Talk:Basque Country (greater region)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Terrorist name

In the article name ETA is named as directly terrorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid There better ways for it.Burgaz 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, the ETA section is rather comic in its outright POV! How about adding evil? Bertilvidet 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely rewritten. Bertilvidet 12:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No neutral article

I think this article has no neutral point of view, since it has a strongly basque nationalist point ov view.

First, most of Navarrese didn´t consider themselves basques, and support UPN project to eliminate the possibility of joining basque country (fuente: navarrómetro) This is a very important thing that is no said in the article. I don´t know in Iparralde, but I think is the same.

I think really basque ethnic are a minority in the basque country, and people with basque surnames in some territories, like in Alava, are a historical minority; and really basque nationalinm only is a majority in Biscay and Guipuzcoa, and continous reference to the self-determination (including ETB reference in the final part of the article) gives an idea of the strong nationalist point of view in this article.

I think it must be re-editated. --Ioritak 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree, though my fluency in English and my lack of access to sources both prohibit me to intervene with real efficiency in this direction. See also my very similar reservations at Talk:Basque_people#.22Basque_feeling.22_paragraph_removed. French Tourist 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All this article is full of fascist nationalist lies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.146.141.212 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Sign the above, asshole! I think it's actually quite anti-nationalist, all the names are not even in english but rather in spanish. Got something against basque country or basque people??? what a racist xenophobe! OLAIA May 13, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.54.151.208 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I really think this article is only made by nacionalist people who are a minnory. Navarra can´t belong to Basque Country because it hasn´t ever been a part of the Basque Country, and it´s the same with France. I think it must be removed or re-edited. And OLAIA, we are all humans, so respect other users. (Sorry for my English) Santiago

What the fuck is this article? This article is just a lie. Basque country have 4 regions and the most important think, Basque country is a part of Spain.

With such a rude language nobody will trust you. Don't forget to sign your comments please, otherwise they will be erased. --Mreq (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven provinces map

The map of the seven provinces is good, but in Araba, the Treviño county is marked. Treviño county is part of Araba, but is administratively part of Castilla-Leon. Despite, it´s part of the historical territory. So, if somebody takes that map and erases the Treviño county´s distinction, it will be better. At least, somebody can explain in the caption why there´s a purple hole in the middle of Araba.

Actually it should not be removed because Euskal Herria even if it's the 7 provinces for us (BASQUE) is always taught Euskal Herria to be it all, Treviño included.

It's important to denote that Euskal Herria is meant to be the land where at some point in history used to be basque speaking territory (more or less) and so Treviño is inside Euskal Herria (even if it's not inside Euskadi). Euskal Herria is nothing oficial is just some land punt together to make sense to an idea, to an identity. It has never been a provice all together or whatsoever.

If Euskal Herria is considered basque speaking territory, Alava and South of Navarra are not Euskal Herria because traditionally are spanish speaking territories and basque language desappeared from there a lot of centuries ago. --Ioritak 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be very strongly interested about any information about the "borders" of the Basque Country (mostly for use on :fr Wikipedia). By information I mostly mean sources for this information. Lists of "Basque country" communes can be found on a great number of websites -among which Wikipedia- see for instance Template:Lapurdi whose origin I could not understand. At what date were they defined and by whom ? French Tourist 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 comments

bask country is traditional also in France,not as official "departement"

The two tables overlap each other. Can somebody fix that? RickK 05:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did a take on it. It looks pretty ugly. RickK 05:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the autonomous community vs. the larger sense

I think that, as someone sort-of-said above, this article's definition of Basque Country is a little confusing. While it admits halfway through that Basque Country extends into France, it opens with “The Basque Country ([…]) is an autonomous community of the Spanish state” and includes all kinds of charts on top and bottom describing it as such. In my experience, when people talk about “Basque Country” in English they always mean the traditional Basque territory that lies both in France and Spain. How about moving all the Spanish political stuff to Basque Country (Autonomous Community of Spain) and having the current address be for the larger area? Nathan 20:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I speak English and I've almost never used it in that sense. Malandi 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

History of the Basque People

The second paragraph of the History section has more to do with the Basque people than the geography of the Basque Country, and its information on fueros, etc., already appears in that article. Any objections to removing it? Nathan 09:46, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it from the page (Nathan 06:20, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)). Here's the paragraph:

Until the French Revolution (and, to some extent, beyond that in Spain), Euskal Herria retained its fueros -- separate laws, taxes and law courts -- respected by both French and Spanish monarchs. With the fall of the ancien régime, the fueros were completely abolished in France, which came under a central government that abolished all local privileges. In Spain, with some irony, through the various civil wars of the Nineteenth Century the fueros were upheld by the nominally absolutist Carlists and opposed by the victorious constitutional forces. Thus the same wars that brought relative liberty to most of Spain abolished most of the traditional liberties of the Basques.

However, the Spanish provinces remained with the widest autonomy in Peninsular Spain. After the Spanish Civil War, the regime of General Franco considered Biscay and Gipuzkoa as "traitor provinces" abolishing the remains of their autonomy, but Navarre and Alava maintained small local police forces and some tax self-government.

"Since the time of Sancho III, there has been no single government over all seven territories".
The Napoleonic Empire directly governed the French Basque Country, and by taking over the kingdom of Spain, oficially also governed the Spanish Basque Country. Nowadays European Union governs over the whole Basque Country on some issues. Maybe it should read sort of no single independent government over all seven terriroties or no single government over all seven territories based on the Basque Country.--Erri4a 22:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

on a somewhat unrelated subject, in the history section the term 'nowadays' is used several times. is this really a proper term, or is it more slang than anything? Krispykorn 05:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basque Country meetings

I'm looking for more information on the following sentence in the History section:

The entry of Spain in the European Union and the regionalization of France has led to meetings among the Basque Autonomous Comunity, Navarre and Aquitaine within the Atlantic Arch.

At first I was stuck by “regionalization of France” as I've never heard that phrase, and Google barely has, but the List of regions in France article does have some info on administrative changes that served to decentralize the French government. (According to the French version of that page those laws were put into place in 1982.) Ok, so maybe we rephrase and link to the other article. But then what's this “Atlantic Arch”? At first I assumed it was literally an arch, some Basque monument. But apparently [1] it's the Atlantic coastline between Santiago de Compostela and Bourdeaux. That territory doesn't match up very well with Basque Country, and it's a term most people have never heard of. Can we get a little more specific? Where and when have these meetings taken place? Nathan 10:55, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

There are some coordinations between the ACBC and Navarre over interregional issues: Basque language, defending their tax systems at the EU, infrastructures (?).

And the EU encourages cross-border collaboration. Aquitaine is the French region encompassing the French Basque Country. There is some collaboration and talks but they don't seem very effective since French regions are weaker the Spanish ones.

A map of the Arch

About European regions

The Arc was a plan by two French regional presidents to get grants from the EU.

Tri-regional collaboration among universities.

Besides the 3-member Euroregion, there is also a Pyrenean Work Community

-- Error 02:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Past tense regional names?

An anonymous user has changed the verbs in the Geography section to the past tense. I find this construction a bit more awkward. More importantly, I think it's making a political statement while the original language simply reported regional names. Anon, or anyone else, would you defend this change? If there's no response in a few days I'll change it back. Nathan 03:10, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Navarre and "seven-make-one"

An anonymous user has removed reference to Navarre as a region of Basque Country. I too think that it's inaccurate to take the modern Navarre AC's borders and claim all of it as "Basque Country" when the majority of that territory has probably never been inhabited by Basques.

If you take Vascones as Basques, it was in pre-Roman times. I am not sure abot after Reconquista -- Error 00:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And reporting the population and square km of Basque Country including all of Navarre was even worse (I apologize for bringing those cooked figures over from an article I folded in to this one; the truth is I was afraid to remove them.)

On the other hand, every map I've ever seen of Basque Country includes all of Navarre. I included it in the red area map on this page too, because I wouldn't know where else to draw the line. (Amusingly, the distinctive hammer shape of the Euskal Herria outline comes from territory that — by my reckoning, seeing as it's the southeast fringe of Navarre — probably never heard much Basque spoken.)

There are currently some Basque nationalists teaching Basque at the Ribera -- Error 00:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, what do we do? I suppose we can dismiss the bumper-sticker maps of Basque Country as politically motivated, and probably do the same for the slogan "seven-make-one," but I think we need to recognize that part of Navarre is in "Basque Country." Is there maybe a name for that part? And where do we draw the map line?

The current Ley del Vascuence divides Navarre in bilingual zones, something I forgot and Spanish-only lines. Detractors call this Napartheid. But I think it is more offensive to divide Navarre than to include it in EH. -- Error 00:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something needs to happen, because right now the map and the text are out of sync. Anon, your input would be appreciated since you've made these pretty bold changes.

Nathan 14:03, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

The whole of Navarre is considered part of Euskal Herria by those that use the concept. Not a part of Basque Country (autonomous community), of course. Nobody understands Basque Country as including just a part of Navarre. Nobody includes Lower Navarre while excluding Spanish Navarre.

You can argue if the Navarrese are Basques or not, it usually is linked to speaking Basque. A Navarrese might say "I am not Basque but my grandfather was." if he is from one of the areas that lost Basque recently. -- Error 00:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is you're taking Basque Country as the translation of both País Vasco (the autonomous comunity), and Euskal Herria (the nationality, ethnicity, or whatever you want to call it). I've seen Euskal Herria translated as Basque Homeland in some other places, i don't like the translation personally, but it can be very helpful when it comes to distinguishing the two concepts. Navarre is not part of the Basque Country, but it is without any trace of doubt part of Euskal Herria regardless of how does part of the navarrese people feel about it. It's like the Basque Country, most basque people wont say they're part of spain, but right now, the Basque Country is part of Spain. Then we can argue wether the basques are more or less spanish and wether the navarrese are more or less basque, but that doesn't change the meaning of the words and what do they stand for today. Tha, Mikel.

Besides, Pays Basque is (I think) mostly understood as just the sea part of Pyrenees Atlantiques.

I don't know if using an unusual translation like Basque Homeland is a good idea. --Error 01:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In this case I really do think we should use Basque Country for the autonomous comunity and Euskal Herria for euskal herria, picking a name won't make it really exist. Even in spanish the term euskal herria is not translated, personally i think this is because they don't want people to know the difference but that's apart from this. So I think we should just use Euskal Herria as we (BASQUE people) call it, it will all make a lot more sense and not mess up things and words.

French Basque Country

Umph. I noticed that French Basque Country, Pays Basque and Iparralde all point here. --Error 01:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They all now redirect to Northern Basque Country --Benne 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language (Basque) Names

According to policy, we use other languages sparingly. I am not convinced that pages related to the Basque people should be an exception to this policy. There is no shortage of Wikipedia pages related to a people that speak languages other than English, and it's a mistake to fill up every one of them with (Native language: machin chose). The standard is to list the various native versions of a place name only at the beginning of its article, and until recently this page fit that model perfectly. If you want to know how to say "Guipúzcoa" in Basque, click on it and read the article. There's nothing unfair in that approach, and short of politics, I can't see why people want to do anything else. I'll wait a few days for discussion here before changing it back. Also, see the unresolved Navarre discussion above, unrelated but affected by the same revert. Nathan 14:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever you like. I didn't see that the names were unnecessarily larding the article, and it's rather convenient to have them in one place. But I don't feel strongly about it. - Montréalais 15:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Gipúzcoa" is not English either. It's Spanish. English term is apparently Gipuscoa.

Anyhow, when there is no English word, the native form should be used. --Sugaar 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, just a couple of things, first of all, It wouldn't make sense to remove Navarre, not in my opinion at least, since it's the original basque territory, and where the basque language comes from (lingua navarrorum in latin). Also, where it says that the basque nationalism emerged in the early 20th century, it should say middle 19th (1850's), if by basque nationalism it means the ideology, or late 19th (1876), if it means Basque Nationalist Party. Also, It would be better to use the english names, this is the english version of the encyclopedia, and it saves the hassle of having to change them again each time some spanish/basque nationalist visits the page. Cheers, Mikel.

Hi again, if no one has anything against it I'm going to change the century to 19th. Done.

ETA

ETA should be linked to the article maybe.

---

i looking for a flag of Basque country please contact me at : crackwindobe@voila.fr guillem

helohe 00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If this is meant to be a geographical description of the Basque Country, as someone said above, i don't see the point.

Food

I have removed the following from Basque Country (autonomous community):

The Basque food often uses fish and meat, especially veal. Its people often have eating clubs exclusively for men. Some of its dishes are:

• Pil-Pil
• Angules (eels)
• Calamari in its ink
• Marmitako (fish soup)

---

Error 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting if someone could translate these books into English. LOUIS CHARPENTIER is a French journalist who has written "El Misterio Vasco", a very interesting approach to the Basque People. Also, I find very compelling Mikel Sorauren´s "Historia de Navarra, el estado vasco" and Tomás Urzainqui´s "Navarra, estado europeo". As well as Mark Kurlanky´s "The Basque History of the world", this one, published in English.

Jon

Dividing History of the Basque Country

Re: Dividing History and Description of France

Consider dividing the history into historical time periods (sections). It might help to discuss the internal Spanish politics happening during the 20th Century, instead of just obscurely referring to major event such as the Spanish Civil War and political developments afterward that seemed particularly absent in this article. Also, at the end of the history section, there could be a piece that talks about "the current political status of Basque Country." This is current events, not history.

One other thing is that I personally would not catagorize Franco as a fascist. He was certainly an autoritarian conservative dictator, but not in the style of Germany or Italy. However, I don't know how other people feel about this.

The Flag?

Where comes the flag from and why does it look very similar to the danish flag.

Hello!

The flag, called "ikurriña" (from basque "ikurrin" = "flag") was created by Sabino Arana, founder of modern Basque independentist movement.

It looks similar to the Danish flag because both zones are traditionally Christian and the cross is a symbol for Christendom. In the Basque flag the white cross is meant to represent Catholicism, which has always been closely related to Basque separatist movements. The green "X", I do not remember what it stands for, but the cross and "X" together resemble the disposition of the chains at the coat of arms of Navarre.

The green "X" is St. Andrew's Cross after a battle beteween Castilians and Biscayans that ocurred on St. Andrew's in 867 acording to Sabino Arana, the creator of the ikurriña. Historically, this flag was never used before the XX century as a national basque flag (initially it was designed only to represent Biscay). In the Middle Ages, the only time that Biscay, Alava (Araba), Gipuzkoa and Navarre were politically united under the Kingdom of Navarre, the flag used by the King (Sancho III of Navarre) was the Arrano Beltza. Curiously nowadays this black and yellow flag is mainly used by left wing Basque nationalists as a representation of the unity of the seven basque provinces but sometimes even by right wing Spanish nationalists. --81.36.86.56 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi!

OK, only a few specifications:

1- The catholicism has been related to basque separatism only in the first half of the 20th centurty. The early left-nationalism in the 1930's (the party called EAE-ANV) and ETA in the decade of 1950 weren't catholic but marxist. Catholicism has not too much importance nowadays on the independentist movement.

2- The meaning of the three colours in the flag is: - Red: Because of Bizkaia. The flag was designed by Sabino Arana, who firstly only wanted the independence for one province. The red colour has been historically the one that appears in the coat-of-arms of Bizkaia. Some people believes that it also represents the blood of basque people.

- Green cross: Is a St Andrews cross like in the scotish flag. It reminds the battle of St Andrews (San Andres) in the IX century, when Bizkaia become independet from the Kingdom of Leon.

- White cross: It's, like you say, because of catholicism, but we have to understand thar when the flag was created, Basque Country was a extremely catholic nation. Nowadays only a few people keeps that.

3- I also want to add that the ikurrina is not the only flag for the basque people: the "arrano beltza" (black eagle) and the chain flag of Navarre, "nafarroako bandera" (with no spanish crown of course) are also simbols of basque independentism.

You can get mor information about the Basque Country and its culture in the book "Orhipean, The Country of Basque": [2]

---

Even the fact that I AM basque and I am nationalist, I strongly think the IKURRIÑA should be removed, since this article is talking about EUSKAL HERRIA and not euskadi. Euskal Herria has no ikurriña for itself or whatsoever since it is nothing oficial. Ikurriña is for euskadi and so the ikurriña is not for all the euskal herria land. I strongly recoment the erase of the ikurriña it is erroneous to have it here.

I disagree. Everybody who thinks in Euskal Herria as a unity, wethere from a nationalist or merely culturalist viewpoint accepts the Ikurriña as modern common banner, maybe along that of Navarre as historical state that included most of those territories.

I'd like it would be different. Personally I find the Ikurriña too ideological in the Christian sense but it's almost universally accepted. --Sugaar 12:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Euskadi

Hello there.

There is a little conflict going on at Euskadi, which a Spanish user wants to be redirected to Euskadi (autonomous community rather than to this article. I find it quite obvious that Euskadi is a broader entity, than what i recognized by the Spanis state as an (autonomous community - and that Euskadi thus should redirect to here. Hope you will have a look. Bertilvidet 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, there is a conflict, but there should NOT be, for us Basque people we have Euskadi and Euskal Herria, meaning both different things, in spanish they don't make (or don't want to make) such a difference. If we attach to what WE (basque) define Euskadi and Euskal Herria they are two quite different terms. Euskadi is just the Basque Country Autonomous Comunity while Euskal Herria is the 7 provinces AND treviño. It's nothing official, never has been is just a made up term to make reference to the basque identity land.

---

Well, in that case, the Spanish user is right. Euskadi refers to the Autonomous Community, not the "Basque Country greater region". Perhaps a disambiguation page would be the proper solution.Ijontichy (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Check

I nominated the "Government" section on Basque Country (autonomous community) for a POV check. This is due to

• Appearance of adjectives such as "severe" a few place in the section.
• The line "These and other attributions under the Gernika Statute have just been slowly and painfully transferred by Madrid, yet many others remain without being transferred after more than two decades of autonomy."

--Nbrahms 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the text in that section to be less POV, but I don't know the sources for the information, so I have tagged it as needing references. Hopefully, these changes do not result in an edit war.

I admit my ignorance of the current politics and am relying my editing skills while asking for citations. --Habap 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the only POV thing about the transferral of competences by the central government is not in the facts, which are basically right, but in the language: calling the central government "Madrid" might be POV, and words like "slowly and painfully" are certainly POV. Ijontichy (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Renamings and Talk pages

With the re-directs, there is no Talk:Basque Country and Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community) is orphaned. How did Basque Country (autonomous community) get moved without it's talk page moving? Was it because the re-direct for Talk:Basque Country already came here? (Talk:Basque Country (historical territory)) I am getting confused. --Habap 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The moves and redirects have been quite coarsely done and without discussion. I have tried to clear them up a little. Basque Country is now a redirect page referring to three interpretations. The talk pages are problematic and I will try further to sort them out. Mtiedemann 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-done. --Habap 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrano Beltz

It's outrageous to see a fascist symbol as a suposed "symbol of the Basque Country". I have removed it immediately. The real symbol of the Basque Country is the "lauburu", and a Coat of Arms is welcome also. David 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Arrano Beltza is not any fascist symbol. It's an historical symbol used by the Kings of Navarre. Along with the Ikurriña and the Flag of Navarre, plus the Lauburu and the 8-pointed flower, it is a very legitimate symbol of Basque identity. I don't understand why you call it "fascist". --Sugaar 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know the origin of the symbol, thanks. And I´m quite sure you know well what I mean in the context of today´s use of the symbol, don´t ask me rethorical questions. David

The Wikipedia article on the Arrano Beltza seems to indicate that it is used both by the left and the right. Sounds like it's not just a fascist symbol, but a national one. If the article on the Arrano Beltza is incorrect, please go fix it. I have only visited the area and read little about it, so I also don't understand why you call it "fascist". --Habap 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Capital city of the Basque Country Autonomous Community

The article names Bilbao as the capital city of the Autonomous Community, but the actual capital city is Vitoria-Gasteiz, even though Bilbao is the most populated urban settlement as well as top city of the region in economics, industry and many other fields.

You can check that Vitoria-Gasteiz is the actual capital at the article about the Basque Country as a Spanish Autonomous Community. Therefore I suggest that this article be corrected.

Carlos M.

Basque homeland of basque people?????

What on Earth is that? That's just a invention of basque nationalism and terrorist group ETA. It has no historical support. The Kingdom of Navarre is the real historic name for that region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alx123 (talk • contribs) .

And what's the difference?

I doubt it's your intention because you seem very one sided, but it's clear that Basque Country and Navarre (before 1200) are about the same thing. Yet Basque Country also existed (arguably if you wish) before Navarre and Basques have always called it Euskal Herria: Basque People-Nation-Country. If Labourd wasn't in Navarre (it was only a for a few years) it was still in the Basque Country because it is ethnical identity what makes it, not political borders. --Sugaar 12:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

History started before the Reconquesta. Hugo Dufort 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the historical Basque Country (Euskal Herria) is not accepted

The existence of that historical race and country is a nationalist and terrorist idea. It is not supported by independent historians and is an insult to the victims of ETA terrorist group. Only for that, at least the Template:totaldispute tag should appear at the top of this insulting article. Alx123.

I have a book called The Basque History of the World: The Story of a Nation by Mark Kurlansky, who, at the very least, has a non-Basque last name. Similarly, there is, in fact, a Basque language, evidenced by the number of books on learning Basque you can find by searching for Basque on Amazon.com. There's even a Cadogan Guide to Bilboa & the Basque Lands, so the term seems to be in broader use than just by nationalists and terrorists. I am neither of those, but I do have what I've always thought is Basque last name, Navarre. My particular ancestors seem to have had something to do with a bridge in Paris.... --Habap 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alx123: you are being POV and, from your tone, you are Spaniard. Get with some other tardo-fascist friends in any cafe of Madrid and share your anger with them.

You and the likes of you are not just insulting the long opressed Basque People but you are also behaving like the true nuts you are.

And don't mix he victims in this: there are many typesof victims, including those of torture, arbitrary detention for years, and the many anonymous killed by your fascist friends in Basque Country and all Spain. --Sugaar 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This last post is an unacceptable personal attack to the first poster. Being an anti-seccecionist doesn't mean that the poster is a "tardofascist", nor that he belongs to Madrid; there are quite enogh such-minded people in the Basque Country itself. In fact, as explained in the article, just 25% of Basques favour independence. And what's wrong about being a Spaniard?

Crimes under the dictatorship of Franco happened over 30 years ago, this has nothing to do with the current political debate in either Spain or the Basque Country. In a sense, ETA is one of the last remnants of the Franco-Era, but that's a different story. Anyway, the history of Spain in the Franco-Era is not disputed, while even today there is an international current of sympathy towards basque seccecionists, supported by romantic ideas of this people being sort of a living fossile of neolithic times, etc. All these questions are as POV as the, certainly, too harsh post of Alx123. (Ijontichy (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Section on History of Basques?

This section doesn't make sense and doesn't pertain to the subject. Do you think it's OK to remove it?

sign your comments, please ;)

Basque Country as historical territory is by definition an historical construct. At least some history must appear in the article. Another thing is wether the section can be improved or maybe merged with the history section in the article Basque people in a separate article linked from both maybe called Basque history (???).

Please detail your objections to the section. --Sugaar 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't sign because I wasn't signed in at the time and didn't want to show my IP address. Anyhow, you answered my question in that you said there must be some historical information. Thus, I don't have any objection! Thanks! Zamboni93 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Manipulate the History

The name of this article is far from neutral. The "historical territory of the basque country" is a traditional basque nationalists aspiration, but it´s far away from the real territory´s history. The entity called Euskal Herria has never been "historical", or "traditional". Let´s read the Kingdom of Navarra´s real history, to terminate with this kind of very extended lies.

I agree with you. Navarra has never been a part of Basque Country´s possesion, because it has had his own history and laws, and never Basque Country´s laws. Santiago

Iparralde

I've edited French Tourist's last "apportations" in the following sense and for the following reasons:

1. FT replaced The French provinces lost their political meaning after the French Revolution by The French provinces are nowadays just cultural divisions. The first sentence is obviously more precise and informative and I have restored it.

2. Lower Navarre: I've deleted the too lengthy material on the several "judicial capitals" of the province. The traditional capital, as himself stated is Donibane-Garazi, no matter where the courts were. The info is nevertheless useful for the article on the province, that needs expansion.

3. Labourd: I've changed the reference to the "bailiwick" by the term "traditional capital". Labourd was a semi-independent county for a time and, in fact Ustaritze was made capital because the English conquered Baiona (see the province's article). Hence I've also stated that both are tarditional capitals - though, in fact, it is Baiona the one that is usually considered the capital not just of Lapurdi but of the whole Iparralde, being the oldest city (from Roman times at least) and for some time the seat of a modern French sub-prefecture. --Sugaar 07:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your reverts are quite problematic seen from the NPoV and sourcing policies. I shall comment them.

1) The sentence you reestablished is certainly "more precise" but seems to me a bit doubtful. Defining what a "French province" is is quite a tricky task ; I have recently read quite a lot of litterature about it, and this is a nightmare. I don't think it is quite accurate to say they "lost their political meaning" after the French Revolution, since they have been durably used with political aims. In the XIXth century, the notion of "province" is used by republican "jacobine" historiography, especially historiography using simplifications towards a general audience : provinces are a manifestation of "evil" and they are a traditional argument in favour of the "rational" policies of the modern Republic. On the other hand, "provinces" are a manifestation of "good" for reactionary forces in the XIXth (some royalists), and for quite different circles of opinion nowadays (regionalists) ; it is hard to say that "provinces have lost their political meaning" nowadays while Basque nationalists feel so important to write that Northern Basque Country is made of seven provinces.

Hence I think provinces have certainly not lost their political importance nowadays. More concretely, what about replacing political by administrative ?

2) I don't know what a "traditional capital" is. Which tradition is this ? For instance what is the "traditional" capital of Castille ? Is it Madrid, as the most recent one, or on the other hand is it one of the ancient seats of the counts of Castilla and which one ? Your assertion can be kept as long as it is sourced, and gives explanation of what is meant by "tradition". Certainly Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port was the seat of most institutions of the area when it was a merindad of Spanish kingdom of Navarre, but I hardly see why the situation around 1400 should be more "traditional" that the situation around 1700.

3) Same thing about "traditional". There I can only concede that it is true that Bayonne was for a short time, around 1100 a town in Labourd. Borders were quickly changing in this time, and, which is more important, I have not read sources proving that Bayonne was in any meaning a "capital" of the Labourd in these times. I have nothing about stating that Bayonne was a capital of Labourd in the XIIth century... as long as somebody can give a source for this assertion. Later on, Ustaritz remained the seat of the Bilzar until its dissolution with the French Revolution, hence I am quite suprised to find another "traditional" capital... Why 1100 rather than 1500 or 1700 ? As long as you can source it, I have nothing against that, but the important matter is sourcing I think. French Tourist 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of Basques in favour of the independence

About the phrase "only 5% of basques are in favour of independence", I don't know your fonts, but according to the last surveys, about 40% of the basques would vote in favour of independence in a hypothetical referendum, some points more than the people who would not, and the 64% would be in favour of doing this referendum and to recognize the right of self-determination. My font: Euskobarometroa Gorka alustiza 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

• "el independentismo de las fórmulas autodeterminista o confederal se mantiene estable en torno a un tercio de los vascos (32%) " That is, from your source, that the 32% of the population og the Spanish Basque Country favours independence. That is far less than 40%, either your source contradicts itself or you don´t read your source properly.David 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• The percentage I mentioned appeared in a survey made 5 years ago, sorry about not to have found actual information. But you will be agree in that the porcentage of 32 % is much higher than the 5 % mentioned in the article. My font: http://www.elmundo.es/2000/01/15/espana/15N0041.html Gorka alustiza 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand, your referrence Euskobarometroa (a very serious source, indeed) works only on the territory of the Basque Autonomous Community, that is roughly among 3/4 of the population of the Basque country. (But I fully agree that a not totally relevant source is much better than no source at all). French Tourist 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence "el independentismo de las fórmulas autodeterminista o confederal" means "seccecionism, be it in the self-determination or in the confederation formula". This needs explanation.

The current debate on indepence goes along two very different lines of thought: there are "full" independentists (self-determination solution) and "confederalists", which don't intend to completely severe the Basque Country from Spain, but to acquire a statute of "Free Associated State", with a de facto independence, but still formally belonging to a completely refounded Spain. This new Spain would consist of several quasi-independent states: Galicia, Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Spain proper, which would contain the rest of present-day Spain. So, this 32% of supporters of indepence contain staunch independentists and supporters of all flavours of confederalism, that is, without full independence. This issue is so hugely political, that depending on who asks what and in what manner, people will answer completely different things. The "Euskobarometer" is not fully reliable, as it is conducted by the nationalist regional government itself, which surely uses --as all governments-- all possible tricks in order to manipulate results, from biased questionnaires to sampling techniques; this should not surprise anyone, it's just the ABC of polling. "El Mundo" newspaper is a staunch oponent of all forms of nationalism in Spain, and particularily opposed to Basque seccecionism, so one can expect exactly the same but in even crasser ways, as it is a newspaper and not an official institution. Above all, there is a general atmosphere of fear because of the activities of ETA and its many pressure groups, so people is likely to give, out of fer or mistrust, what they think is the desired answer Ijontichy (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo in Sports paragraph?

I think "Pilota" should be "Pelota" if it is intended as the usual Spanish term corresponding to Jai-Alai. However I did not change it because I'm not sure - "Pilota" might be the correct spelling for some special Basque sense of the word.

Indurain and Osasuna

Indurain and Osasuna aren't basques, they are navarrese.

Well, Osasuna is a Basque word, meaning "Health". So how can you say it isn't Basque?

• And Athletic it is an english word. Does that means that the Athletic Bilbao is not Basque???? --Elemaki 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And Indurain is from a town called Atarrabia (in Spanish Villava) where there was a referendum about the Basque flag in the town hall. Most of the people in the town decided that Basque flag should be in the town hall as they were Basque. So Indurain seems to be Basque

It isn't basque for a reason similar to why Buenos Aires is not a Spanish city, but an Argentinian city: One thing is ethnicity, other thing is culture, other thing is language, other thing history and yet another thing is political (regional/national) affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.242.144 (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Basque Country isn't the same that Basque autonomus community of Spain. Navarrese people are also basque but their political structure is the Autonomous Community of Navarre. The same in France, the habitants of Biarritz are also basques.--82.213.151.153 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Navarrese people are not Baque. Only the northern part of Navarra is ethnically, culturally, politically or in any wise Basque. Ijontichy (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

French Political Parties

The list seems to be outdated. Rassemblement Pour la République ceased to exist 5 years ago. It has been replaced by the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire).

UDF (Union pour la Démocratie Française) is now split between MoDem (Mouvement Démocrate) and Nouveau Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.12.90 (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Number notation.

Just altered the section on area and populations, because it was using the european notation for decimals, i.e. '3.500' = three thousand, five hundred, wheras read in english it would mean 'three point five', so i swapped around the commas and full stops. I understand the previous way is how it is done on the continent but this is the English wiki, so should be written for english speakers to understand.82.15.8.111 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I thought this was the international Wiki, which happens to be in English -- could also be written in French, Latin or Esperanto. The vast majority of English speakers don't have English as their mother-language, and they will understand thing the other way round, so maybe it was better as it was. Ijontichy (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible list

Gennarous has made the names list collapsible, hiding the Basque, French and Spanish from view. Personally I don't like it and I don't think it was such a huge list to begin with, and bearing in mind that all three languages are widely used, I'm minded to undo the change. What does everyone else think? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indurain

Indurain doesn´t feel euskaldun, only Navarrese and Spanish so I'm going to delete his photo and name. You can post the picture of Sabino Arana, Arzallus, Otegui or onether nacionalist people but you don't use the photo of Indurain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.166.127 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he is not a Basque as an inhabitant of the autonomous community of the Basque Country, but as a navarrese he belongs to a region that is part of Euskal Herria, the historical territory of the Basque Country, which this article deals with. Please, leave your political ideology outside this site and leave Indurain's picture in the article. -- Gilentxo 19:52 Jun 2008

• I agree, in the meaning of the article (Basque Country greater region = cultural region in the broadest sense), Indurain fits perfectly. Ijontichy (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag

I strongly thing the flag should be removed. It is defended as the flag of Euskal Herria by some Basque nationalists, but there is no official flag for the entire region. Eventually it could be replaced with that one, the Navarrese and the French (do those French provinces have an officially recognised flag?) Escorial82 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The flag of the Crimean Tatars isn't offocial either and features prominently on the page. Thing is, the Ikurriña is the over-regional flag that most Basques who identify themselves as Basques in any of the regions will refer to as as the Basque flag. Not just "nationalists" by the way.

I'm not entirely sure about the difference but there is a variant with the 6 provinces' coat of arms on it, perhaps that might be more "inclusive" to use BUT at the end of the day, the current one is the flag flown all over, even at the train stations on the French side. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the article about the Crimean Tatars (just took a quick look at it now), but one thing does not justify the other. That infobox says that the ikurriña is an official flag in the seven provinces. It is not in Navarre or in any French one. I don't know if its put in some small towns (and that is illegal, as it is not to put the Spanish one in any Spanish town) in Navarre or the French Basque Country, as its has been several times polemic and mentioned in the news, but definitely not their big ones, I haven't seen it when I've been for example in Pamplona or Biarritz. Escorial82 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong part of tha page but where does it say it's the official flag? If it does, you're right, it needs to be corrected as it's only official in the BAC. But countries have inofficial official flags you know... Akerbeltz (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Escorial has some point. Indeed, outside the Basque Country autonomous community, that is the flag of Basque nationalists only (at least in Navarre). This is rather difficult (maybe impossible) to prove, but there are, definitely, Navarrese who consider themselves Basques in a way but who are not Basque nationalists. They use the Navarrese flag, they dont feel identified with the ikurriña.

Actually, the whole infobox could be disputed, as it is Infobox Country. The Basque historical territory is not a proper country as we know them. I wonder if there is an infobox for proposed countries? Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you the following: the seven provinces that compose this region have at least four flags: the ikurriña, the Navarrese, the Spanish and the French (is there an official flag in the Northen Basque Country? If I remember properly there are no official regional flags in France), let's put them all. Someone who knows well about the topic knows that the ikurriña is only official in the BAC and it is demanded to be used by Basque nationalists in those other provinces, but not by the other citizens nor by the law; someone who doesn't know about the topic and reads the article might believe that the ikurriña is official in those seven provinces, i.e. he might understand a wrong thing, as it is not clear. Escorial82 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ott, I think a note clarifying that it's "notionally" the flag of the BC should do. Check out Brittany (which also has a split territory), Cornwall or Roma people, which has no claim at all to a country. What we *could* add however is the two flags for Spain and France the way they added France on the Brittany page. Sounds to me like a more reasonable compromise. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only give info from France ; on the northern side of the border, a number of things which can be contentious for Spanish readers (the "seven provinces" or the ikurriña flag) have no nationalist flavor, and are in common use as more or less folkloric concepts, perhaps of dubious scientificity, but are not a contentious point between strong nationalists, weak nationalists or anti-nationalists. The ikurriña is certainly on the French side a consensual symbol of Basquitude. Note I cannot speak about its meaning on the southern side, especially in Navarra, and my intervention does not endorse any opinion given above, I am just giving some bit of information from France. French Tourist (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox

It doesn't matter that the infobox is a "country" infobox. Nobody sees it in the article. The point is that it has VALID information, that is, a name, a flag, a map and other minor informations. The reasons to remove it can only be political and pure POV. From the encyclopedic point of view, the box is valid. If you don't want it, please CREATE OTHER EQUIVALENT box so that the information is preserved and not removed without clear reasons. I'm no nationalist, don't go that way, I'm sick of it I warn you. David (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the only way you see that it's a country infobox is by editing the page which reader-users don't generally do. We could use the Infobox Settlement (the one used on the Brittany page for example) which has pretty much the same layout and info as far as I can tell but since no one can see the difference, what does it really matter? It's not like we're having a running banner on the page advertising ideas of Basque nationhood... and no, I'm no nationalist either, I'm not even Basque. And such changes definitely require discussion as David pointed out. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the template does not contain only valid information, but false. The flag is not the flag of any "Basque Country (historical territory", since this entity was never united politically except under conquerors. The flag is that of modern Basque nationalism. The "demonym" (a Wikipedianism) for the Basque Country is not "Navarrese" or "Basque", since the first does not apply to the entire territory and the latter is not a "demonym", but a linguistic, ethnic, and cultural identifier. For example, I do not become Basque by simply living in or even being born in the historical Basque Country. Finally, the historical Basque Country had no "official" languages. This article is not about the territories that are today a part of the historical Basque Country and so the officiality of languages in those political units is irrelevant. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially agree, partially disagree. As concerns the flag, an entity has not to be "united politically" to have a flag and the use of "demonym" is clumsy, with the use of "Navarrese" inside an odd compromise. The point about "official" languages is also rather true. Though I only half agree with Srnec, nobody should forget that when the inclusion of some point is contentious, it belong to the person who supports inclusion to give a source justifying this inclusion. French Tourist (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequently, I removed a few things from the infobox (not the flag). The flag remains a problem, and I support moving it outside the infobox to a section especially devoted to flags and emblems of Basque country, where useful details can be expanded. French Tourist (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the flag. Does anybody object? Srnec (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I find much better how the infobox is now, much more suitable, I also think the flag is better placed there, clarifying that its defined as the flag of the seven provinces by Basque nationalists, but its not the official flag itself, since there is none in France and it's a different one in Navarre. Escorial82 (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the wording isn't ok. The Ikurriña is not only the flag of nationalists and - more importantly - it is the official flag in the Basque Autonomous Community (Euskadi). How about calling it the "official flag of the BAC, also used by various other groups and bodies"? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not very warm for "various other groups" (evasive content...) Why not the "official flag of the BAC, also commonly though unoficially in use in Northern Basque Country" ? French Tourist (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for something along "..also used by various other Basque nationalist or regionalist groups outside the BAC" which I think it describes best those groups. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 13:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lol, in summary we seem to be going for "official flag of the BAC, used informally in Navarre and the Northern Basque country and abroad"? Let's face it, if you go to the jolly Idaho Basque Festival, the place is awash with Ikurriñas without a Kale Borroka member in sight. I really think we should avoid labelling the flag itself as nationalist - irrespective of its originas in the nationalist movement - as it's today used as an overt sign of *ethnicity* more than anything else. Admittedly, it's *also* used by nationalists but by no means exclusively. It would be a bit like saying that the kilt is a Scottish nationalist symbol just because some nationalists also wear it to express their nationalist ideals. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I guess sometimes we need some broad paint, too, otherwise we get lost in the details. What I mean is that the ikurriña is waved on a daily basis, and is most known, by its usage in the historical Basque country, not at any given Rocky Mountains festival. Then, used at the Basque country historical country, but outside of the BAC, it does have that political meaning. Maybe we could substitute "regionalist" by folklorists or something like that? "...also used by various other Basque nationalist and folklorist groups outside the BAC"?... Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my previous suggestion of "official flag of the BAC, used informally in Navarre and the Northern Basque country and abroad" is actually broader than what you suggest because it doesn't pigeonhole users into just 2 groups. There is a myriad of reasons why people use the Ikurriña and my suggestion states the official use (in the BAC) and the fact that it is used in other settings (> informally) in Navarre, the North and abroad. For example, I have brought it to a French rugby match because Basque players were there. And I'm neither folklorist nor nationalist - so should we add sports fans? ;) We're talking about an infobox subtitle here, I don't think we have to try and squeeze the entire history and controversy about the Ikurriña into a single sentence. I haven't read the article in a while but the page on the Ikurriña probably deals with this issue anyway, if not, I think that would be the more appropriate location for a discussion of the symbolism and use of the flag(s). Akerbeltz (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

stats

I think they should be removed, because they give the very wrong impression that the Basque historical country is a united, independent country at all. I guess that is the kind of problems we get by using the "infobox country": editors feel inclined to fill those data, which is ok, but then we are misleading the article.

Brittany may have those stats, ok, but let's not forget that two wrongs dont make one right.

Besides, Brittany is a part of one single country, which is not the case of this article. Also, in the Brittany case, I'd say they know very well what's the reach of this region. However, in the Basque country it is contended. For example, many Navarrese may feel offended to have as the "largest city" Bilbao, when that is a city of a neighbouring autonomous community and, in theory, totally unrelated to them other than for the Basque nationalist via. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brittany has an equally contentious border, added to that the fact that in France you don't really have historical countries anymore since they were split into departments. I agree 2 wrongs don't make a right but it's relevant information, how many ppl live there so it's not a "wrong" on either page. We're not claiming anywhere on the page that this is one political entity but denying these 3 regions share a strong ethnic link is equally misleading.

I agree the numbers need to be sourced though - I'll try and do that over the next few days, the Basque language surveys the BAC does every 4 years or so have the data for all regions from Eustat, I just need to go find it. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"in the Brittany case, I'd say they know very well what's the reach of this region". Oh no, don't believe that (OK this is a bit off topic here, but not so much), Brittany has also some "soft" borders in the south, see the French article fr:Marches Bretagne-Poitou, and trying to count precisely its municipalities, or find out its superficy seems to me as vain as for the Basque country (on the French article fr:Bretagne I obtained not contentiously to "round" the figures, to replace "34 023 km²" by "about 34 000 km²". This is of course a bit harder for Basque Country population, since Bayonne's population is all but negligible... French Tourist (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, so let's forget about the contentious borders of Brittany (and I still think two wrongs dont make one right or, if you will, that we can't compare Brittany to this one right a way for a series of reasons which are a part of another debate anyway).

My main point wasn't about the comparison with Brittany anyway. The "strong ethnic link" has become quite political, whether we like it or not. As such, I insist in that people from Navarre or the French provinces may certainly feel offended if they see their region compared to another regions to which they do not feel particularly related or connected to. For most Navarrese, their biggest city by population is, obviously, Pamplona. And the French provinces are definitely sparsely populated, so adding up the statistics from the other side of the border is simply distorting each region's facts. Because by centralizing and mixing statistics, we are assuming that the component regions covered by this article, very diverse among them, are a single unity, something which is not.

All in all, those statistics are being forced upon a lot of people who do not feel represented by whatever the Basque country (historical territory) may mean to us. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"people from Navarre or the French provinces may certainly feel offended"... hmmmm I can't follow you there, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for a more common "offended" inoperant argument. "by centralizing and mixing statistics, we are assuming (...)" -> WE are not indeed centralizing and mixing, some sources do, and we rely on sources this is the normal way to work (whence my questions underneath about sources neutrality). As long as "Basque Country" is the topic of many books, among which some are serious and good, we have to cover the topic (but try to cover it neutrally which can be terrificly difficult if, as often, quality sources are nearly all biased in favor of one POV). French Tourist (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here with you for the reasons above. I still think we are forcing those stats in this article (just in case, I am talking now only about the stats, which doesnt have anything to do with serious books covering the matter, something which I do not dispute at all) And from where are those stats coming from? specifically the population density? ¿? Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The stats ought to be removed. This article is about a "historical territory". It has no modern existence, and therefore no stable population statistics. The chief city part ought to be removed for the same reasons. And the titles in the infobox are worthless next to a lead that begins with the same words! Srnec (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering all the questions, or trying to at least. I see that adding anything to this entry is close to impossible without igniting a discussion, so I'll give up for the time being. The bloody STATS. WHERE do they come from you say??? well... READ THE DAMN ARTICLE and you'll se where they come from. I wonder if you are serious or you are just joking each other. If you really think the stats are worthless, then go and remove ALL the demographics section. I wonder if you are pushing the Assume Good Faith guideline to the border. I have good faith, but I seriously doubt yours. If we have a map, we have seven very well known provinces, their area and their population statistics, then we can add them and give a population density number. It is not that difficult, but if you start seing demons everywhere then everything is more complicated... I guess the MAIN problem is the Infobox Country (I woukld say "de los cojones"). Well, if that's all, I would replace it by a plain table and... no problem??? may be! Sorry for the rant, it makes me sick to face the continous PROBLEM that is contributing to anything Basque-related. David (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, dude. I understand you being blacked out with topics like this one, but this time you are barking at the wrong tree, for the debate is -for a change!- being kept quite civilized and looks like discussion is really moving somewhere in a quite respectful way. Mountolive _{and the complications} 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have _several_ maps : on the Datutalaia website, you can see a map with no enclave of Burgos (province) inside Alava while on other sources covering Basque Country you can see one (for instance Image:Mapa_provincias_Euskal_Herria.svg on Wikipedia - yes I know Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, but finding similar maps in serious books is easy). While we have _several_ maps, we have _several_ population figures, _several_ area figures, and hence _several_ density figures. There are several solutions : give only one (the first found on the web, those from Datutalaia), several, none at all. And it is worth a discussion : which solution is more conformal to Wikipedia policies ? I take time to discuss, especially to discuss possible political biases of the sources ; I shall probably end by removing info from the article as you suggest, but it is generally not a good idea to do this too brutally and without preliminary discussion. French Tourist (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A specific example. In its current state, the article asserts that there are "53" municipalities in Alava. This is faithful to the source chosen : will you open this page on Datutalaia website and count the items under "Araba" in the menu, you'll find 53 items. Now try the same experiment in the menu on [3] (site alava.net) you'll find 51 items. What policy for our article ? Should we give both numbers, with comments, without comments ? Choose one ? Give none ? French Tourist (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —courtesy of User:Wetman

Agree with Srnec.Being about an "historical territory", data like statistics and else are misleading and do not belong.

Just in case I expressed myself not that well before: the reasons to remove the {infobox country} do not have anything to do at all with a problem with the article in itself, but with a problem based on acuracy and, possibly, original research concerns.

Check this other "infobox" ;)

Mountolive _{and the complications} 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did a little more digging around wikipedia and I think we can establish a pattern that *does* allow stats and suchlike to be included. Agreed, me citing the Brittany case could have been a case of "two wrongs not making a right" but if we cast the net wider, many of similarly or even more hotly disputed "country/nation/state/regions/territories" included stats (and a lot more beyond that): Sápmi, Kurdistan, New Guinea, Samoan Islands. At the same time, to be fair, there are examples where infoboxes do not appear: Tibet, Ossetia, East Turkestan. Personally, my suspicion is that some state-sponsored editing might be involved in the last three.

Anyway, it would seem that there's no general hard and fast rule about what is best for a page. Given that there are lengthy explanations regarding the historical/ethnic aspects of the concept and the acutal current divisions, I would leave the info in. It gives a quick insight into the - approximate - population we're dealing with. No one is claiming that all inhabitants are ethnically Basque, speak Basque, regard themselves as Basque. But then, amongst the many millions of inhabitants and citizens in the UK infobox there are many that would identify themselves as Pakistani (or something else) rather than British, English or whatnot. It's just a factual statement about the number of people in this "geosocial entity" that we're looking at. I really don't think that this could (rationally) be construed as propaganda in either direction. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there is disagreement over what this page is about. Is it about a historical entity, as its name implies? Or one that exists today? If the former, then the stats and Bilbao have to go, the coat of arms too. In fact, whole sections of this article are utterly irrelevant to the topic, like Education. This article needs a sever overhaul. Or perhaps we should move it to Euskal Herria and make it about a concept in Basque nationalism? Srnec (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. As it is now, the article is confusing. I think a thorough overhaul, including, perhaps, moving info to other articles would do good to all the articles concerned and no one should really feel bad about it. Mountolive _{and the complications} 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Srnec's suggestion to move the article seems to me interesting, though not urgent. My priority will be to write a section on "the name and the concept" (I hope I shall do this today), improving the article seems a priority on choosing the best possible name. But opening a (hopefully polite and constructive) debate on the problems that can be found in the article title seems to me a sound idea (let's hope it does not turn to a low-level fight...). I open a new section about the problem I feel on the title. French Tourist (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Merging this article would make some sense as the term - I'm sure it was coined for the want of a better one - is somewhat misleading although it probably refers (in spirit anyway) to the historical ethnic union of Basques, rather than a political historical entity the closes of which would have been Sancho's Kingdom of Navarre.

How about calling your new section "Concept of the term Basque Country"? Akerbeltz (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneously, I use convoluted titles, I was thinking of "What's in a name ? History of a concept". But I shall begin working at it in a scrapbook, I hope I shall have terminated in the afternoon ; anyway everybody will be able to modify my too pompous title - I am not the kind of editor who cannot stand seeing a comma moved in his productions. OK I leave the talk page and dive into content. See you later ! French Tourist (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Datutalaia a neutral source ?

From France, I don't know at all who is behind Datutalaia (according to their own website, they were initiated by the "Assembly of the Basque Elect" and are now updated and distributed by "The Gaindegia Association". I however note that :

• the map of Europe on their website has a distinct Basque nationalist flavor : [4] ;

• they seem to have a largely inclusive view of the territory of the Basque Country at places where definition of its borders can be contentious : inclusion of Trebiñu, La Puebla de Arganzón and Valle de Villaverde in their statistics on the Spanish side ; of Bayonne, Boucau, Esquiule, Sames and other municipalities whose basquitude can be contentious on the French side.

Does somebody here know who exactly is behind the "Gaindegia Association" ? Should we stop using this source at all, try to attribute more precisely what comes from there (give precise links, for instance a visit to this site shows that statistics for population on the French side are from 1999 not 2006 -this should be corrected) ? I really think it is POV to try to count with a unit precision how many municipalities are part of the Basque Country or not ("682" in the current state of the article) while some non-nationalist (this is rather my POV) think a cultural region has necessarily "soft" borders, with municipalities at the edge whose inclusion can be contentious. What do other editors think about this problem of "hard" vs. "soft" borders ? French Tourist (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, "the assembly of the Basque elect" is a Basque nationalist movement gathering the different sensibilities of Basque nationalism (right and left, that is) into a single body of elected representatives. It has no official recognizition nor much real factuality.

As for the borders, I was thinking the other day that, indeed, Treviño-Puebla de Arganzón and Villaverde should be included under in this, for article, since they are typically included by the Basque nationalist movement which chiefly sponsors this "historical territory" concept. As for the French disputed towns, I am not that sure how deep is the vindication or the feeling over there, but for those Spanish municipalities, it is indeed vivid among Basque nationalists. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Err FrenchTourist... I'm certainly in agreement that the numbers might need checking but I think just deleting the whole section is a bit overly bold. There are people who want information like that. And I'm not talking propaganda. Let me give you and example from the world of linguistics. If you're writing/researching (let's face it, ppl use wiki for those purposes) something on the Basque language and revitalisation projects, demographics etc, it's highly relevant information how many towns and municipalities the are has where Basque has been/is/might be spoken/taught. True, you could go to the page on the BAC, the North and Navarre and collect it together but then, you could say the same about the Kurdistan article, that it's not needed and that people could go to the Syrian/Iraq/Turkey/etc page and look for those statisctics there.

Very true, we're not here to push a particular political agenda and I'm wholly in agreement with that. BUT at the same time, we cannot pretend the concept of the Basque Country (with the 7 provinces) exists as a concept. We're not here to push the concept, but rather to document it. I'm kind of beginning to feel that there are some agendas that are being pushed... but I hope I'm wrong Akerbeltz (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look further upside : the problem is WHICH set of figures to choose ? At least for three provinces (Alava, Biscay and Soule) there are two different figures available ; for two others (Labours, Lower Navarre) all recent lists are identical but are (to my taste) not totally neutral, since only more or less "nationalistic" sources try to find precise borders for provinces suppressed at the end of XVIIIth century, and do not justify some difficult choices (why Boucau in Labourd ? Why Sames in Lower Navarre ? Why not Escos ?). Full suppression was the easier solution, certainly. (I should add that the precise number of municipalities is not a very significant and important information ; in France at least fusions or defusions are common, Bergouey-Viellenave was two municipalites a few years ago and one now...). This info is very complicated to state neutrally and completely, and not very relevant. If you think it is necessary, you may reinstate it and we could try another solution, but it might get clumsy... French Tourist (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I just visited the article Kurdistan and there are no stats about number of municipalities, indeed the presence of these stats was a bit odd, they are not frequent either in articles on administrative regions (I tried Andalusia more or less at random - I get links towards lists of municipalities, but no numbers) or in articles on cultural/historical regions. French Tourist (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm I see your point. Very well, let's leave out the municipality stats but let's leave in the popolation figures, perhaps mark them as approximate figures as, as you say, it depends to some degree on where you draw the line - but not hugely as most of those contentious bits are sparsely populated. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had grouped population in three groups (BAC, Navarre, French side) since it seemed to me more synthetic than in seven slices ; if you think it is really useful to break by province, why not, as you like it, I have no strong preferrence for my choice. French Tourist (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Na that's fine with me, I just took out the spaces before the % sign and amended the caption under the Ikurriña. Wow, a sane discussion on a Basque topic LOL! Akerbeltz (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Historical" territory/region ?

I think there is a (non urgent and not awfully serious) problem of neutrality in the use of the expression "historical region" in the introduction and "historical territory" in the title. Reasonably, it should be treated in the introduction first (we should not begin by a stupid renaming re-renaming and re-re-renaming of the article along the flow of our ideas), in the title later.

The adjective "historical" seems to me (slightly) biased in favor of Basque nationalism : more or less unconsciously, it implies roots far-reaching in the past, which is the "nationalist" viewpoint but is notoriously disputed by other circles. The wikilink historical region is of little help : try and click, you'll be led on an interesting paragraph about the theories of D. W. Meining about regional geography of the United States... not very relevant. A google search allows me to discover that two geographers (Gallois and Longnon) elaborated a theory of "historical regions" at the beginning of XXth century... about which I know nothing. Ooops I am in a blind alley, I should go somewhere else.

So let's see how the Basque country is qualified in generic sources. On Encyclopedia Britannica, it is a "cultural region" (but warning, the article with this title does not cover the same topic as ours but only French Basque Country) : [5]. I am not sure to have been able to search all nooks and crannies of Encyclopedia Auñamendi (their content is good but their search engine hmmm..) ; I found out though the interesting expression "la Euskal Herria antropológica" [6] - could we write an "anthropological territory" or "anthropological region" ? A bit pedantic perhaps.

If some of you wish to defend "historical" I do not oppose on principle, but I think they should produce sources using this expression, so as to check 1) if it is used at all outside Wikipedia 2) if yes if it is used by sources pertaining to various thought currents or nationalistically tainted 3) and, if possible, what it means exactly !

My suggestion would be to replace "historical region" by the plainer and less connoted "area" in the introduction. (Let's wait to see if we can find a consensus here before thinking about the title). What do you think about it ? (And I strongly suggest not to care about the title while we have not resolved this first question) French Tourist (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see how there can be a problem with the title (but I'm a Welsh nationalist, so you may feel that I'm biased).

The adjective "historical" seems to me (slightly) biased in favor of Basque nationalism : more or less unconsciously, it implies roots far-reaching in the past, which is the "nationalist" viewpoint but is notoriously disputed by other circles.

While I can appreciate that those who do not consider themselves Basque, or who also consider themselves to be Spanish or French do not wish to see a unified country/region/area of all 7 provinces in the future, but that is something completely different to not accepting that there are people who live outside the Basque Autonomous Community who consider themselves Basque and have done so for centuries. Is the existence of Basque architecture in Lapurdi not evidence of a historical Basque presence? If, as you say there are many that dispute that the south of France or Navarre were ever Basque, then surley they must have some evidence to back this up. If that's the case, there is no reason to contain it in the article. --Rhyswynne (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. The subtlety is the difference between "Basque culture is strongly anchored in history, long long back in time" (not contentious here - we fully agree) and "Basque country is a historical object" (of course it is certainly an object important in the history of 20th and 21st centuries, but "historical" hints of something older). Wales is something easy : there are Welsh people and a Welsh culture, well attested in history, and there is a political entity called "Wales", also well attested in history, and with borders well defined (since the case of Monmouthshire was endly clarified, at least :-)). For the Basque country, there are at least two problems 1) is it neutral to call any territorial concept related to Basquitude "historical" ? 2) if yes, is it exactly this one ? (To give an analogy, what would be Navarre (historical territory) : would it be present day Navarre or the reunion of Navarre and Lower Navarre ?). I know these questions are contentious, I don't search for sources since we are on a talk page. Since they are, the word "historical" should be at least sourced or (since it seems easier and potentially more consensual) removed. French Tourist (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To make matters worse: the term "historical territories" belongs to the legal vocabulary of Spain and refers to the three current provinces in the Basque Country autonomous region and possibly also to Navarre, which could have been a part of that region but decided not to. Ijontichy (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? We've been through this all. That's why we ended up with the term "greater region" instead of historical region! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by the nominator to Basque Country (greater region), as in conform with apparent consensus formed after long talks on the matter. Húsönd 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country (historical territory) → Euskal Herria — The current title's parenthesis is misleading and the title without parenthesis is taken (and ambiguous). This article is/should be about a concept, not a "historical territory", see the Spanish Wiki for a similar solution. This proposal stems from discussions about problems in the article's content and "info"box over the last few days. It might be useful for those interested in the move request to read those debate threads first. — Srnec (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. AFAIK the name/title "Euskal Herria" is NOT widely used or known in the English language. This article is NOT written in Spanish, therefore this is an unwise comparision. IMHO it simply needs a more appropiate English title. Flamarande (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please propose one. And unless this concept is discussed in English often enough, I do not count "NOT widely used or known in the English" against it. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Had an idea up a mountain in Argyll. Why not call it Basque Country (ethnic territory)? Ethnicity is nowhere near as contentious in the BAC, Navarre and the North as any concepts of nationality (as this conflicts with Spanishness/Frenchness/Navarreseness) or historicalness (don't need to mention why...). In all regions the terms vasco/basque/euskal etc are acceptable for describing concepts related to Basque ethnicity/customs/language? And no, we wouldn't be claiming that all people in this area are ethnically Basque either, it's simply the area "in which people of Basque ethnicity live in large numbers as a historically indigenous group". What do you think? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The article is meant to describe a political concept. --Asterion^talk 12:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing, Euskal Herria is not really a political concept. Prior to Sabino Arana inventing the word Euskadi because he wanted to find a new word that specifically describes the Basque Country as a *political* entity, the term Euskal Herria was the only - and etymologically old - term in the Basque language to refer to the geographical territory inhabited by Basques. Etymologically it's clearly not political - Euskal is an adjectival from of Euskara, the name for the language, and Herria a rather broad term that can be translated as village/town/land/country, so "the land of the Basque language". To quote Larry Trask in The History of Basque "The traditional name for the Basque Country is Euskal Herria, a label which is ethnic and geographical rather than political. The word herri means all of 'country, land', 'people, nation' and 'town'."

The reason this word has seemingly adopted a nationalistic flavor is because Euskadi has since come to be used exclusively to denote the BAC, not the broader ethnic territory of the Basques. So when Basques (including, but by no means not exclusively, nationalists) want to talk about the wider cocnept, the older word is used. So moving the article to Euskal Herria on grounds of political connotations is a bad idea. I still think we should move it to Basque Country (ethnic territory). Akerbeltz (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying and I understand why Arana did not like the term and invented Euzkadi instead. I am aware that by Euskadi people usually refer to the autonomous community, though this is not strictly true, as wordings such Euskadi Norte and Euskadi Sur and the like are not unusual either. In all honesty, I do not know what the best solution would be, as one of the probable outcomes of the page move may be that it becomes a focus for edit wars if things such as pseudo-officially looking country-style infoboxes are used in the article. Regards, --Asterion^talk 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Use English. Húsönd 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is English usage in this case? Srnec (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Basque Country", of course. But since there's more than one concept for "Basque Country", the "(historical territory)" addition is adequate. Húsönd 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments : this request seems to me premature - I suggested a few paragraphs before that the title did not satisfy me, but that we should take time to choose another. I propose to keep this one provisionnally and to take time for reflexion.

(Not enthusiastic either for "(ethnic territory)". I have no sources available at hand, but have a few ones discussing the adequacy of the concept of "ethnicity" for the Basque country, see for instance the one I could find quickly (in French) : [7]. Using "(ethnic territory)" seems to me hardy consensual. I could suggest "(cultural territory)" which is also far from perfect though probably a bit better, but insist to ask for taking time in making our decision.) French Tourist (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm I don't think it's a question of being enthusiastic, I don't think *any* solution we go for is going to cause delirious shouts of joy from everyone, I think it's one of those cases where we need to find the least worst solutíon.

We could go for a simple enumeration - Basque Country (BAC, Navarre, Northern BC) and leave any explanations as to ethnic/political/cultural issues for the text body. It would simply be a statement of fact that these 3 territories are sometimes lumped together under the term Basque Country. Which is true. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are on the right direction : something purely descriptive ; Of course you title is a bit abstruse for the casual passer-by, who does not necessarily directly understands what "BAC" can mean. I try a variant : "Basque country (seven provinces extension)". French Tourist (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike Euskal Herria; we should not use Basque terms unless they have been widely adopted into English. A new dab does seem called for: either (cultural territory) or (traditional territory) seem reasonable. Please note that the last does not make sweeping claims: many traditions did originate in the nineteenth century; so if this one did, as the article now claims, we're fine. - Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with avoiding Euskal Herria, but "cultural territory" might be problematic, since this entire region is not at all uniformly Basque in culture. "Traditional territory" might be problematic if the tradition is nationalist tradition and not really Basque tradition. I would have proposed a better English dab if I could've found one. Perhaps "Basque Country (nationalist concept)" is best. Srnec (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is obviously POV (and I have found only one source going more or less in your direction, Barbara Loyer in Dictionnaire de géopolitique published in 1995). Should be avoided. I have found an interesting POV on this concept of Basque Country in Histoire du Pays Basque, Béatrice Leroy, 2005 : for her Basque Country is related to the "norms of 19th century geopolitics" (but hard to create a title from this idea, indeed...) French Tourist (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FrenchTourist, yes, I like that, Basque Country (seven provinces) or Basque Country (seven historical provinces) though the latter might raise the same sort of argument but I'd be perfectly happy with Basque Country (seven provinces), it's descriptive, accurate and does not contain or imply POV. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Greater Basque Country as in Greater Albania? It is proper English and, though not very commonly used, it has been mentioned in media and academic sources: BBC, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Greater Basque Country sounds like a likely and relatively handsome one. (seven provinces) is not too bad either. Mountolive _{and the complications} 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could certainly live with Greater Basque Country Akerbeltz (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support Greater Basque Country over the current title. Srnec (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No obvious objection to "Greater Basque Country" but better to wait a few days, for the French speaker I am, it looks like nothing usual in French ("Grande Albanie" is sometimes met, but I never saw something similar for Basque Country) - I let English native speakers decide whether or not this is reasonably usual in their language. French Tourist (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of the Wikicommons debate, there doesn't seem to be any opposition to Greater Basque Country on here, so maybe we should move the page? Is there a way to automatically update all the links that currently link to BC(historical territory)? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Euskal Herria rather than Greater Basque Country. Even if it's not english, it has more tradition. In fact, almost nobody uses Greater Basque Country. See that in the first two and fourth links given above by Asterion Greater Basque Country is used only as an explanation of what is Euskal Herria. In the third one Euskal Herria is also used. In the fifth one I see no Greater Basque Country. In the sixth one there is literally <<greater Basque Country or Euskal Herria>>. I cannot read the seventh one. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd never come across the phrase 'Greater Basque Country' before seeing it here, and don't think it's suitable. I've come across Euskal Herria plenty of times before. No, it's not an English name, but EH has an English name, and it's the Basque Country.

If what Unai says about the bove references is true (I've not clicked on them), it doesn't sound as though they can be used as examples.--Rhyswynne (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the point! This article should be moved to Basque Country. The disambiguation should be inside the article's text (It's already there, indeed). --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't be. The other primary notion of "Basque Country" (which is the Spanish autonomous community) is too relevant (probably even more common and known) to be tramped by the historical country article. The disambiguation page is fine the way it is. Húsönd 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's try again Basque Country (seven provinces) : just the commonest english name of the entity, with a disambiguation as factual and neutral as possible in the title. Who has something to say against this proposal ? French Tourist (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I not only do not think that "seven provinces" is very common in English to refer to the Basque Country, as I also do not think that "seven provinces" is a concept at all. The word we put in parenthesis is supposed to be a clear concept to disambiguate the subject from another meaning. A reader who knows nothing about the Basque Country will not know what exactly do we mean by "Basque Country (seven provinces)". The much clearer concept of "historical territory" on the other hand would be promptly understood. Húsönd 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Husönd, this whole discussion started because it was correctly pointed out that all seven provinces never formed a territorial unit, therefore "historical territory" is misleading. And, it's just as novel an expression as "BC 7 provinces" - both are descriptive phrases and neither have any great claim to being used widely or ever sparsely. So I'm for BC 7 provinces Akerbeltz (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are back to the starting point. I have reasons to agree partially virtually with everybody. First of all, I do strongly support changing the name "historical territory" is vague and, what is worse, misleading (for instance, all of the French Basque country has been historically separated from the Spanish one, which contradicts the existence of a single "historical" Basque country). Something along "ethnic territory" was also suggested, but ethnicity is definitely a troublesome concept in Western Europe and would lead to definitely clumsy results and endless, fruitless discussion as to who is an "ethnic Basque". I was ok with (seven provinces) but Husond's reasoning against it is sound.

All in all I guess we should narrow the choices to either "Greater Basque country" or "Euskal Herria" and decide.Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. as per Akerbeltz latest, I guess there is still a chance to discuss (seven provinces). Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there were good arguments against Euskal Herria. Again, I reiterate that BC (seven provinces) is not meant as a concept or term that ought to be used but it's purely descriptive. There are numerous exaples of disambiguating page names on wikipedia that no one would dream of actually using as such (try Árran (Sami publication) for example. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad for not having mentioned it before, but if the main reason against Euskal Herria is that it is not an English word, to that I'd say that, precisely, that is what makes it good ,since the whole concept is quite "domestic" and Basque (nationalist) centered which makes it unlikely that we find a precise equivalent definition in common English. In this regard I'd point out to similar concepts which are alien to English language such as anschluss having gained currency in English retaining the original term. This said, I still see and support reasons for both Greater Basque Country and (seven provinces)...I guess I am open to be bribed ;) Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Akerbeltz is right that there has never been an actual territory comprised of those seven provinces, however this notion becomes correct if one interprets this "historical territory" as "the territory that Basques historically regard as their homeland". It doesn't mean that it has once been independent. In fact, we don't use this format for countries that were independent in the past. Anyway, we should brainstorm for a more accurate name. I'm sure that we can come up with a term that will define in precision what this Basque Country is. Until then, I still think that "historical territory" is the best we got. Húsönd 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with Mountolive that Euskal Herria would make a perfect solution, if not for going against WP:UE... Húsönd 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just put away some books when I came across one of my travel guides to the BC... it's the 2003 Cadogan Guide entitled "Bilbao & The Basque Lands" - it covers the BAC, Navarre and the North. So here we have a prominent example of use, by writers/a publisher that could not possibly be accused of being a secret Etarra. So, how about Basque Country (The Basque Lands)? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think that's better than the seven provinces suggestion. Besides, I'm not sure if "Basque Lands" is a common term in English in the first place. I recall seeing that before, but very rarely. Húsönd 01:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country (nationalist claim) might be most accurate. The seven provinces under consideration are neither the maximum extent of Basque settlement, language, or political control; nor are they the regions dominated by Basques today; nor are they a political unit. They are a nationalist construction and should be regarded as such. This is neither inherently good or bad, but it is a fact. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about something of that kind, but the concept we have here goes much beyond a mere nationalist claim. It needs to incorporate both the geographic and ethnic/nationalist aspects. Húsönd 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess at this stage the most urgent thing is to narrow down options before moving ahead. So, Aker, if you can live with either Euskal Herria, (Seven Provinces) or Greater Basque Country, then it would be good to restrict the options as much as possible, dont you think? Dont get me wrong, if there is any spectacular option out there that we didnt came across, we should definitely go for it, but, on the face of it "basque lands" doesnt sound like most promising. Have a good weekend. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the best we should do right now would be having the requested move closed as no consensus and start making a pool of suggestions instead. Sooner or later we'll find an accurate solution. Húsönd 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how about Basque Country (transnational region)? Húsönd 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh it sounds really strange, like Eurocrat jargon. I don't follow you at all on this one (though I am not stubbornly against if others are in favor). Still another try : using the Basque/Spanish "Euskal Herria" as disambiguation on the commonest English name  : Basque Country (Euskal Herria). French Tourist (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Urr, we've explained before that it's *not* simply a nationalist concept so let's not go there again. And it was Husond who wanted to brainstorm for alternatives, not me :b I've just done a Google search for "Basque Lands" excluding pages containing Cadogan and Facaros (one of the authors) and the term is surprisingly common, I got 10,700 results! I think we should remember that what each of us has read or heard in our time may not be representative of the whole Akerbeltz (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is simply a nationalist concept. Can you explain it again? I fail to see how these seven provinces united together as a "Basque Country" is anything more than a nationalist claim. But I would settle for "Greater Basque Country", "Basque Country (seven provinces)", or "Basque Lands" (if it can be shown to be mainstream). Srnec (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Maybe nationalist is not the right word, but it is a concept, it is not universally accepted, it has only some relationship to history, and it has been ceased upon by Basque nationalists. This page needs to be rewritten like the Spanish one. As it stands, it is a near worthless article. Srnec (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting it into simple terms, the concept of all provinces forming some sort of a unit is *way older* than Basque nationalism, which was born in the late 19th/early 20th century. In fact, from the earliest records onwards, the Basques have used only the term Euskal Herria which to them had always meant the totality of the Basque "lands", however they were geopolitically split.

Yes of course Basque nationalists have seized upon this old concept and transformed it into a political aspiration of national unity but that doesn't make the original concept "nationalist". Hoe exactly would one go about showing any of these terms is mainstream? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the Spanish article today. Incomparably better than this one. That only suggest further, to me, that "Euskal Herria" is not a bad choice. I think that UE fails us when dealing with topics that are not discussed widely enough in RS that we can statistically determine what English usage is. Is there a consistent, commonplace English usage in this case? If not, then I don't see how the Basque term is problematic. Srnec (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you reckon we could get away with Basque Country (Euskal Herria)? I'd be more than happy with that. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we could. The designation in parenthesis must be a definition, in English words, of the subject it follows. Although I much appreciate "Euskal Herria" (which would describe perfectly what this article is about), it is basically not used in English (well, it might be occasionally, but still much less than "Basque Country"). Húsönd 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm sure you didn't mean to but I'm getting a little frustrated here. First various suggestions for the parenthesis item (seven provinces, Basque Lands etc) get turned down because they are "not commonly used in English", now one gets turned down because its not descriptive from an English point of view. How on earth can a term be expected to be both at the same time? I mean, the necessity for the item in parenthesis to be descriptive makes perfect sense and seems to be what happens on most disamb pages. Fine. But in that case the purely descriptive suggestion of (seven provinces) must be acceptable and can't be ruled out because "it's not commonly used in English literature" - which generally is the case with descriptors... help!!! LOL Akerbeltz (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: Just went via the Spanish page and did some clicking around... got onto Vasconia. How about Basque Country (Vasconia) then? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vasconia is not English. I see that I am failing to explain what exactly should go between the parenthesis. Right now I'm busy but I'll get back to this when I get home later. Húsönd 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would support "Euskal Herria", not "Basque Country (Euskal Herria)". Husond is right: the parenthesis must be a descriptor, a disambiguator, not a synonym. So I also oppose "Basque Country (Vasconia)". Vasconia, which is used enough in English, would be good save that it suffers from ambiguity issues just like Basque Country. Let me reiterate that (seven provinces) is a good disambiguator. Srnec (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ederki, let's go with Basque Country (seven provinces) then please - no term will ever be perfect - and get on with the much more needed rewrite of the page =) Akerbeltz (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I fail to see the problem with Euskal Herria, it is not English? ok, anschluss is not English either even though it does have a (troublesome) translation into English all the same (just like with the Euskal Herria case).

The above is my preferred option. This said, I am ok with (seven provinces) even though, on second thought, they are not exactly provinces....but I guess I am turning into a stickler myself too ;)

As for Basque Country (Euskal Herria) I think it is also ok, because they are not exactly synonims, to me (Euskal Herria) works as a good disambiguating agent (Basque Country by itself would be the Spanish Basque autonomous community, while Euskal Herria would be all those territories traditionally speaking Basque, I am not inventing anything: this is exactly the way it works in daily life). Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "anschluss" and "Euskal Herria". "Anschluss" is a word known and widely used in English to refer to the particular annexation of Austria by Germany. "Euskal Herria" is a word that is virtually never used in English ("Basque Country" is used instead). Therefore, since "Basque Country" is by far the most common designation for this subject in English, it must therefore remain "Basque Country", as per WP:UE. As for the disambiguation definition, in parenthesis, it pretty much will have to be what the first line of this article uses or will use as the main definition of its subject. At this moment, the definition is "The Basque Country (...) as a historical region (...) is a region in the western Pyrenees (...)". Therefore, the word "region" or a suitable substitute should be used. "Seven provinces" won't work because it is not a clear definition of the subject. Probably, the best choice here is "Basque Country (historical region)", retaining most of the current title. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Húsönd 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It IS broken, see my comments opening the short section "Historical territory/region ?" section, which received few commentaries. If you think that "historical region" should be used, you should at least give sources underscoring this opinion, and explaining what "historical region" means. French Tourist (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ufff, stickling to the it has to be in English I dont think is going to help this time. I think that is meant for cases where there is a univocal an clear English translation (Venezia, Venice etc etc) not for this particular case, which looks like it will be most common referred in English with a periphrasis or descriptive sentence ("territories where Basque is spoken" "territories which Basque nationalism claims as a homeland", whatever) rather than with one term. And whenever it is done with one term, we don't know which one is the most usual in English. (By the way, this lack of an appropiate term in a nearby language speaks of how little this could be a "historical" concept/territory at all) In any case, if we were to stick to a name in English and only in English, I'd go back to Greater Basque Country. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 13:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From a UK perspective, and where a very large proportion of users of the English wiki come form I'd assume, the 'Basque Country' will mean the whole area covered by this article, not an administrative division of Spain. I consider myself a resonably 'clued-up' person, but I'd never heard of such a thing as 'Basque Autonomous Community' until about 2 years ago (probably on Wikipedia, while researching for a trip!). I notice the French equivalent of this page is simply called 'Pays basque', and nothing more.--Rhyswynne (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point I guess. I suppose part of the problem is that Basque Country is being used as a disamb page. Had a look at the Spanish pages, there might be a different way out of this but it would involve :

• shifting the disamb page (currently partly on Basque Country to Basque Country (disambiguation) only
• moving Basque Country (historical territory) to Basque Country
• leaving Navarre, Basque Autonomous Community and Northern Basque Country where they are.

I've just looked around - there are loads of pages that use (disambiguation) in brackets, so that must be permissible and would get us around the whole issue of what to call the "thing". Akerbeltz (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do support this last proposal by Akerbeltz. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not. The Spanish autonnomous community is at least as relevant; definitely not an uncomon usage of the term "Basque Country", which in turn is fine as a dab page. Húsönd 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, people usually associate the term Basque Country with Euskadi/Pays Basque but just because that's the colloquial interpretation doesn't mean we have to follow that. By far the most popular conception of Cantonese is that it's a dialect yet it's listed as Cantonese (language) on Wikipedia. There's nothing that keeps us from putting a line across the top of the Basque Country page that says for other meanings of the term etc etc see Basque Country (disambiguation). We gotta go with something and I feel this is the most workable solution so far. Most people here agree it needs changing Husond, so perhaps we should try and decide if a propsed solution is acceptable/workable, rather than to try to search for a perfect, well documented, widely used English term for a concept that few English speaking people ever talk about... And, if I may say so, if the Spanish wiki project can live with that setup - and for them País Vasco is much more closely associated with Euskadi than for English speakers, then so should we ; ) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your suggestion, Akerbeltz. I would prefer if Basque Country is kept as a disambiguation page. However, I think that Euskadi should be the first entry on the list, as it is the most common meaning.

Not to complicate things even more ;-), here is another idea Basque Country (linguistic and cultural territory)

All I can say is that we should be starting to build a list and compare the advantages and disadvantaged of each term. Regards, --Asterion^talk 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Akerbeltz here. First, the colloquial interpretation is precisely what we have to follow (as elsewhere on Wikipedia, where common usage in the English language determines the titles of the articles, occasionally overrunning even official designations). Second, although the Cantonese language is certainly the most popular conception of "Cantonese", there are other meanings (namely the demonym) are sufficiently popular to cause Cantonese to be a dab page (or I can cite other examples such as "Georgia", where the U.S. state is better known and certainly more referred to in English than the country with the same name, but obviously we can't have the state keep the name "Georgia" all for itself). Third, we are searching for an acceptable/workable solution and, particularly, a solution that is better than the current name (otherwise it doesn't make sense changing it). And fourth, this is the English Wikipedia and we are totally independent from the decisions and choices they make over at the Spanish Wikipedia. Oh, and Asterion brought a good suggestion which I would support. Although I'm not sure if everybody would find it acceptable, since the region is not all that linguistic (as some great portions of it barely have any Basque speakers). Same goes for culture. Húsönd 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, my turn to disagree :b Presumably the objections to (seven pronvinces) were raised on the basis that a reader would have to know the relevance of the seven provinces to the whole Basque Country issue? Well, in order for Basque Country (linguistic and cultural territory) to work, someone would have to understand the linguistic and cultural differences and the history of these for them to make it understandable what the relevance here is. For example, the Rioja historically falls into the Basque speaking area as to vast tracts of land up to the Garonne and down the Pyrenees, but not even the most hardcore Etarras suggest annexing Gascony. On that basis (linguistic and cultural territory) either excludes the southern parts of Navarre and tracts of Alava or it includes the aforementioned areas, otherwise it's inconsistent.

So, since common usage is the criterion, how exactly does one establish popular usage? I'm just tryin to think of English language material that people would have read that somehow involve the mentioning or discussing of the Basque Country. Kurlansky's Basque History of the World is a fairly popular book and uses the term BC to refer to Euskal Herria, as does Larry Trask in his History of Basque. Most tourist literature (from memory) on the Spanish side refers to Euskadi as País Vasco/Basque Country whereas the French side does the same for Pays Basque/Basque Country when talking about the northern provinces. I honestly don't think there is a consistent approach or interpretation in English language publications.

The BBC, bless them, has the following explanation: Basque is spoken either side of the Western Pyrenees: in Spain in the autonomous communities of Euskadi and Navarra, and Pyrénées Atlantiques in France. These territories are collectively known in the language as Euskal Herria, the Basque Country. [14] ... Akerbeltz (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand no solution is ever going to be perfect. In all honesty, I am not fully convinced by my last one either. The problem is that it is difficult to define this. Even the BBC uses the "flawed Basque Country=Place where Basque is spoken definition. This is why I decided that just linguistic was not going to do... Aside this, it is a fact that the cultural aspect is stronger south of the Pyrenees for various reasons. Out of the few move requests, I have ever got involved with, this is by far the most difficult one! Asterion^talk 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can see here at GoogleBooks that Euskal Herria appears in English and so does Greater Basque Country. Those are our best options if we can't agree on a parenthesis. (seven provinces) is the best parenthesis because it is (1) it is completely neutral and implies nothing controversial that I can think of (2) it is a fact that this Basque Country, be it traditional, cultural, linguistic, or nationalist is divided traditionally/culturally/linguistically/nationalistically into seven provinces and (3) it is unambiguous. All parentheses will be vague to those who do not know what the Basque Country is, though I agree that those looking for the Greater Basque Country will be stymied if they do not know that it has seven divisions. However, this beats the controversial options. I could see (traditional region) working, though. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree (but not with the "traditional region" thing) Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

Disagree. Here's the two things you need to realize: 1)"Basque Country" as the designation of the subject of this article in the English language is far more common than any of the other mentioned designations, namely "Greater Basque Country", "Basque Lands", "Euskal Herria", etc.. WP:UE. No escape from this. 2)What will come in parenthesis will have to be the primary definition of the subject. This article would not start with "The Basque Country are seven provinces" so the "seven provinces" should be ruled out. The article must start with something like "The Basque Country is a region", so it is "region" (or a plausible substitute for "region") and its complement that need to be worked out. Húsönd 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see seven provinces being a problem as being part of a primary definition. How about the Basque Country is a slightly ambiguous term in English and while it may colloquially refer to the Basque Autonomous Community or the Northern Basque Country alone, it frequently is also the term used to describe the territory covered by the seven provinces seen by many Basques to constitute the Basque Country: Gipuzkoa, Alava, Biscay, Labourd, Lower Navarre, Soule and Navarre etc etc Akerbeltz (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Husond that "Basque Country" is the "far more common" than any of the proposed alternatives, but seeing as it is an ambiguous term, it is simply not on the table. I agree that the Basque Country of this article is a "region", but how do we characterise this region, since the autonomous community (which is the primary meaning of Basque Country to me) is also a region? Can we call it a linguistic region? A cultural one? A historical one? Traditional? Ethnic? Transnational? All of those terms have problems, i.e. carry baggage. "Seven provinces" is nicely unambiguous and uncontroversial. It may not be the first thing you think of when you hear "Basque Country", but it is pretty defining. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous it is, disambiguated it has been (therefore "Basque Country" remains totally on the table and cannot be excluded from the title of this article as per WP:UE). It is true that Euskadi is also a region, but since it is above all an autonomous community within the Spanish state, it was rightfully disambiguated as "Basque Country (autonomous community)". We could call the Basque Country of this article a linguistic, cultural, historical, traditional, ethnic or transnational region, but you are right that all of these complements carry some sort of inaccuracy or inadequacy. Historical, traditional and transnational are far better choices than the others though (as the Basque Country lacks linguistic, cultural and ethnic homogeneity within its lands). Maybe it is time to bring to the table the plain, simple, raw, but at least accurate Basque Country (region) possibility. Any feedback on this one? Húsönd 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say you think we could move this article to "Basque Country"? I would prefer moving Basque Country (autonomous community) to that title per WP:UE! I think "region" is a poor disambiguator, since it undeniable that the autonomous community is (or has) a region as well, even if it is more than just a region. "An autonomous community within the Spanish state" is a region with a government beneath the federal gov't (is federal the right word here?). {traditional region) is an improvement on the current title. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am basically in line with Srnec with this, but not this time with considering (traditional region) any improvement whatsoever. I mean, it may work well in terms of disambiguating, but, which region is not traditional in the first place? it is redundant and kinda clumsy. If it has to be that way and only that way, then I guess (cultural region) could go. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 01:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant keeping this article as "Basque Country (something goes here)", not to simply move it to "Basque Country" (an option already suggested above and which I disagree with). I agree that "region" just on its own is a poor disambiguator. Again, I reiterate that I seem to prefer "Basque Country (historical region)" as the most adequate option so far. Yet, even this one is not perfect. But still, closer to perfection than the others I guess. Húsönd 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But how is this a historical region? It is a term invented in the sixteenth century to describe an area that has never been politically united except under the Roman Empire and maybe under Sancho the Great. It is represents neither the maximum linguistic extent of Basque nor just that region where Basque is the dominant language today (or ever, I think). It is not the region where the majority self-identifies as Basque. What is historical about it? Under the Visigoths and Franks the regions north of the Pyrenees were not attached the rest and Basque settlement extended much further north and possibly south and west. Guipúzcoa, Vizcaya, and Álava were passed back and forth between Navarre and Castile in the Middle Ages. The Navarrese has long been distinguished from the Basques as Navarri or Pampilonenses. Basque placenames extend further north in Gascony (from Latin Vasco-, Basque, and -ia, land, i.e. Basque country), which was historically Basque country. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is historical in the sense that through history it has been defined as the region comprising the seven Basque provinces. This as opposed to a politically defined existence, which a unified Basque Country never had. Húsönd 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Has it been defined that way throughout history? I think your argument sounds like a good one for using (seven provinces). Srnec (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Ok, brace yourselves, here's another suggestion incorporating two previous suggestions. How about Basque Country (Greater Basque Country)? It includes the common name (however ambiguous) and has in brackets what should fit Husönd's requirement of "primary definition of the subject" - as in, the phrase Greater BC - even if not common - is a clearer explanation of the term without prior knowledge of the topic (compared to (seven provinces) for example) as there are other countries/regions which involve the term Greater and it's English. Please say yes LOL Akerbeltz (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not bad. Although "Basque Country (Greater Basque Country region)" might be more complete as it would include a word that defines what's the "Basque Country" in the first place. Anyway, kudos to Akerbeltz. :-) Húsönd 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL thank you. Personally I think Basque Country (Greater Basque Country region) is a bit clumsy but I will not object either way. Let's a have a show of hands from you other peeps about your preferred option please:

• Option A: Basque Country (Greater Basque Country)
• Option B: Basque Country (Greater Basque Country region)

And then let's move it and get on with the real job ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly oppose both. I think it is clumsy and redundant to include the term "Basque Country: in the title twice. Basque Country (greater region) might be okay, but I'd prefer the other suggestions mentioned. Srnec (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also go for Euskal Herria and others mentioned before, but, if there's no other option... Basque Country (cultural region) is not worth of being considered? it is pretty descriptive, sanitized, and doesnt sound too clumsy, does it? Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Basque Country (cultural region)" is as inaccurate as would "Basque Country (linguistic region)" be, due to lack of ethnic, linguistic and hence cultural homogeneity throughout the Basque Country. "Basque Country (greater region)" suggested by Srnec looks acceptable. Húsönd 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So what on earth is the blessed reason for this article if it is not for cultural reasons?

We have made clear there is no common history, no political unity whatsoever either, so...what is the cement putting this concept together? of course it is Basque culture, but now, oh, we discover the Mediterranean by realizing there is no "cultural homogeinity" either.... of course there is not, but we have to cling to something, huh?.

Because there is not such a "region" either, what is a "region" without a cultural/historic cement? A "region" in the geographic sense does not apply either to the Basque Country (whatever), for it is not homogenous either, there are plains, there are mountains, there is coast, there is inland...so it is not a geographic "region", unless we determine here that the meaning of "region" is, basically, "area", which is quite poor for a debate in which we are investing so much chatter. So, if we are going to be stickling around to terms, then why not just deleting the whole blessed article whose concept itself is proving to be so faulty in the first place?

ufff...I feel better now.

admittedly, I'm a bit frustrated with this loooong debate by now: please accept my apologies beforehand. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reaching the whatever stage too I'm afraid... I can live with (greater region) so let's please go with that. It's vague enough to accommodate for all the cultural/linguistic/etc differences. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to any point before in this discussion, although I've been reading it as it has been going on. I personally think that Basque Country (greater region) is the best, as since it has a small ambiguity it will make it found more often when searched by readers and would remove its controversy Escorial82 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed of (greater region) –especially when considering the tons of KBs used for ending up with such a result– but if that is the one which has to be, then let it be.

This said, well, I'd hate to crash the party, but I'm afraid I can anticipate you guys that this won't be the last time we talked about this...it will take only one or two Basque nationalist-prone (or straight forward) Basque nationalist editors full of ardour to spot this term and...they are not going to like it....we'll see... Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL as long as *we* can agree on something, we'll be fine. Ok, who is going to be bold and move the page? And is there a way of updating all the links that currently link to (historical territory)? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if there's an option that is minimally acceptable for all of us, let's have it. Besides, the "greater region" may not be perfect but at least it's better than the current "historical territory". Yes Akerbeltz, if the article is moved then all links to the previous title will automatically redirect to the new one. Except the ones that already were redirects, but those can easily be fixed. I'll fix them myself if the closing admin does not. Húsönd 23:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I proposed the current "solution" and I would prefer it to the present solution, it seems no one really likes it. We just can't agree on anything else. Before I go ahead and move the article, I'd like to know if the participants (and watchers) in this debate would prefer to have some sort of vote on all the possibilities that have received support from somebody other than the proposer? Srnec (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support (greater region). It's actually a reasonable solution ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Use English. Both popular and academic uses in English are in favor of the expression "Basque Country". And this is the WP in English. --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess you skipped the lengthy discussion above, but the option being considered now is "Basque Country (greater region)". As it complies with WP:UE. "Euskal Herria" was dropped a long time ago for that reason. Húsönd 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, technically Euskal Herria was not really dropped, but some users (including you) object it, while some other users (including me) support it. However, the latter group of users seem to be more tired of this debate than the former and that is why. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, technically indeed it was not, but it effectively was (otherwise this discussion would most likely be closed as "no consensus" and that is something nobody is looking for). Húsönd 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops. I had read down to a moment when I considered I’d got the idea, it was such a rambling way to go. Certainly I didn’t realize the maze flow had been diverted into a different loop: shouldn’t a new title have been started? A template proposing “Greater Region” hasn't been added, or substituted for “Euskal Herria”. My apologies anyway. --- Now about the “new” title (that with the word “Greater”): No objection to the use of this word in innocuous expressions like Greater St. Louis, Greater London and the like. But it can also be a somewhat Peacock word, with a “greater” (no pun intended) or lesser irredentist claim, v.gr. in Greater Albania, Greater Arabia, Greater Austria, Greater Bulgaria, Greater China, Greater Finland, Greater Germany, Greater Hungary, Greater India, Greater Indonesia, Greater Iran, Greater Ireland, Greater Israel, Greater Italy, Greater Japan, Greater Lebanon, Greater Morocco, Greater Russia, Greater Serbia, Greater Syria, and so on and so forth. See what the term “greater” uses to be associated to, if enough care isn’t taken? A factual term could be substituted instead. Accordingly, I oppose to the use of this dangerous word in this context.--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page without reading this latest comment. I hope this debate continues even though I've moved the page. We need a better title, but there seemed to be consensus that the new title is at least an improvement over the "historical" one. Also, "Greater Basque Country" can be found in reliable sources: some can be found at GoogleBooks here. Srnec (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Use English. Requested move uses terminology not widely used or commonly known in English. --Bob (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article shouldn't have moved until the discussion was finished. I have one question for those who supported Basque Country (greater region): Should I suppose that "greater region" includes Cantabria, La Rioja, La Bureba, Huesca, Aran Valley, Bearn, etcetera etcetera? In that case, I agree with the new name. Otherwise, it is a very ambiguous one. If the article refers to the six provinces of Euskal Herria (Araba, Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa, Lapurdi, Nafarroa and Zuberoa), greater region is not a good explanation. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's seven provinces (or are you including Lowere Navarre in Navarre?). The current titls is bad, but no worse than "historical territory". Is the term "Basque Country" ever used for Cantabria, Huesca, Aran, etc.? Unless so, there is no ambiguity. I am not denying that these areas were once Basque regions, but are they ever called part of the Basque Country? I still support Basque Country (seven provinces). Srnec (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am including both Upper Navarre and Lower Navarre in Navarre, of course. Those six provinces are part of the Basque Country. But if the name of the article is Basque Country (greater region) I understand it includes those other territories I mentioned above. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose original proposal, Support Basque country (something) per concensus. Not "Greater Basque Country". Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this vote is unhelpful. The discussion was all about what to put in place of "something". No doubt "Greater Basque Country" is less than ideal to all involved, but there has not been any agreement on a better parenthetical disambiguator. Do you have a suggestion? Srnec (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikimedia Commons paralell discussion

A similar debate is taking place by now at Wikimedia Commons:[15]. Cheers!--83.50.250.95 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And the debate there seems to converge. --Foroa (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Greater region #1

Unai, no, greater region in the sense that it's not the smaller units such as Pays Basque or País Vasco (aka Euskadi) which are often loosely referred to as the BC in English but the greater region involving the 7 Basque provinces.

If we were talking about the area that includes the Huesca and Gascony, then the solution would have been much easier and we could have just called it "historical linguistic area" ; )

Personally, I'm ok with this choice for now. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to say I hope there can be no confusion with the quite extremist dream of Federico Krutwig (a copy of a map illustrating his book La Nueva Vasconia can be found at [16]). I don't think this is a serious problem (this kind of ultra-nationalism seems to be dead or at least deeply asleep nowadays), but I prefer to point to this possible new ambiguity. French Tourist (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's quite pertinent. But I think that this kind of ultra-nationalist, ultra-expansionist views should only merit perhaps a mention in the article, as I don't believe that they are minimally capable of causing any ambiguity towards the widely known and accepted notion of the Basque Country comprised of the seven historical provinces. Húsönd 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, safely dead. That Krutwig article needs tidying up too though, if only from a language angle. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that this is not ultranationalist. I only wanted to explain what I think when I read Basque Country (greater region). Anyway, I'm glad to see that all of you are quite happy with the result of the conversation. Cheers from the Basque Country (smaller and smaller region)! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Euskal Herria aurrera! ;-) Húsönd 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I am struggling to include at the famous infobox, right below the CoA, something along these lines "The Zazpiak Bat was designed in 1897. During the second half of the 20th century it has gained currency as the coat of arms of the Seven Basque Provinces. As such it is mostly used within Basque nationalism." but for some format thing and my own dummyness, I dont know how to include it (it does not show if I write it like that right next to the CoA.

Help anybody? Mountolive _{le déluge} 17:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I find the following part poorly written, and probably factually incorrect. The references are not in English (understandably), so I'm unable to verify myself, but here are my issues:

José Aranda Aznar writes[2] that 30% of the population in the Basque Country Autonomous Community were born in other regions of Spain and that 40% of the people living in that territory had not a single Basque parent.

Firstly, I initially mistook José Aranda Aznar for José María Aznar!, but after Googling I'm guessing he's either an author, academic or politician? The reference to him is:

"La mezcla del pueblo vasco", Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales, ISSN 1139-5737, Nº 1, 1998, pags. 121-180.

I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is, but a translation of the reference title would be usefull.

Secondly, as this article is about the Basque County (greater region) and not the BAC, I don't see how relevant this information is. It's quite possible that a significant proportion of these people were born in Navarre, which is of course 'another region of Spain' when dealing with the BAC, but not when dealing with the greater Basque region. Eustat, the statistics Agency for the BAC publish information in English, so i've had a bit of a look. Although it's very old data (1996), page 6 of Euskadi in Figures Demography 2003 [PDF] notes that of the BAC population, 25.6% came from the rest of Spain (excluding Navarre, from which 1.6% came) and that 0.9% from abroad. Again 'abroad' could include people from the 3 French provinces, and therefore muddles things up.

Siblings of immigrants from other parts of Spain have been since considered Basque for the most part.

'Considered Basque' by who, and for what purposes?

Over the last 25 years, some 380,000 people have left the Basque Autonomous Community, from which some 230,000 moved to other parts of Spain.

Again, this is about the BAC only, and does 'other parts of Spain' include Navarre?

While certainly many of them are people returning to their hometowns when starting their retirement, there is also, according to some sources, a sizeable tract of Basque natives in this group who has moved due to a Basque nationalist political environment (including ETA's killings) which they regard increasingly hostile[3].

I've clicked on the referece and it takes me to this page on Para la Libertad's website. I'm (again) guessing that Para la Libertad is a Spanish nationalist organisation which is hostile to Basque autonomy/independence? Is this a reliable source?

What exactly does 'a Basque nationalist political environment' actually mean? Sounds a bit POV. --Rhyswynne (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Basque language under 'nationalism' heading

This seems to imply that anyone who speaks Basque is a Basque nationalist by default. A language is surely something you inhert from your family or learn through friends or colleagues, while the other is a political ideology that yu decide upon yourself. I admit that both are sometimes inter-linked. My suggestion would be a new heading, with the following sub-headings.

Language and politics

Basque language

Basque nationalism

ETA Violence

--Rhyswynne (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many of my Basque speaking friends support parties from all ends of the spectrum, including the PP. It has been said and agreed before that this page needs a major re-write from a NPOV. Personally, I would completely split the Language section from the Politics section with a subsection under Politics on The Basque language in politics, something like:

The Basque language

Politics

Mainstream politics

Basque nationalism

ETA Violence

The Basque language in politics

Akerbeltz (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree in that it should be changed. But, rather than troublesome links like "language and politics" or "the Basque language in politics", I'd rather replace those by a more descriptive language policy header.

Language policy and language in politics are two different things. Language policy is how a governmental structure deals with promoting/suppressing a language. Language in politcs is how a language is used/abused by political factions for certain political goals. Language policy either sits under Language or Government, Language in Politics under politics I'd say. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is strongly nationalistic. The regions that are claimed to be part of that "Basque Country" were never an "historical region". That's simply not true.--Infinauta (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They're the provinces that historically spoke Basque. How is that nationalistic? kwami (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Because first, only some regions in the North of Navarre (see the article) spoke Basque and second, there was never an "historical region", we could debate if there was a similar (but not common) Basque language around there, but there was never in History any "historical region" called Basque Country, and there was never an "historical region" that joined these claimed regions. Easy.--Infinauta (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct about it only being northern Navarre. But I don't know what you think the word "region" means. It has no legal definition. These provinces are the region where historically Basque was spoken, and the people thought (or think) of themselves as Basque. Therefore it is the historical Basque region. QED. And of course there was—and is—a region called the Basque Country, just as there's sheep country and cheese country. That's common English usage. It has nothing to do with nationalism. kwami (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By region I means the spanish and french provinces that are claimed by the article to be part of the "whole Basque Country", because there were never joined, that's an actual claim of some nationalist, but it has not any historical root, maybe cultural as Mountolive notes below. And of course there is an actual and real Basque Country, it's in Spain and it's composed of the provinces (regions) of Bizcay, Guipozkoa and Alava, but not Navarre and fragments of France. --Infinauta (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the word "region". It does not mean that they were ever joined politically, any more than "mountainous region" means that they're a single mountain range. kwami (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My friend kwamikagami, the word "region" doesn't mean that they were joined, I agree with you. But I'm spanish and I can assure you that the expression "historical regions" has not a geographical sense, but a political sense. That's what I claim as non-neutral, as Mountolive has noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinauta (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the issue for the neutrality tag is the "historical region" claim, then it looks like Infinauta is right. We just had a few weeks ago a long debate about moving this article because the (historical region) tag was questionned for the title. It was pretty much unanimously accepted that "historical" is not the best adjective. But then a couple of "historical" remnants have stayed in the text. I am removing them along the neutrality tag. Hopefully that should work. Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say that since I left this article ("dejarlo por imposible" we say in Spain) it has evolved in a nice way, it's normally difficult to say this about such a sensible text. I think that the first paragraphs are now Ok, Mountolive. And the "greater region" thing pleases me a lot, no more historicals nor culturals nor whatever nationalist sounding thing. Zorionak denoi! David (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko ;) I sure was a mind bogglingly frustrating debate until we finally reached some for of consensus that no one was entirely happy with but that no one was unhappy with either. Ah, the world of consensus. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Enclaves

There's a big error about the enclaves on the map, as on the description of the map. It is true that Villverde Trutzios and Trebiñu are not oficially basque, but this article is not about the oficial Basque Autonomous Community, but about the cultural and greater Basque Country. Those two enclaves are part of the greater Basque Country. Can someone fix it?--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, done. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko, Akerbeltz ;-) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of a recent revert in infobox

This is about this diff : [17]

I removed the three entries added by An13sa for the following reasons :

• as concerns "currency", it is not at all obvious that a "cultural region" has a currency. Euro is the currency of both France and Spain, Basque country straddles the border between these two states, OK for these two facts ; to deduce that Euro is the currency of the Basque Country is not trivial and falls under WP:OR ;

• the mention of "languages" is not clear ; three of those which have been chosen are those which have more or less official status there, the choice of gascon which is spoken only by a tiny minority, probably tinier than the minority of English speakers has to be justfied (I don't take this revert too seriously, if somebody thinks this is _really_ important, I shall not enter a battle about it -nonetheless, I think this is not conformal to WP:NPOV as giving precedence to tradition over modernity) ;

• as concerns area, the data given (20 947 square km) is not sourced. I have very recently given details about the area question on the article in French - as you can see this is not simple : there is indeed a different area in every source. I strongly oppose any insertion of area which would not be more or less blurred. French Tourist (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I support your clarification. The Basque Country including parts of Spain and France (usually called Euskal Herria) is a basque nationalist claim, so obviously it has no any "offical currency". Also, the geographical limits are very confusing, as basque nationalism claims Navarre, but the will of most of Navarrese people is to remain being just Navarre. For example, the Navarrese government asked the Basque government to remove the navarrase coat of arms from the Basque Country coat of arms, leaving that red space in blank that we can see today, see [[18]].--Infinauta (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We can all agree safely that it's a very complicated issue. We could, for informative purposes, list the areas of each clearly defined unit. So we could list the area of Euskadi, the historical Northern provinces, Navarre and the Encartaciones. If we don't add a total, we can avoid the issue while being informative. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I intend to work on this direction when back home (that is from tomorrow onwards) - I have now a few data gathered with sources. Note however that the areas of the "historical Northern provinces" meet also (slight) variations, since their borders are not clearly and universally defined. French Tourist (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

About Navarra

Sadly, another politically correct lie has made its way into Wikipedia. Between the Basque nationalism lie, all Navarrese are Basque, and the Spanish nationalism lie, the Navarrese are first Navarrese, secondly Basque, there is the reality that everybody knows but almost nobody says in public: the Northern Navarrese are primarily Basque, secondly Navarrese, while the Southern Navarrese are not Basque at all. I don't have the time to search for a reference for that, which will be very hard to find anyway, but I expect to mend that some day. --Jotamar (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. First, it's too simplistic to paint all Basques/Navarrese who regard the south of Navarre as part of EH as nationalists. Not all people in Tudela who send their children to a Basque medium school are die-hard nationalists, some simply regard the language as a historical part of their culture, irrespective of the Basque/Navarrese issue. It's one of those complicated cases of "for how long has a language had to have been dead in area X for it not to be part of the territory any longer". I think overall it would be much more balanced if we stopped trying to solve the problem itself but rather produce a balanced explanation such as that the question of language and ethnicity in Navarre are complicated and that people hold different views without grouping people into over-simplistic categories of nationalists and hispanophiles. The thing is though, that the concept of Euskal Herria (as opposed the Euskadi) by default includes the southern end of Navarre. The page doesn't claim that's true, we're just stating that within the concept of EH, those bits are considered part of EH. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Basque has never been spoken (natively) in Tudela. For all we know, not even in the Stone Age. --Jotamar (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather agree with you ; geographical division as proposed by Jotamar seems quite "obvious" but is hard to source - I modified completely the sentence to try to circumvent this problem. French Tourist (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that in my footnote (number one) I have only schematically translated the quotation of Mariano Rajoy "Navarra es Navarra desde hace siglos y Euskal Herria no existe" (omitted the "desde hace siglos" (is that simply "for centuries" ?)) since I don't speak Spanish. Could I kindly require some editor reading Spanish to improve my unfaithful translation in the footnote. French Tourist (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The translation is: "Navarre is Navarre since centuries ago, and Euskal Herria just doesn't exist". I think he is relating to the kingdom of Navarre for the aseveration of "since centuries ago". When saying that Euskal Herria doesn't exist, he means that Euskal Herria (understanding this as spanish Basque Country, Navarre and French Basque Country) has never existed as an administration/political entity.--Infinauta (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm true in the geopolitical sense, except that traditionally EH does not refer to a *political* entitity. It was precisely for that reason that Arana coined Euskadi. Using EH to refer to a putative geopolitical entity is indeed a 20th century concept. But the concept of EH in its literal meaning of the region/people where/who speak Euskara almost certainly predates that of the Kingdom of Navarre. The problem is that people are not rigorous about distinguishing the two. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the Stone Age. It's true that the currently accepted language borders runs east west north of the Tudela "lump" for the 10th century. But for the period prior to that, we simply can't say with certainty either way as there just aren't the records. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"as defined by Basque nationalists" "as claimed by certain basque sectors"

The map of Louis Lucien Bonaparte.

I shall not enter an edit war about the additions in the map legend ("The seven provinces of the Basque Country,as claimed by certain basque sectors" in its present state), but I keep disagreeing with these additions.

The article must, of course, give information about the oppositions to the conception of this Greater Basque Country. But I don't think it can honestly be done by a too schematic restriction of the "opinion sectors" which admit Euskal Herria as a valid extension to define a "Basque country". The seven provinces are not only claimed "by certain basque sectors" (and, btw, it is not really in accordance with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words).

I can find a map of the Basque country :

• in the linguistic works of Louis Lucien Bonaparte in late XIXth century

• in a touristic guide, even an old one : the Michelin Green guide edition 1956 "Pyrénées", p. 141. Nothing to do with "certain basque sectors" : this is a guide produced as a part of a series covering France, by writers probably living in Paris or Clermont-Ferrand. This greater Basque country is part of French popular culture, as is the Ikurrina, and only "certain sectors" (the very minority aware of Navarrese public opinion - that is not many) have a suspicion that this is not only a gently folkloric and harmless idea ;

• in history books written by professional non-basque writers. Greater Basque Country is the frame of "Histoire du Pays basque" by Béatrice Leroy (professor at Bordeaux, not basque as far as I know (but indeed I don't know)). She takes some time to explain which she chose this frame (she admits this is quite artificial but "conformal to the norms of XIXth century geopolitics"). See also from Reno's University "Modern Basque history: eighteenth century to the present" by Cameron Watson, available on Google Books (map on p. 13) : this is more or less the same map as the one whose legend we are discussing and Mrs Watson is hardly described as belonging to "certain basque sectors".

Your addition is not false, but incomplete. I don't think that the necessary restrictions can be explained in a few words -and even if they were, it would not be relevant to add them a bit everywhere in the article, from the introduction to the picture legends. You should think auto-reverting and writing something longer (and sourced) to explain what are the hidden issues behind these maps. I feel to clumsy in English to help seriously in the article, :en is mostly about talk pages for me :-)

(To advertise a bit my own work, I have these last days rewritten completely the corresponding section on the corresponding :fr article fr:Pays basque, you'll find quite a number of very informative sources in French used there, and alas too few in Spanish, I would be delighted to get suggestions of new ideas to insert in this article, sourced by good sources in Spanish (or in Basque of course)). French Tourist (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)