Talk:Basques/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Red Hair?

I've heard multiple pieces of anecdotal evidence that the Basque people have a (relatively) high frequency of redheads. This is usually brought up as evidence that the Basques are more related to the Irish/Scottish as opposed to the Spanish, but I've been unable to find legitimate confirmation of this. Does anyone have insights into this? And sorry if this is wasting time/space, but if it turns out to be true might it be worth mentioning? Executive Outcomes (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Never seen a Basque redhead in all my time. The sterotype is short, swarthy, dark curly hair. Not redhead. So waste of time I'd say. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I was starting to get the idea, but was just looking for confirmation. Thanks for the info though and I apologize for the dumb question. Executive Outcomes (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There are no dumb questions, especially not when brought up politely on the talk page ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Akerbeltz (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


The sterotype, what ridiculous comments. The average young Spaniard, and the average young Basque, is even taller that the average Briton when science is called and not stupid propaganda.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

By the way, the basketball world champions are Spain. Here you have some more int3eresting information:

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12501087

From there I cut and pasted this:

"The improvement in Spaniards’ lives is instantly visible. Many elderly people are short, stunted by the hunger they suffered as children in the hard years of fascist autarky after Franco won the civil war of 1936-39. Young Spaniards are strikingly taller than their grandparents, exemplified by Pau Gasol, who measures seven feet (2.13 metres) and was voted the most valuable player when Spain won the latest world basketball championship."


About curly hair, another ignorant comment. One does wonder where so many stupid people come from. About being swarthy, see another piece of modern science:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

When science is called and not stupid stereotypes again, Spaniards' skins, Basques included and excluding the effects of tanning, have even lighter skin than the Irish or the Belgians.

And about the Basques being genetically different from the rest of the Spanish, another piece of myth being proven wrong. See:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/basques-are-not-genetic-isolate.html

So, I hope that more serious contributions will be seen here and about the red hair issue, of course there are Basques and other Iberians with red hair, but they are rare (by the way they could be killed in the middle ages because they were thought to be damned). Most people in the Basque region and Spain have dark hair and brown eyes though. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.86 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The role of religion in Basque culture

Recent edits involve religion in Basque culture. Specifically the addition of atheism and agnosticism as significant. While I am sure that these are privately held beliefs, or the lack thereof, in any culture, I am dubious about the addition of these as significant features of contemporary or historical Basque culture. Please compare to how religion is handled in the article about Modern Celts, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Celts#Religion I'm certain that atheism and agnosticism are also present among the beliefs there, along with some percentage of each of the world's various religious traditions. But as a cultural influence the role of Catholicism as a cultural influence is objectively without dispute. Notable conflicting religious traditions should be included, but what is the degree of significance of atheism and agnosticism in contemporary or historical Basque culture? What is the context of including these? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Demographics of Spain page lists Spain as having 17.2% agnostics or atheisits. In a formerly highly catholic country, that alone is not an insignificant fact. Other pages of a similar kind, such as Scottish people also list these in the "religion" box. I don't think a particular faith or non-faith has to exert a particular influence to be of encyclopedic noteworthyness. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE the PICTURE of a non representative element

PLEASE DELETE the PICTURE of FERNANDEZ, this rural element, and put more elegant and beautiful one with basque lastname, also because Fernandez is a castilian or/and asturian lastname, and there are more elegant and beautiful basque women with basque lastname like Máxima Zorreguieta, Izaro Iraeta, Anne Igartiburu, Natalia Zabala,Olatz Lizarralde, Elene Lizarralde, Olatz Celaya, Garaicorta,Iratxe Elorriaga, Andrea Arrizabalaga,Patricia Manterola, Nerea Garmendia or even Spanish science minister Cristina Garmendia. Thanks and enjoy those hotties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.245.214 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Lacking Proper Key

The image labeled "Classification of population according to cultural identity" has no key to indicate what these displayed percentages represent. The key on the image simply gives the numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.141 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AS PER MY KNOWLEDGE BASQUE PEOPLE WERE SEA WORTHY PEOPLE & SIMON BOLIVAR WAS ALSO BASQUE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.39.186 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Euzkadi vs Euskadi

The reason "discredited" is the correct term to use is as follows. Arana invented the Euskadi/Euzkadi term himself, prior to that, the only recorded name for the Basque Country in Basque was Euskal Herria (spelled variously Euscal (H)erria/Euskal (H)erria. But not with z. Sabino Arana was a hobby etymologist, apart from other things and was convinced the root Eusk- was derived from the same root as eguzki "sun" (which even by then was commonly spelled with a z. So, trying to promote the idea that the Basques deem themselves "people of the sun", he chose to spell his new name for the country Euzkadi.

Now, while the term itself has stuck, his etymology is by now discredited, i.e. we may not know exactly what the root of Eusk- is but we know it's not eguzki (check Trask 1995 for a good summation of the argument). So except for die-hard Aranists, no-one spells it Euzkadi anymore. So it is definitely discredited, perhaps discredited and disused but the point is, people don't use it anymore because they have realised it was plain wrong. Make more sense now? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The word Euzkadi comes from Arana as you know.Ok. Nowadays, is used mostly like 'Euskadi' instead of 'Euzkadi', because 'Euskadi' is the official name of the autonomous community of the basque country (in Spain). So, 'Euzkadi' can be misused but not discredited,do not be 'die-hard' because if it were discredited the word 'Euskadi' it will no longer be in use,because both are the same word with an update or fashion in the spelling or ortography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.195.77 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in the infobox

Those numbers are heavily blown up. First of all, if you count all the given numbers, it's not even close to 18,000,000. Second, the numbers given for Basque Country and Navarre are total population numbers, not Basques. And, for the so called diaspora numbers, there are no references. This numbers should be corrected using proper references. I noticed that adherents.com says that there are only 1,000,000 Basques in Europe [1], while this infobox shows more than 2,500,000. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting to tidy. I can't remember on how to do a footnote in an infobox; I think we should add one which states "that these figures are population figures, which are broadly indicative of the numbers but not identical to ethnicity" - but they'll have to do casue I don't think there are any precise figures stating how many of these are ethnically Basque. Hard to define anyway. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a big of a war breaking out over the diaspora numbers. I saw the IP edit but actually I sort of agreed with it which is why I didn't revert. The numbers have been tagged for refs going back to 2007!! Are there any rules about things missing tags for that length of time? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Official?

"Knowledge of Spanish and Basque are equally compulsory according to the Spanish constitution, and virtually universal"

Well, yes, Basque is official in the Basque Country, equally compulsory, oh Jesus Christ, would I be happy if that were true! the Spanish constitution says you MUST speak Spanish, as to the Basque...universal, that sounds good, the only probleme is that it is not true. The only thing I know is that we have three teaching models, one being completely in Spanish, with some Basque lessons that enable no one to speak it. As to the constitution I very much doubt the word Basque, referred to the language, appears in it. I do not know to what extent some footage could be found but the sentence is clearly misleading for anyone readin it, the Spanish constitution says Basque and Spanish are equally compulsory and universal?, sorry but the person that wrote this had to be kiding, I'd be possitively suprised if someone showed me where it's written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amansemia (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a simple language error by someone not realising that English has long distance binding i.e. that in that senstence, the "universal" can be read to refer to both Basque and Spanish, rather than just Spanish. In some languages, a sentence like that could only refer to Spanish. I tweaked it anyway. Good catch! Akerbeltz (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a good fix, there are so many imprecisions in the wikipedia, many times you have this sensation that it is wrong but can't keep track of everything. Now that's the real status of the Basque language the one pointed by Xabier Armendaritz, keep it up! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Che Guevara??

