Talk:Basque mythology

Untitled

Can't believe this article is so poor...I don't know enough about to history of Basque mythology to do much with it. Can someone with a little knowledge on the subject please update this article, even if it's just a reorganization of what little is there? Antley 19:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing a little fix up. I've deleted some obvious non-mythological stuff: "El Vasco de la Carretilla" (what's that?), the Gernika Tree (non-mythological), the coat of arms of Navarre (non-mythological), the Battle of Roncesvalles (Roncesvaux) (non-mythological and partly non-Basque), the Malato Tree (non-mythological), St. Michael of Aralar (the link goes to a political party named Aralar), it will better be linked via Herensuge (dragon), Tubal (a 19th century speculation) and the Soriquois (???).

El vasco de la carretilla was a Basque roaming 20th-century Argentina with his belongings on a wheelbarrow. I don't know how much is real and how much legend.

What you call non-mythological has certainly some legends attached.

Tubal was mentioned before 19C.

About the Souriquois (Micmacs?), find this article on the Basque-Amerindian pidgin, I don't know how historic/legendary it is.

--Error 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, they don't seem to belong to the concept of Mythology as such. If anything, theye should be under a section titled "Modern myths associated to the Basque presence in America". Alternatively the article should be split in a general collection of stories without any connection and another one on Basque pre-Christian Religion, what understand the article is about (at least mainly). Sugaar April 17 2006.

I'll try to add some background info and add other inexistent links, such as Sugaar/Maju, Lamiak, Intxisuak, Sorginak, Herensuge etc. I'll crate the corresponding stubs when there's no article.

I will also put Aitor in a separate category, as it is a recent (19th century) literary creation but with enough sociological strength to be included.

I've finsh doing it. Hope it's much better now. --Sugaar 21:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have restored some links. I took mythology in the wider sense of the article on American mythology. Thus Basque legends are included. --Error 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mari

Is she really a "goddess"? I have seen her referred as a genio. Goddess has a Greco-Roman air. --Error 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "genio" (Spanish for "genie") is used in primary literature, mostly Christian accounts or anthropological work made by priests. Nevertheless, the presence and character of Mari are clearly those of a godess, totally above all other genie. Specifically, she is mentioned ruling "sorginak", herding clouds and doing things that no other genie would ever do. Particularly interesting is the relation of the figure of Mari and Maju (Sugaar) to the myths associated to the Lordship of Biscay, where their association legitimates the new dynasty (they replaced the Pamplonese monarchs) but eventually shows a fracture as Christianity (and the Castilian way) is imposed. The "miracles" of Mari are those of a divinity, not the mere "magic" of imps and genies.

In the literature I have no one questions that Mari could be anything different than the divinity Basques worshipped when they weren't copying alien religions, seemingly all comprised in the concept of Urtzi. Sugaar April 17 2006.

Polytheism NOT Wicca

This article is extremely poor. See my comments on the Finnish mythology article for reasons why. Essentially, this duotheistic reading of Basque mythology (Goddess/God dichotomy, various gods/spirits are just "aspects" of these archetypes, etc.) smacks of something straight out of Wiccan drivel such as the "The Witches' Goddess" and "The Witches' God"! The lengthy and incoherent aside about witches' sabbats and the persecution of witches by wicked Christians (i.e., the unfounded "burning times" so often mentioned in Llewellyn-esque Wiccan publications) adds to my suspicion that this article is the work of a agenda-driven, syncretistic neopagan.

Polytheism was the order of the day in pre-Christian Europe. POLYTHEISM, not duotheism, inclusive monotheism, etc. Don't second-guess ancient peoples' religious practices and their modern-day remnants. If sources say that they believe in multiple, distinct gods with different personalities, functions, etc., don't import your own religious overlay or claim that they are ignorant of the "true" nature of their religion (e.g., that all their male dieties are just emanations of a male archetype, and that all their female goddesses are emanations of a female archetype, etc.)

Please get someone with a real knowledge of European pre-Christian paganism to write these articles. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if, in a couple of months, the article on Germanic paganism suddenly casts Odin, Thor, and Frey as mere "emanations of the Horned God." STOP THE INSANITY

Guess that I'm the supposed "agenda-driven synchretic neopagan". Well, I'm definitively not Christian anymore and I'm somehow interested in the religions that existed and exist in Europe and elsewhere out of the Abrahamanic paradigm. Else, I would surely rather be writting articles about St. Thomas, etc. But, over all, I'm Basque and I'm interested in understanding the place of Basque people in the history of Europe.

Nevertheless, it does seem to me objectively that the ancient religion of Basques, which may be connected to the pre-Celtic substratum upon which Wicca feeds its ideas, was monotheistic in a dualistic male-female sense that can be compared to the Euro-Christian concept of trinity: several persons in one god.

You may like it or not, but it's quite clear that there was some sort of "matricentric" religion in ancient pre-IndoEuropean times and that Basque mythology, along with remains in IndoEuropean religions are proof of it.

Personally, I'd love the insanity of reading all issues in ideological Christian-fundamentalist clues would end. Sugaar April 17 2006.

