spaniards mingling around. It's like Turks when talking of Kurdistan or Armenia... they know near to nothing but pretend to know all. Crazy.
I've cleaned up the Origins section a bit, trying to respect the plurality of hypothesis but giving the weight it deserves to the Aurignacian theory. --Sugaar 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lifestyle"

"…the Basques lost their lifestyle, which was dependent on trade with the Roman Empire." "Lifestyle", a word of very recent origin, seems to me to be very out of place here. I'd choose "way of life". - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive edits, no citations

In general, over the last three weeks or so, there have been massive changes to the article, with almost no citations provided. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Daguerre?

Was Daguerre basque? Wikipedia says he was born near Paris...has Euskal Herria grown northwards lately?

Agirre is a Basque surname. One'd have to track his ancestry. --Error 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
He wasn't Basque as far as I know, no more than Che Guevara (he seemingly had Basque ancestry). --Sugaar 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)