Why are people like Guevara and Evita Peron listed among the famous Basques picture? They are no more Basque than an NJ guido is Italian. Karpouzi (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"An NJ guido". Got any more ethnic slurs you'd care to share? Puerile. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a complicated issue that hasn't been resolved fully. Looking at their surnames, they appear to have Basque ancestry (Gebara in the case of Che, can't remember Evita's...). There is a problem though since sometimes people adopted European surnames without being ethnically/genetically related. We're aware of the problem and slowly sorting it :) Akerbeltz (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
One should not include them unless it is proven. A mere hint on account of somebody believing to remember from unknown source some connection maybe via their possibly adopted surename is just noting at all. Cut them out, simply. --Manorainjan (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But we already have a specialist admin (slowly) going through the list to make sure only the one's that should be there are there - so let's not be hasty :) Akerbeltz (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And Placide Domingo?? His wikipedia entry makes no mention of any link to anything Basque. As for Eva Peron, etc.. having a Basque name hardly makes you a Basque, especially if you're born on the other side of the world and would never call yourself Basque. I don't expect Bill Clinton or Britney Spears to be listed as 'famous Britons'. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo Embil: his mother was basque from Guetaria (Guipuzcoa) in the Basque Country. His mother was actually Pepita Embil Echaniz , both lastnames basques. Eva 'Peron' was actually Eva Duarte Ibarguren , daughter of Juan Duarte and Juana Ibarguren, both of basque origin. And Guevara is one of the oldest noble family of the provinc of Araba(Alava) in the Basque Country. This information is available in wikipedia. So, Vauxhall1964 and Karpouzi, you'd better write in another section or read at least wikipedia information, before saying nonsense,because your knowledge about basques is pathetic. I am sorry. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.114.170 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Without getting too deeply into this one, it's a problem but not quite as daft as you may suggest. The rules in international sports for example are equally - well - odd. In order to play on the X national rugby team for example there's all sorts of weird rules about how to qualify and how many grannies back it's ok to call yourself an X. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So a person in America who has Han-Chinese ancestry is not more Han-Chinese than a NJ gudio is Italian also, right? When does a person of Han-Chinese ancestry cease being Han-Chinese? A lot of Blacks in North And South America say that they are Africans. Go tell an afrocentric he's not African because he was born in America or Brazil. And a last name could tell you a lot about a person's ancestry, as long it's not a slave name or it changed. Evita was a Basque ethnically and Che has basque and Irish in his bloodline. Don't know if he self identified as a Basque. But if we use your argument, a lot of members in the Italian mafia is not Italian. John Gotti is not Italian and so on. Secret killer (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Italian Americans you offer by way of comparison are i) typically first- or second-generation Italian immigrants, and ii) not included in the Infobox for Italian people, which very sensibly displays Italians from Italy. To declare Basque identity by fiat, on people with only the slightest Basque ancestry, who never spoke the language, who did not consider themselves Basque, who never even set foot in Spain, is a baffling move and suspect in the extreme. For instance, only one of Guevara's four grandparents bore a name of Basque origin; and probably only one of eight great-grandparents, etc. What if we were to find the odd Danish, or Greek, or German name in his genealogy? Would Guevara then adorn the Infobox of half the nationalities of Europe? Bolivar's slightly better in that there is a second Basque name among his great-grandparents, Aguirre, but once again we're talking about a family that had been American for two centuries and included Pontes, Martínez de Villegas', Maríns, etc. So if "Basque people" actually means "any person, anywhere in the world, with a single Basque ancestor" then I believe I qualify and will upload my photograph forthwith. Albrecht (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Albrecht you reek of ignorance. First, you don't even know if they did or didn't speak the Basque language or if they did or didn't considered themselves Basque. Second, Basque Country is not only in Spain. And what does stepping into a country have anything to do with ethnicity or ancestry?

He does not have German, Danish, or Greek ancestry from what we know of and it is probably unlikely that he does, so are you done with making speculations about another people's ancestry? Guevara is of mixed Basque, Spanish and Irish ancestry that is nothing new. Now that you are done babbling I can gladly tell you why Che is here. Che is here for the simply reason that he has Basque ancestry and the person who made the collage put him there. Just like the same reason Jack Kerouac is on the Breton people page or Helga Pedersen is on the Sami people page. It's not so hard to grasp. A person does not have to live in the Basque country to be Basque just like a Han-Chinese does not have to live in China to be Han-Chinese.

"I believe I qualify and will upload my photograph forthwith."

No for the simple reason that no body knows who you are. Secret killer (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this seems to be a long-running discussion on the picture there of Basque famous people, which turns out totally misleading to say the least, if not flawed. I agree, there are many people on show there who have nothing to do with being Basque. The "Basque blood in your veins" argument has long been ruled out as a defining characteristic of Basqueness, while there are still people who see a Basque surname, feel nostalgic (many of whom are not Basque) and think that person should be Basque. Well no, they may have one Basque ancestry, maybe, but (s)he IS NOT Basque. Manu Chao is not Basque, no matter how much you or I like his music, sorry Bolivar was not Basque, nor Che Guevara. So my vote is to erase the picture or to alter it. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. Still, comparing with French people and Spanish people, that type of collage seems to be common. I think we should have a brief debate about who would be appropriate and then do a new collage, should be easy enough. Personally I'd say no one listed on the People with Basque ancestors page and ideally such that might be known outside the Basque country, people like Miguel Indurain, José María Olazábal et al. There's not too much point in having only people every Basque schoolchild knows but that no one else will recognise. On the Basque wiki that might be different but the English wiki has a different target audience. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems there's a verb missing or something in the 3rd sentence. Well, the ones in Spanish and French people look fine to me, they are all recognisable characters. Frankly, I don't see the point of People with Basque ancestors. I agree with you that the people depicted should be recognisable to a bigger audience, and yes, there's a debate to be done about who's Basque for the picture, I'll start a section apart below as a follow-up to this. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

West Europeans are genetically "Basque".

In the *Genetics* section I added:

"It seems quite obvious that Basque was the original language of R1b1b2 haplogroup, while most of its' members shifted to the "Indo-European" languages of R1a1a haplogroup. In other words, it can be put that most West Europeans are genetically "Basque"."

User:Akerbeltz reverted it on the grounds of "tying a language to genes is so controversial".

I would like to clear it out.

I am not "tying a language to genes". Quite the opposite, I am saying how groups belonging to specific haplogroups changed their languages during the course of pre-history and history. I hope you won't object that specific pre-historic communities belonged to specific haplogroups and spoke specific languages???

There are a lot of works on this subject. I have no time to look for them.

But I advise to take this seriously and include this info in some form. СЛУЖБА (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're doing but unfortunately, due to their unique status in Europe the Basque and any topic related attract both controvery, fascination and crackpot theories. Not saying at all what you meant to add is crazy but it's just so likely to be contended by loads of people that the only way of making sure it stays there is by a) making the meaning very clear and b) reffing it up to the hilt. It's just one of "those" topics on Wikipeda that really need serious referencing, even if it's time consuming. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but unfortunately, I don't think I'll find time. There are many studies on this, so I urge those interested to make something out of it. СЛУЖБА (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Akerbeltz justified the removal of material in question because it had "no ref, and tying a language to genes is so controversial it would need a raft of refs". I agree with the removal. I doubt you'd find any reference-raft that's robust and buoyant enough to support such heftily controversial statements. And while of course you're welcome to try, I'd not recommend it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you a DNA-genealogist?
The Basque language descends from the bearers of which haplogroup, in your opinion?
If Basques (about 92% R1b1b2, highest % anywhere) speak the Basque language, then it came from which haplogroup?
If most West Europeans are also R1b1b2, then which language they have spoken in pre-history?
Especially taking into account that "Indo-European" languages are and were mostly spoken by populations belonging to other haplogroups. СЛУЖБА (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, just because it's likely or possible doesn't make it true. Languages can jump populations rapidly, without much in the way of genetic change. You may still be able to genetically identify Aynu people but linguistically, they're all Japanese. There is NOTHING in a gene that reliably indicates the nature of the language spoken that we know of to date. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You're correct. But that's actually what I'm saying/
The mayority of people who spoke languages related to Basque now speak completely different languages.
But if Basque language exists, it couldn't have just fallen from the skies. There should have been some population that should have spoken a related language in prehistory.
Because Basques the highest percentsge of R1b1b2 in the World (nearly 100%), and we know that the "Indo-European" languages, that most R1b1b2 in Europe speak now, in prehistory correspond better with R1a1a, it is very very likely that most R1b1b2 spoke a Basque-related language in prehistory.
Because, from whom else could it have come? СЛУЖБА (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't have time to take this kind of thing seriously. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The redaction of the language section is a bit tricky. I want to take out the reference to Iruña-Veleia, as it was a shameful fake that is better forgoten. I would be OK if I delete it?. Also, I would like to point out that, during the roman times, they would have not spoken basque as we understand it today, but a language of the family, or an archaic form related both to basque an aquitanian.

There are some parts of the text that feel... odd. Like the reference to the thirty thousand years, that sort of thing. We could do with a bit more of sobriety, I think.

About the R1b discussion thing... languages do change and evolve during the milennia, I would recommend not to oversimplificate there. It leads to weird things in the articles. Leirus (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have entered two of the changes you suggest, Leirus, as I agree with them. I don't know what you're talking about when you mention that "reference to the thirty thousand years," so I can't help with that. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 19:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way — Iruña-Veleia is in bad need of a thorough edition to enter references of the experts' reports. Their severe conclusions are perfectly summarized — a case of forgery — but it would be better to quote the experts and not the newspapers. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I haven't followed the whole Iruña-Veleia saga close-up but don't think the conclusions on Iruña-Veleia are so definite, in my view certain "quarantine" and a good explanation of the issue should apply to the subject, since the two positions, quite serious and scientific, stand their ground. This controversy belongs to the Iruña-Veleia article, one that needs a good overhaul and a proper approach. The one now is based on quick Spanish newspaper articles with a politically driven bias. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to say that those Basque writings that "appeared" in a Roman house had any chance to be nothing but 21st century writings — but, as far as I've read about that (and I've read quite a lot), on the one hand there are reports by the most reputed specialists, published in the most serious specialized revues, and nowadays they all say that those "findings" are impossible. On the other hand, we have some people which either aren't specialists, have fabricated their specialist titles or are against the mainstream in their field, that haven't published their reports in any serious publication (or, if so, they have published them before the first thourough reports in 2008), and they say that maybe this writings could be true. So I see no two serious positions in that issue. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 11:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Basque people?

Following up the above discussion on the characters appearing in the picture featuring Basque people (Che Guevara??), the debate is open to erase people from the picture and create a new one. Some people cannot be identified as Basque (Manu Chao, Eva Perón, Che Guevara, etc.), so my position is for the whole picture to be erased or fashion a new one. I wait for further contributions. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kaixo, Iñaki! I agree with you that this picture is not as good as it could be — those people you have mentioned can hardly be identified as Basque, although they do have Basque ancestors. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's a good idea erasing it right now. After all, most of the people there is definitely Basque. So I'd prefer to have an alternative improved version (or versions), before taking this picture out... (And, sorry, I'm not good at graphic design.)
Perhaps we could give a ten-day period: if no better alternative appears, we erase this picture. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, ados, actually I noticed the picture long months ago, so in no hurry to erase it right now, the thing is I'd like to get it over and done with this time. The same, I'm not the person to edit the picture, hope there's someone willing to contribute! Cheers Iñaki LL (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's start a list (insert comments above the list?) below on likely candidates? I wonder if there's a way of using thumbnails rather than a collage so we can link from each pic? Anyway I'd propose: Akerbeltz (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, off the top of my head, I would add the ones below. Later, we will need to shortlist.

Iñaki LL (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any room for a linguist? Koldo Mitxelena is the biggest one ever, regarding the Basque language. I've just uploaded a portrait. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found any picture of Chillida, but I'm uploading right now one of Balenciaga. Regarding Mitxelena — I've just read the criteria you suggest above, Akerbeltz, and I must recognize that he definitely isn't popular outside the Basque Country, except among scholars... so my candidate is not a good one, sorry. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice re Balenciaga - agree about Mitxelena... but then I never suggested him, or did I? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I was impulsive enough to make that mad suggestion of Mitxelena. ;)
I was waiting for the Commons reviewers to approve the picture of Balenciaga that I uploaded from Flickr, just in case (sometimes there are copyright problems), and I see that they have given the approval, so I'm putting the picture in the Balenciaga article right now. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 12:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, may I add Julian Gayarre the tenor, that would make 22 people. I have noticed that there is John Garamendi too, so 23. I don't know if this last sparks doubts about his Basque identity or what his relationship is to it, don't know much about him. I thought a shortlist would be needed but we can fit 21 in the overall picture (we can choose two of lesser important out), what do you think? As for the pictures, I found out one on flicker about Etchegaray and Dave Bieter, the one about Sancho III is not great definitely but it will do... Iñaki LL (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the Basque Hall of Fame by the Society of Basque Studies in America that appears in the middle of this article. You'll find John Garamendi and some others of the mentioned above. I'm not saying that we should include all of them (most of them aren't worth including, indeed), but perhaps that list may give you a clue about a few more (I don't know which could be famous for USA or UK people). --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok now we're broadly (we can always finetune) agreed on the choice, the question is collage or thumbnails with links? the latter appeals to me more to be honest but I'm not sure if it can be done. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen two ways of using thumbnails: Arab citizens of Israel and Template:Infobox Jews. Both ways would need a shorter list of people, specially the second one.
On the other hand, a few more links favouring the basqueness of John Garamendi: [2], [3], [4]. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, great search for a picture template and Garamendi, that will help! I will add, another person, a must from an Anglo-Saxon take as far as I see it, Pete T. Cenarrusa, no doubts about his Basque identity. Ok, now we have 24 altogether, including Garamendi and Pete T. Cenarrusa. I would go for the thumbnails instead of collage. So we have to put together the overall picture, any takers? I think we have all the pictures. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you, as a member of the Basque diaspora, long before the current and factual reputation of John Garamendi, Laxalt brothers (Paul and Robert) have always been the most recognized people in the community, especially Paul. Why this discussion could not be moved here. By chance I came to this page. ---- Zorion blabla 02:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kaixo Zorion. I've just wrote a note there, so people can come to discuss here. I think this is the best place to discuss, because we are talking about a version of the picture localized for English speaking people.
Regarding the Laxalt brothers, I think that we have enough Basque USA people with Cenarrusa and Garamendi — but we could replace any of them if the Laxalt brothers are more famous now among English speaking people (I don't think so, but as I wrote before I'm quite ignorant in that topic). --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 09:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been doing some tests and I think that I'll be able to arrange the overall picture. Just give me a week to collect and edit all these images. I'll do three drafts: one collage with 24 pics (may I suggest Jorge Oteiza instead of Chillida? I haven't found any picture of Chillida without copyright issues), a group of 24 separate thumbnails (this way we can link from each pic, but the edges will be irregular), and a collage of just 4 pictures (I'm thinking of Ignatius of Loyola, Dolores Ibárruri, Pete T. Cenarrusa and Edurne Pasaban, for example), so we can see which makes the best option. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ados Xabier. About Chillida's picture, that's a shame, he's got a wider international acclaim than Oteiza but it will do given the circumstances. Let me know if you need a search or any specific question I can answer. Jaso agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko zure eskaintzarengatik, Iñaki! Well, here comes my first help request: could you put here those 24 names in 4 rows? I was doubting which criteria would be best to choose an order... If you could write them here in four rows of six names each, according to the order that you consider the best one (no problem to change it later on, but I'd prefer to work with a good starting point), that would be very helpful. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I read Zorion's note, I don't where to fit one of the Laxalts here, maybe substitute another American character. Akerbeltz, what do you think? I don't see any specific order for the picture, just "add to the recipient and shake it", but if this helps here is a suggestion:

Miguel Indurain, José María Olazábal, Dolores Ibárruri, Bernardo Atxaga, Jorge Oteiza, Cristóbal Balenciaga

Léopold Eyharts, Xabi Alonso, Imanol Harinordoquy, Ignatius of Loyola, Juan Sebastián Elcano, Tomás de Zumalacárregui

Pablo de Sarasate, Antoine Thomson d'Abbadie, Edurne Pasaban, Fausto Elhuyar, Lope de Aguirre, Francis Xavier

David H. Bieter, Roger Etchegaray, Sancho III the Great, John Garamendi, Julian Gayarre, Pete T. Cenarrusa

Iñaki LL (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For any specific order, go by date of birth. I would suggest you to remove David H. Bieter or Pete T. Cenarrusa to make some room. Remember most people of the Basque diaspora coming from Argentina.
Besides having a Basque name and be born in Euskal Herria, Miguel Indurain and Léopold Eyharts have never expressed, as far as I can remember, the desire to belong or an awareness of their Basqueness.
And except Antoine Thomson d'Abbadie, where are the academics on this list and other anthropologists and historians like Koldo Mitxelena and Resurrección María de Azkue. Here are some comments or suggestions. ---- Zorion blabla 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Eskerrik asko, Iñaki! That'll be very helpful. I've already cut out the pics of Balenciaga and Oteiza (so that their faces are visible in thumbnails). It was my intention to do this little by little, row by row... But let's see if we have a consensus first.
Regarding the people already selected:
  1. They've been selected because they're notorious for English speaking people — I think Mitxelena and Azkue aren't.
  2. Regarding Indurain and Eyharts — I think that they have undoubtedly a Basque cultural background, that they are ethnically Basque. They've been grown up in the Basque Country, in Basque families, and in villages where the Basque culture is alive. Eyharts proudly shows his Biarritz Olympique shirt even in the space (and BO is one of the most Basque sports teams I know); Indurain is very reserved regarding any political issue (and Basque issues have been very heavily politized — no proof needed, I think), but he has publicly shown support to (his own) Basque culture in events such as Nafarroa Oinez (see his name mentioned in this section of the Nafarroa Oiñez article in Spanish Wikipedia — not a publication keen to emphasize anyone's Basque ethnicity ;))).
I have seen that you did the previous collage-picture, Zorion. Perhaps you have some material from that work, or some software that would do this more quickly than I could? If so, I'm not intending to hog all the work, feel free to claim any part you want. ;)))
Anyway, don't feel obliged, I'm enjoying doing this job — it's so different from my professional tasks. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a far clearer link regarding Eyharts' Basque ethnicity — now, from English Wikipedia. Let me quote: "The only minority participation is Léopold Eyharts, who belongs to the Basque ethnic group." --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be in conflict with your approach but I disapprove your initiative. To make a photo of the Basques for WP euskaraz or any other language could seem justifiable, but on the English WP, it is NOT just for English speakers, but also for the whole world. You know the resonance of the English language today and its impact. You want to illustrates unknown person of obscure repute and not add Koldo, which I think is an authority, a leading expert, adorned me to be an exercise that I do not endorse. The objective that has to aim should be ‘Who are the best-known Basques (Euskaldunak, euskotarrak) ?’, and not ‘the most known by the English speakers’. As for Indurain, he seems now to have his square. By the way, don't forget that Paul Laxalt is one of the most illustrious Basque in North America.
If you're at all agree with me, I'm ready to change some people on this photo. I had even removed Paul Laxalt and others to make it more representative. Otherwise, I wish you good luck. ---- Zorion blabla 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned I agree with Xabier overall, not that I don't appreciate Koldo Mitxelena and his work (just the opposite), but it's got to have an international significance and be relevant in the Anglo-Saxon/English speaking world if possible. I see the point about Laxalt (Paul, if he's the most widely recognised) and I'm willing to substitute him for another American (USA) character, say Dave E. Bieter. I think the picture is pretty complete now and I'd try the linked thumbnail approach as agreed above if you Xabier are up to it. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a confusion on my side — I've re-read the proposal of Akerbeltz and this was it: "ideally such that might be known outside the Basque country, people like Miguel Indurain, José María Olazábal et al. There's not too much point in having only people every Basque schoolchild knows but that no one else will recognise." (The source is above, in a previous section of this page.)
I thought this was a wise approach when I read it some days ago, and I still think so. Not localizing the list for English-speakers (as I wrongly wrote), but universalizing it for the whole world. I must have got confused with my own professional task (I'm localizing some texts for the Basque Country).
So I think that Mitxelena and Azkue remain out — they are not known outside the Basque Country (except for scholars). I really appreciate the huge work of both of them, specially Mitxelena; you can see that my unconscious impulsed me to put him in the list... but despite his enormous contributions as a linguist, he is not famous, I must reckon. I wish he was!
Which do you think that are "unknown person of obscure repute"? Do you refer to any particular people in the list we are talking about? --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, here is the list of people I've never ever heard of and which ones are on your list : Dolores Ibárruri, Pablo de Sarasate, Fausto Elhuyar, David H. Bieter. I'm probably not educated enough. About Léopold Eyharts, Xabi Alonso, Imanol Harinordoquy and Edurne Pasaban I know them recently through newspapers (Players come and go) . And here are people I think with a worldwide reputation : Maurice Ravel, Bixente Lizarazu, Sabino Arana Goiri and Miguel de Unamuno. Just to let you know. I will not interfere in your project right now. ;) Agur ---- Zorion blabla 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my opinion on Zorion's suggestions:
  • Dolores Ibárruri: I think she must stay. See in how many languages she has her article in Wikipedia — she was really famous in the whole world in her lifetime, and she still is.
  • Pablo de Sarasate: same as Dolores.
  • Fausto Elhuyar, and David H. Bieter: I agree with Zorion that they aren't famous enough.
  • Léopold Eyharts, Xabi Alonso, Imanol Harinordoquy and Edurne Pasaban: they are very famous at the moment, so they must remain. But maybe we will take them out in a few years…
  • Maurice Ravel was of Basque descent, but — according — not of Basque ethnicity. His family moved to Paris a few months after his birth, and he did not return to the Basque Country until he was 25, his ties with Basque culture being apparently quite weak (apart from having a mother of Basque and Spanish descent that apparently didn't transmit to him Basque culture). and, as I have verified in his Wikipedia article in French, English and Spanish, it is doubtful whether his mother transmitted to him her Basque culture, but it is unquestionable that he developed strong ties with the Basque culture from 25 years on and, overall, Basque heritage was a strong influence on his life and music — so I support this suggestion by Zorion.
  • Bixente Lizarazu was very famous, but, you know, only the very few top footballers remain famous some years after retirement... (so, probably, Alonso'll be replaced in this list in a few years).
  • Sabino Arana Goiri: we could put him instead of Elhuyar or Bieter.
  • Miguel de Unamuno was definitely of Basque ethnicity when young, but he gradually became a convinced Spanish nationalist and he turned his back on everything Basque. Perhaps we could consider that he remained 33% or 22% Basque (you know, multiple ethnicities do coexist in one single individual), but I see this controversial... so I wouldn't put him in the list.
If you agree with all that, that would leave us with 23 people... I suggest Pío Baroja, to complete the list of 24. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC) there we have our complete list of 24. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 09:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The question is it has to be a certain balance in time, gender and international and national reputation, so for the new proposals, as I pointed above, I'm Ok with removing Bieter, while I insist that a discrimination in favour of English speaking Basque people should prevail, as far as they are relevant to them. For us, the Basques, the mayor of Boise doesn't mean much, not a great feat maybe, while for an American or English speaking reader it's something relevant, especially if they didn't even know what the Basques are, sorry we are at this stage at the moment. As for the football players, I stick to Alonso since he's widely known currently in the UK. About Ravel, I had my doubts when I fashioned the Basque music article. He was aware of his childhood in Ziburu (playing pelota there in summer holidays, etc.) and was close to the Basqueness of the place, stating for one "Ziburu, the place the French call Ciboure" (off the top of my head), but other than that I can't find more Basque references in his life. Elhuyar is universal and recognisable, he discovered the isolation of tungsten (aka, Wolfram, important for the steel industry). There is this debate about his Basqueness, Akerbeltz knows well, but I don't know much about his bio. So I wouldn't move the list much, feel free about Bieter. Goraintzi Iñaki LL (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, if we need a Basque scientific in the list to balance it, I agree that Elhuyar is the most prominent one. Regarding Ravel, looking at English, French and Spanish Wikipedia articles, his connection to Basque culture played a leading role in his musical production... so I don't see so clear that he should stay away from this list. Anyway, I reckon that there are different points of view on the matter. I tend to be inclusive: if somebody is proud of her/his Basque culture — and, according to the data published in the Wikipedia, it is clear that Ravel did entered into the Basque culture and did use it for his musical production — I would consider her/him Basque, no matter that she/he had access also to other cultures and ethnicities. So I would include Ravel instead of Bieter, if that makes some kind of consensus (it's clear that we all will have to give way up to a certain point, if we want to reach an agreement). What do you opine, Akerbeltz? --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me back up the Basqueness of Maurice Ravel with some quotes from the articles on him in English, French and Spanish wikipedias:

  • English (I'll quote the original source mentioned in the most clarifying parts of this issue; please pay attention to paragraph no. 3):
  1. "Ravel was very fond of his mother, and her Basque heritage was a strong influence on his life and music. Among his earliest memories are folk songs she sang to him." (Orenstein, Arbie (1991). Ravel: man and musician. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0486266338. Page 8.)
  2. "Ravel composed his Piano Trio (for piano, violin, and cello) with its Basque themes."
  3. "For him, Basque music was influential. He intended to write an earlier concerto, Zazpiak Bat, but it was never finished. The title is a result of his Basque heritage: meaning 'The Seven Are One', it refers to the seven Basque regions, and was a motto often used in association with the idea of a Basque nation." (James, Burnett (1987). Ravel. Omnibus Press. ISBN 9780711909878.) "Instead, Ravel abandoned the piece, using its nationalistic themes and rhythms in some of his other pieces." (Orenstein, Arbie (1991). Ravel: man and musician. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0486266338. Page 190.)
  • French (it remarks the Spanish influence once and again, and emphasizes the weakness of the Basque one, but finally reckons that Basque influence is very important in Ravel):
    • "L’influence notoire jouée sur son imaginaire musical par le Pays basque (Trio en la mineur) [...]"
  • Spanish (it is a translation of the French article, or the other way around, so it remarks the Spanish influence once and again, and emphasizes the weakness of the Basque one, but finally reckons that Basque influence is very important in Ravel):
    • "La notoria influencia que tuvo sobre su imaginario musical el País Vasco (Trío en la menor) [...]"

I think that we have a very strong basis to consider that Ravel is of Basque ethnicity, specially on the field that made him famous: the music. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't think that's a lot to say, someone can have a strong influence from certain memories of his in some periods of his creative life, because he had stayed in one place or another, but that doesn't determine whoever's identity. I haven't got a set view about this, and you see, I included myself Ravel in Basque music, so I'd better keep my lips sealed:) Feel free to include him instead of Bieter and let's proceed:) Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think for reasons of stability we should shy away from people whose identity will likely be questioned by a large number of people. There will always be nutters who will question if Basque exist at all, but I don't think we want a debate every 3 months about why Ravel is on the picture and if he really should be there. It would just cost too much time. I'm fine with Elhuyar, at least scientists might know him as the discoverer of Tungsten. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Near-consensus list

Good point, Akerbeltz. It's true that there are strong controversies on Ravel's Basque ethnicity, so if you both don't see it so clear, I agree that we should avoid future controversies and not put him in the list.

So now we have this list (I've just taken out Bieter from the list made by Iñaki some dozens lines of text up):

We would need to add one more to the last row, so that we have four symmetrical rows of six people each. Of all possible candidates mentioned above, I would choose any of these:

  • Sabino Arana Goiri, because we have not included any nationalist Basque politician so far.
  • Pío Baroja, a writer. Maybe could be controversial because he wrote in Spanish and not in Basque, although the Basque culture is always present in his texts...

Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about that, and would vote for any candidate who has a better election manifesto. ;)

What do you all think? --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about Arana, it would be a tad unbalanced if we added just him and thinking of the English speaking world, no one knows him. I'd be fine with Baroja, Akerbeltz (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's get it over and done with, I'm fine with Baroja. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so this is the definitive list:

I'll be looking for the best pics and cutting them out for the two draft versions (collage and thumbnails) throughout this week. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Draft image

Finally I found an available picture of Chillida and uploaded it to Wikimedia — in exchange, no picture of Etchegaray is available, so we have 24 people. Perhaps we should have included a chef (for example, Juan Mari Arzak, one of the top chefs in the world). Anyway, here is the draft, I hope you like it.

As written above, it was my intention to make a thumbnails version... but that's far more work than I thought. So I'm not going to do any thumbnails version, sorry.

Anyway, I'm ready to make any change we decide here to this picture above. In the meantime, I propose to put it instead of the present picture — I think it's better, for the reasons stated above by Iñaki (doubtful Basque ethnicity of some people, etcetera). --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kaixo Xabier, it's a shame about Etchegaray, I can't find a picture of his right now, I did find it in the time I brought him up, in Flickr I think... Lan ederra hartu duzu motel, and great picture of Sancho III the Great by the way, well done! Iñaki LL (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Eskerrik asko, Iñaki! There are some pictures of Etchegaray in Flickr, but they are all under copyright licenses that won't allow to be used in Commons. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 17:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology section seems to me to have a missing link. The English word is traced back to Latin, and over on the Basque language page, this is traced back further to Greek ουασκωνους. Then the Basque form Euskara is discussed, traced back to theoretical Old Basque origins. But the two are not connected and the reader is left thinking that they are two separate word-histories. However, the Greek ουασκωνους sounds so much like Euskara that I strongly suspect they have the same etonym. I am guessing that the Greek is just an ancient Helenization of Euskara, or rather, of its ancient Basque root. If someone who actually knows about Basque (I don't) can confirm this, then it should be made explicit in the article. And in that case, the section should be turned round, and should deal first with the etymology of Euskara and then draw other languages, including English, into the discussion. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are two separate "possible" histories, one ultimately derived from the verb enautsi, the other via an ethnonym. That's the thing with etymlogies, they go so far back that sometime you just have to be honest and say, it could be either, we just don't know (yet). The fact that modern Euskera/Euskara bears a semblance to the attested ουασκωνους is interesting but in itself not proof. Based on modern forms, the Hopi could be from Hebei ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I asked for someone with the right books to check it. But note that this is a separate question from the etymology of Euskara; as with most ethnic names, an ultimate etymology is probably not going to be forthcoming. But it was quite common for ethnic names from all over the place (keltoi is an obvious example) to be recorded first in Greek and have a transmission from there which is parallel to, but independent of the transmission in their original language contexts. I still strongly suspect that this is an example of that. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just re-reading the section; it was fine at one point but so many people much about on the Basque pages... Yes, I see where you're coming from, the paragraphs in that section don't hang together very well at all. I need to finish a translation first, I see if I can make the wording clearer and we'll take it from there. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Population figures

Right, I've been bold and removed all unreferenced population figures and replaced them with the word uncertain. That part of the infobox was getting silly, some carried a "ref needed" tag from 2009!!! If you are going to put numbers back, please find a bona fide reference first, otherwise those numbers are just guesswork. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Akerbeltz, I totally agree, tagged contents can't be there for ever. Iñaki LL (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality - Entire population of Navarre (Spain) considered Basque

Since Navarra is not officially/from an Administration point of view Basque, and the majority of its inhabitants do not consider themselves Basque, how come the entire population of Navarre is considered Basque in the Infobox? This is obviously NOT neutral.