This Mythology

Basque mythology is very fascinating but this article is rather poor. There is more information on Basque mythology here: http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/basque/articles.html. This page gives more information on creatures, gods, demons, etc. Though admittingly it is still not that extensive, in my opinion it is better if you want more info on Basque mythology.

Add the link to external links. I did my best to make a comprehensive list and create the basic stubs for each cirature. Now it's others jobs to expand these. Sugaar April 17 2006.

Sugaar's insightful comments

Narsil27 here. I'm the originial author of Polytheism NOT Wicca (sorry...hadn't logged in when I contributed), and I think Sugaar is dead wrong and clearly coming from a non-NPOV, which is why I think his/her article should either be rewritten or canned entirely. A couple of points:

1. The Marija Gimbutas (Kurgan hypothesis, etc.)/Robert Graves (The White Goddess) style delusion under which Sugaar has been operating, pursuant to which all pre-Christian deities are somehow "aspects" of a duotheistic "power couple" (i.e., the Wiccan Goddess and God) existing in a matriarchal fanstasy world is anachronistic, since such thinking actually arose from inaccuracies promugated during the Victorian era and in the 1950s and beyond by Gerald Gardner and his ilk. It has also in large part been relegated to the broom closet of academia, since its proponents have been able to find embarassingly little (if any) proof of the "pre-Indo-European matriarchy" hypothesis.

Look, at least I assume what I do and sign my comments.

Your critcism is not really valid. Mari existed when the great-granmother of Gimbutas wasn't born.

The case is that in Basque mythology you have two types of characters: genie and Mari (plus her consort Sugaar/Maju). The genies may do some things but they are normally plural, Mari is uique and her powers are of creative (specially storms) and protective type.

It's also rather offensive and non-NPOV when you think about it, since, as I noted before, it actually denies ancient Europeans a huge element of self-determination. If you read the sagas of the Norse, the Book of Invasions of the Celts, the Illiad and Odyssey of the Greeks, etc., it is clear that they thought they were worshipping separate deities. It seems a little paternalistic on our parts to go back in time and force a matriarchal/neopagan overlay on beliefs that were clearly "hard polytheistic" and patriarchal. Ancient peoples in Europe DID understand the concept of multiple aspects of a single god or goddess (see, e.g., the three aspects of Brigid in Irish mythology). That said, just because they understood that some gods had multiple aspects in no way takes away from their clearly hard polytheistic outlook. To argue otherwise implies that you know what these people "were really thinking," and is frankly sad.

I don't deny anything. Just that Indo-Europeans came from somehwere (they all speak dialects of one troncal language dated arguably about 6,000 years ago). Some of the peoples on which lands they expanded may well have been related with Basques, if not in language at least in beliefs (Megalithic culture).

Many seem to assume happily that the homeland of Celts is Ireland or France, but actually it's well attested that they arrived from as far as Germany, or that Latins were fully native to Italy (when they must have come from north of the Alps), etc.

Whatever the case, my position is quite mainstream, both regarding Basque mythology and late prehistory. We could discuss in circles for milennia. --Sugaar 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

2. "Personally, I'd love the insanity of reading all issues in ideological Christian-fundamentalist clues would end."

I don't really understand what this means. Please clarify. If you're implying that I'm somehow a Christian fundamentalist because I deny your duotheistic/neopagan reading of Basque paganism specifically and European paganism in general (and let me make this clear--I DO--both in its pre-Indo-European and post-Indo-European varieties), then you're dead wrong again. Are you suggesting that to deny your matriarchal/Wiccan view of ancient Europe is to somehow be a "dangerous" Christian fundamentalist?

I imagine that if you are so much worried about that you must be at least Christian. I've only heard such criticisms from the same sort of people who try to question the theory of evolution.

Anyhow, I don't know who you are. Sign your comments, please. --Sugaar 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More disturbingly, are you saying that it would be insulting if ancient European people were hard polytheists? Why? I doubt they would have thought so. I think your viewpoint, pursuant to which you declare "that [you are] definitively not Christian anymore" and that any viewpoint outside your own smacks of "ideological Christian-fundamentalist" views, rather than hard research, textual and archeological evidence, is not only non-NPOV, but also does Wikipedia's readership a great disservice in terms of enriching their learning experience with hard facts rather than ideological rants, and is an insult to the memory of OUR (I, along with Sugaar, being of European ancestry) European forebearers. Agree or disagree with their religious practices, at least allow them to exist on their own--not your--terms.

Chistian interference in understanding Basque mythology is often troublesome: too often they try to get everthing to fit their mould, what only obscures everything. Said that you can be Christian or Buddhist or whatever and leave your belifes aside, specially when dealing with non-Christian matters, as is this case, but more often than not, you just don't. --Sugaar 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I recommend this article for heavy revision or deletion. Ancient histories, cultures, and religions are not toys for Wikipedia authors' amusement. If you want to dream up a more ideal/palatable ancient Europe, under which your ideological views reign supreme, and use that world as a foil to the modern "Christian fundamentalist" one, write an alternate history or sci-fi story. