Talk:Basque Country (greater region): Difference between revisions

Basque Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Basque Country, Basque people, Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Spain B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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.

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

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

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello there.

There is a little conflict going on at Euskadi, which a Spanish user wants to be redirected to Euskade (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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Cleanup Co-ordination
	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. the article has multiple overlapping problems. the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
Discussion By the moment I've just brought more stuff in (including some references if that helps). The material moved surely deserves to be here rather than in the ethnographic article Basque people - or maybe in some cases in a separate article maybe. I'll try to work in this soon but now I'm focused in cleaning up Basque people. Nevertheless I'm surely not the best one to proofread, as English is a secondary language to me. --Sugaar 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]