The source in the article comes from a public agency of the neighbouring region (Euskadi - Basque Country) at a time whose government was controlled by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), whose ultimate goal is to create an independent state with all the lands that they consider to be Basque. Obviously their source is going to say that Navarrese people are Basque... --Tocacojines (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The details of that rather complicated issue are covered further down in the article. I think the inclusion of the figure is justified, the way I read it the question of Navarrese vs Basque identity is heavily politicized but from a historical/linguistic angle, the "Vasconic" origin/heritage of both cannot rationally be denied. If the article were called "Vasconic people" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion but unfortunately that's just not what English people call people from that corner of the world.
Or, turning it the other way round, the population figures for Spain include Catalonia, the BAC, Navarre and Galicia, yet we all know that a sizable percentage of people refute any Spanish-ness. Should be therefore deduct them from the total? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Actuallly, you're wrong, I just checked. The 1996 Sociolinguistic Survey included a question on identity and the overall figure for Navarre to the question "Do you consider yourself Basque (Euskal Herritar)" 41% said no, 45% yes, 10% "to some degree". [5] For some reason the question wasn't included in 2006. I'll see if I can find a more recent figure but I doubt the No camp has increased. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks anyway that the tag is calling into question the whole article out of hand. If there is an issue, it should go to where the controversy is, so take it to the demographics or the regions infobox maybe, but I think that if anywhere this belongs to population, main cities and languages section if that remains the contentious point. A sentence can be added there objecting or asserting that fuzzy reality, preferably backed up by a reliable reference and that's your job, Tocacojines. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Proceed to delete POV tag, no reply added to discussion.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed numbers and website

The numbers for Basques people outside the region are backed from the website Euskonews.com. That is hardly an objective source. The POV tag should be re-introduced until the issue is resolved. Politis (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this infobox is not alright definitely. The data are about genealogy, not about actual Basques of course. That's even not POV, it's just a wrong statement, the Euskonews data refer not to Basques, but to some kind of Basque link by surname or family or bond. I wonder how many other references in the Wikipedia were to be deleted if Euskonews were considered POV, a vast amount no doubt. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality: Navarrese as Basque

Dear all: the POV tag was removed with no changes whatsoever. Hence, I removed myself numbers in the infobox considering the Navarrese population as Basque. References were left within the text, to explain that some Basques do see the Navarrese as Basque, and that some Navarrese do see themselves as Basque, but their main ruling party does not. I believe this is far more neutral than the previous version. --Tocacojines (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're factually wrong. The most recent surveys show that the majority of Navarrese people identify as Basque. So, until you can find bona fide references which state the opposite, it would seem you're pushing some personal agenda. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to check facts, to do this I followed the source given for (one of the) contentious issues, that is the number of Basque people in Navarre, which is 508,900 according to the infobox. The source given is "IV. Inkesta Soziolinguistikoa Gobierno Vasco, Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco 2008", I hope this might be this document online : [6]. I opened it, it is in Basque -a language I can alas not read- but I easily found the number 508.900 on page numbered 139 in an array with the legend "16 urte edo gehiagoko biztanleria lurraldearen eta adinaren arabera. Nafarroa, 2006" - I used Google Translate (wow they know Basque) and obtained the following English translation, whose accuracy I can hardly judge : "Population aged 16 and over age group and province. Navarre, 2006". It does not seem to have much in common with the infobox topic (nothing about Basqueness in this array).
No data is better than inaccurate data, especially inaccurate data where a source is betrayed. I have no political agenda, you can write that there are 10000 Basque people in Navarre, that there are 100000 or that there are 500000 but whatever number you choose, it should be sourced by a reliable document. The issues raised by both persons speaking in this dialogue are irrelevant - we are not speaking about what people in Navarre think, but about what reliable sources think. It should probably mean giving an interval, with a low number with a source and a higher number with a source. As far as I see, the only source produced until now is off topic : it separates very young Navarrese dwellers from older Navarrese people, not Basque Navarrese people from non-Basque Navarrese dwellers. French Tourist (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
We've been through this before time and again, and again. Anyway. The most accurate answer I'm aware of is from the 1995/96 sociolinguistic survey [7]. You want page 29, the table at the top, the question asked is Do you consider yourself Basque (Euskalduna) to which the answers are Yes, Somewhat, No and Don't know/Didn't answer. 45% yes, 10% Somewhat and 41% No. That makes the No camp a minority. As to how many people in absolute terms are "Basque" or "Navarrese" (which from an English-speaking point of view is splitting hairs anyway) is unknown and probably impossible to ascertain. Obviously less than the total number but I thought we had a perfectly good footnote explaining that somewhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"As to how many people in absolute terms are "Basque" (...) is unknown and probably impossible to ascertain". Indeed this is likely ; if there are no data available, there should be no data in the infobox - if some of the entries of the Template:Infobox ethnic group cannot be filled, they should not appear, or appear as empty. (But I am not so pessimistic as you are, I guess there might exist more or less approximate estimates, which could be used to insert an interval in the article, as is done in Kurdish people for instance - incidentally I am amazed never to see anywhere an estimate of the number of Basque in France outside the Basque country, or in Spain outside the Basque country and Navarre, I supppose they are not negligible). French Tourist (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, it all hinges on the definition of X. Taking a different example, how many Scots in Scotland? Is that all people living there, people who identify in the census as Scots, people born in Scotland or something else? Scottish people for example doesn't give exact figures either (nor are they referenced to the hilt in all cases) but takes a bit of a common sense approach. I think the same should be taken here, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because NOT giving any idea as to the population of Basques in Navarre is just as silly as claiming that all of the are not Basque or that all are Basque. We could use the 1991 % and therefore say that the number of Basques is somewhere between the low of x% and the high of y% (all people in Navarre). Akerbeltz (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"a bit of a common sense approach". Certainly not ! We are not here to write according to "common sense" but according to reliable sources. What some editor will deem as "common sense" will be considered as WP:Original Research by another. On hot topics, "common sens" is a very poor guide. French Tourist (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bah, then explain to me why we get people breezing through who remove stuff based on their own view of the world without a shred of reliable sources and then it's left to the rest of us to scratch our heads and come up with reliable sources. If Wikipedia did NOT employ a common sense approach, then a great many articles would not exist or have to be deleted very quickly. Toca has not brought a single source to the debate, just his/her own views. Great. I fail to see why that means I need to tie myself in knots. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, you might want to look at WP:Use common sense. Apparently, the concept does exist on Wikipedia. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Akerbeltz. Most of the times there is a threshold, a blur area, on which so many Wikipedia articles fall without references, which doesn´t mean they are invalid out of hand. Actually, most of them remain unaltered because they are either acceptable or move in that blur debatable threshold (and it would take a long discussion!). As for the POV tag, goes without saying, I waited long enough for him to make his case but seemed to quit. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to disagree. Common sense is promoted as a way to find compromises and not to become a slave of unsuitable rules, not as a way to insert content into articles - we are here to synthetise good quality documents, not to give an echo of common knowledge with all its flaws but with no hint of its flaws. See WP:Common knowledge, which gives some examples of informations which can remain unsourced due to their obvious accuracy : "There are seven days in a week.", "A tall spire sits atop the Empire State Building", "January comes before February in the Gregorian calendar". This obviously does not apply to "Total population : 2.6 million in Spain and France". Note that I am not interested to know whether writing this is a POV problem or not, just that it should not be in an article without a precise attribution. French Tourist (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
NOT giving even a rough population figure would be even worse. This is really silly. Even with the best of data on population, we know damn well the figure isn't right. For one thing, census data doesn't count illegal immigrants, yet no one argues about the very precise figure of 58,789,194 in the United Kingdom article when the figure may be out by as much as a million people. Using the 45% "not Basque" figure, we're quibbling over plus/minus 225,000 people at the most. So it's between 2.6 and 2.4 million Basques in France and Spain. Shocking difference. Honestly.
I've stuck approx. in front of the number. Now, can we lay this to rest cause it's really not adding anything to the article? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
In your example about United Kingdom, the very precise figure is not supposed to be the UK population but, as the legend in the infobox reads the result of the "2001 census". This is an accurate information : the result of the 2001 census was 58,789,194, and there is a footnote linking to a documenet which emanates from the "Office for National Statistics". When you replace "2.6 million in Spain and France" by "approx. 2.6 million in Spain and France", you replace an unsourced information by another unsourced information ; this is hardly an improvement (but is not worse either). NOT giving even rough estimates happens on articles about aggregates of people which would be very hard to count ; sourced intervals are more common. I have made a few tests : architect and proletariat do not give any number estimate, Sunnite (redirects to "Sunni Islam") gives a very broad interval from over 75% to 90% of all Muslims., with academic sources ; bisexuality gives results of surveys, but only for the United States ; Hmong people gives a quite broad interval ("4 to 5 million"), with an academic source. Removing unsourced informations is not the common way to proceed (an I have simply added a "reference welcomed" tagged) but would probably be a better choice that leaving an information which is certainly not common-sensical. French Tourist (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 58,789,194 is in the Population box next to 2001 Census. A reader of that page will therefore generally assume that this was the population of the UK in 2001. Unless we speak two different kinds of English that is... And population figures of ethnicities are hardly the same as those for architects or proletarians... the comparison is awkward at best, rather insulting at worst. And I'm not sure if I understood the last sentence. I'm out, this is a waste of time. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK let's close this debate -at least if nobody relaunches it. I don't see what is "insulting" in comparing Basque people with articles on other sets of people, with their similarities and differences (your comparison with an article about a European kingdom does not seem more relevant to me, in good faith). The last sentence means what it means : were I free to do at will on Wikipedia pages, I would have completely removed the controversial unsourced information, since I know WP is a collaborative experiment, I have simply added the "citation needed" tag. French Tourist (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Akerbeltz: it's very easy and convenient to say "no, the article is fine the way it is, what it says is common sense, so I remove the neutrality discussion tag". Things on Wikipedia do NOT work that way. I am extremely astonished to read that for you "the Navarrese being part of the Basque People" is common sense. Are you kidding me? That is one of the most controversial subjects in modern-day Navarrese and Basque politics. So far from common sense.

As another user said before, the numbers appearing on the Infobox point to a source that is far from conclusive. I personally believe any data appearing on the Infobox should be totally clear, non-disputed, and with reliable sources. Since the Navarrese being part of the Basque People does not fulfill those, I strongly suggest removing the data for Navarre from the Infobox, and adding a part on the article explaining that for some people or authors the Navarrese are Basque while for some others they are not.

May I remind you that the article is not yours. It is everyone's. And may I also remind you that on Wikipedia it is what it is written that needs a source, not the other way round: it is not up to anyone to find sources to prove you wrong as you pretend it should be; it is up to you to prove that what you say is right. --Tocacojines (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

When you start bringing facts that are backed up by sources, we can reopen this debate. Until then, I see no good reason why I need to spend time on debating stuff like this ad absurdum. All you ever bring is your personal views. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You must gotta be kidding me! The facts exposed on the Infobox have no valid references! One has to give sources for what's written, and not the other way round! Even more astonishing is that not only you refuse any changes to the content of the page, but you also keep removing the tag for the neutrality dispute!! Next time you do it again I will contact an administrator. --Tocacojines (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Feel free. I'm sure they will really get a kick out of explaining to concept of the 3 revert rule and edit warring to a single purpose editor. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Basque categories

The introduction states, 'ethnic Basques'. IMO the discussion above seems to indicate different types of Basque people. Is there a list of different Basques people? Is the term in common use? I am just asking if there is a need for clarification in the article, I am not not in a position to suggest any edits. Politis (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's confusing. It does something like this: There's a region where historically ethnicity X has shared language (Basque) and customs. Roughly coincides with the concept of Basque Country (greater region) in terms of historical geography. Now for various reasons, there is a three way political split (Spain/France, 3 administrative regions (Autonomous Community, French Basque Country (not an administrative region in the official sense), Navarre. There's the expected double identity issues around Basque and/or Spanish/French. On the Spanish side, there's been a tug of war for a long time over whether the people in Navarre are Basque, Navarrese, Basque and Navarrese and/or Spanish. Note that in Lower Navarre, historically part of Navarre itself, this debate is not raging. There are various arguments put forward on either side of the Basque vs Navarrese debate, I won't go into them.
The upshot is, from an outsiders point of view, both in large parts of the Autonomous Community, Navarre and the French Basque country do people point at a house and call it etxea and there are numerous people running around with surnames like Etxeberria in all 3 areas, you will find bertsolari who come from all 3 regions and so on. So from this angle, they all seem to share ethnicity X. Except politically, they can't agree what X is called. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove the Philippines

I know Filipinos have Spanish ancestry. But not Basque ancestry. Spanish ancestry barely makes 1% of the population in the Philippines. Someone remove it from there, because first off it's uncited and unknown.

I'd suggest the same for the other countries listed that aren't cited or don't have a specific population. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Orphaned references in Basque people

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Basque people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Myres2010":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. This reference was already on the page. StasMalyga (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Total population" field in the infobox

A source has just been brought. I had opened it about one year ago (see above in this Talk Page) ; as far as I know this source does not give the population of the "Basque people" but the populations of Basque Autonomous Community, Navarra and French Basque Country.

Adding them to obtain a "total population" implicitly supposes :

  • that every person living in one of those three areas belong to the category of "Basque people" ;
  • that no person belonging to the category of "Basque people" lives outside these three areas.

Both these prerequisite seem very dubious to me. As long as no source can be brought about Akerbeltz'methodology (Oh for heaven's sake, if you add the figures for Spain and France, you get 2.6 million, can we read in the edit summary), there is a strong likelihood that this methodology belongs to WP:OR.

Does the source _directly_ give the number (2.6 million) given in the infobox, or has this number be obtained by personal research by Akerbeltz ? Touriste (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding two figures is not OR. That is an absurd proposition. And we've been around the rigmarole of "is every person in Spain a Spaniard" loop before. Yet no one seems to be willing to subtract the number of people who identify only as Basque or Catalan but not Spanish from the number of "Spanish people". The figure (hence the "approximately") is meant to give a rough indication of whether we're talking hundreds, thousands or zillions. There are endless sections and articles dealing with the complex issue of identity, we cannot cram all that into an infobox. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Adding two figures is not OR". I am sorry it is, here. The claim that "Basque" and "living in the Basque country" are roughly synonymous is very respectable, but is indeed only one viewpoint about the Basque country. It is mentioned (and attributed) in the article about the Basque country on Wikipedia in French. It cannot be inserted in an infobox, with a source which does not assert that. As this number has remained unsourced for nine months, and is now supported by a source which does not support it, I shall just remove it from the article. Touriste (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So if someone adds up the white rhino figures for Tanzania and Kenya to give a total, that's OR? Even scientific journals have a more intelligent take on that sort of thing I must say. And like the references on the French page are anything to shout about - it tells us 70 % de la population totale se considèrent Basques au Pays basque) - really? Says who? Anyway, I'm at the "I don't care anymore" stage with Wikipedia, so have a nice day. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"as an ethnic group", or not ?

First (to everyone) STOP edit-warring.

I have made some substantial searches, sadly only on the web (no library at hand on Friday nights). It seems that the concept of "ethnic groups" is very widely used nowadays by scholars, even for groups in Western Europe. Using it for Basques can obviously be sourced, and is hardly polemical.

It does not mean that these words are relevant in the introduction. I don't see why they are useful : the article is about an "ethnic group", about a "human group", about a "cultural group", by some aspects about a "population". I admit that reverting Bashevis6920 would not significantly downgrade the article, but what would it bring ? If I don't believe "ethnic group" is a suitable concept to discuss ethnic dynamics (see for instance in this direction : [8]), am I forced to move contemptuously my shoulders at the remainder of the sentence ? Obviously no : even if I don't think relevant to "group" Basque people in an anthropological category, I can still admit that they are primarily located in the Basque Country.

For these reasons, I would suggest not to reintroduce the discuted short stretch of sentence. But this is simply a suggestion, doubled by a question : what good does its addition to the informative content of the introduction ? Touriste (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a theory of linguistic origin, stating that the Basques are part of the Iberian or Spanish Expeditionary Force of Hannibal that not crossed the Pyrenees during the Second Punic War, and the ancient Basque language would be the Iberian language. That would be the reasonable explanation that there are many mountains and sites throughout the Iberian Peninsula, whose etymological origin is Basque (ancient Iberian language). The Basque language was the common language of all Spain (so Iberian Language), before Roman Latin, which would evolve into Spanish language.
So the Basques would not be a distinct ethnic group in any case, but Iberian or Spanish ethnicity 100%.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Bibliography in Spanish about Vascoiberismo (Basque-Iberianism).-
  • Ballester, Xaverio (2001) La adfinitas de las lenguas aquitana e ibérica en Palaeohispanica, Revista sobre lengua y culturas de la Hispania antigua, (1 - 2001), Zaragoza ISSN 1578-5386
  • Caro Baroja, Julio (1982) Sobre la lengua vasca y el vascoiberismo, San Sebastián, ISBN 84-7148-052-2. (Detailed explanation of the theory)
  • Gorrochategui Churruca, Joaquín (1984) Estudio sobre la onomástica indígena de Aquitania, Bilbao ISBN 84-7585-013-8
  • Gorrochategui, Joaquín (1993) "La onomástica aquitana y su relación con la ibérica" en J. Untermann y F. Villar (eds.) Lengua y cultura en la Hispania prerromana, Salamanca ISBN 84-7481-736-6, pp. 609-634.
  • Rodríguez Ramos, Jesús (2002) "La hipótesis del vascoiberismo desde el punto de vista de la epigrafía íbera" Fontes Linguae Vasconum 90, 197-216.
Bashevis6920 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
<shrugs> So what? There are also theories out there connecting Basque to Elamites, Aynus and heavens knows what else. Until it becomes mainstream, it's at best a theory, at worst fringe. Thus it might merit a mention in the body but does not deserve undue prominence. And just listing a lot of source titles doesn't tell us anything. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorr there is little doubt that the Basques are an ethnic group, if there is any that can be called so. Language is a definite characteristic, culture and traditions are another, and race is relevant here too, while admittedly this is a fuzzier one and not a claimed one by the Basques themselves. It seems that it's not politically correct to talk about ethnic groups in Europe though.
Touriste, I do think the phrase adds relevant information, and shrinks from ambiguity over a hardly controversial point (to be an ethnic group...), although I know there would be people delighted to call the Basques an invention of Sabino Arana or Luis Lucian Bonaparte, or an ideological modern construct, or people who more or less like each other and have some exotic words in common, just joking of course. Your attempt to reach consensus is appreciated, but this specific one is a non-contributory dead end, no point in redefining such as basic concept.
The discussion is not even about the past of the Basque language, as you, Bashevis6920, are claiming. "Vascoiberismo" is one of the hypotheses on the origin and family ties of the Basque language, nowadays rejected by most of the scholars, despite still open to debate and conceding to some similarities.
Anyway, Bashevis6920, your citations above lacks any precision, are off-topic, and overall I have little doubt that you are showing a defiant attitude in your edits, crusading, and sorry, not contributing anything to this article or working atmosphere. That said, I add a reference on the Basques that will clarify, even more: Iñaki LL (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is false said that Vascoiberistas theories, which are rejected by most of the 'scholars'. In fact, in recent years it's starting to have evidence of the close ties between the Iberian and Basque language (La hipótesis del vascoiberismo desde el punto de vista de la epigrafía íbera, Jesús Rodríguez Ramos, 2002... 1) The vascoiberismo is the most logical explanation for the origins of the Basques, who would be part of the Iberians groups.

Behind all these vague theories of Basque ethnicity, hiding the purpose of self legitimating of Basque nationalism. Ethnicity, race, something longed by nationalist ideas since the beginning of time.

From my point of view to speak of Basque ethnicity, is not frowned upon, that it is an aberration, something besides entirely false. Culture, tradition, human group, of course, ethnicity, no. Basque ethnicity is the same ethnicity as Cantabrian, Asturian, North Castilians and all the people around them, so iberian or Spanish ethnicity. --Bashevis6920 talk) 14:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what literature you're reading regarding vasconic studies but you're way off. Bring references. Like this one [9] in the Encyclopedia Brittanica which clearly calls the basques and ethnic group. So, take it up with the EB, will you? Fortunately it's not down to you personally to define what an ethnic group is and what isn't. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Or this book by Totoricaguen [10] in a book published by the Univ of Reno, this genetics paper [11] or the Uni of Oxford reference materials [12]. So, either grow up or take you POV pushing back to the Spanish wiki. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you know anything other than WP:PA? You are very boring. Humans talk, discuss, do not insult or denigrate constantly, that's the first thing you should learn, before editing on Wikipedia, 'señor' Akerbeltz. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with this non-debate. Either learn to respect debates, sources and some manners or I'll report you for edit warring. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been reported again 1. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I can only support Akerbeltz here. Bashevis6920, you are straying off-topic with out-of-place sweeping statements. Your attitude with only a handful of one-purpose edits in wikipedia speaks volumes. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

The information that the Basques may have repopulated Europe as early as 25kya is dated to the year 2000. More recent studies, such as that referenced on the R1b Wikipedia page, suggest a downgrade to 18.5kya or even later. Zeppelin42 (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out if you have access to those sources :) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I do have access to those sources, and I put the Wiki-link in my initial statement. The primary sources are all listed at the bottom of the article on yDNA haplogroup R1b. The conclusion of 18.5 kya is on the Wikipedia page in the upper right. Any debate on the facts belongs on the Wiki talk page for R1b. My point here is that the Wikipedia page on the Basque people should accurately reflect the update to the Wikipedia page on R1b. The two date estimates should not be conflicting. Nobody is saying we don't have the sources or the facts. Zeppelin42 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Yellow-race"

From the first sentence of the article "The Basques were natives of the yellow-race located in the Pyrenees mountains [...]". What exactly does "yellow race" mean and how are the Basques "yellow"?--Metroxed (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the lead, it was some nutcase IP editor. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Basques/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article needs attention because it's still somewhat disorganized and includes significatively POV and/or unsourced information. Some sections have improved widely (history), oters have resulted in separate articles (all that recently). In general it's difficult to decide what to include and what not. I'm working on it though. --Sugaar 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:05, 2 May 2016 (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.

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 [13] 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)

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New info on Basque ancestry?

Published a couple of days ago by the BBC: [14]. Original journal article at [15]. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk 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

Shortcuts

"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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basques/Archive_6&oldid=1090473591"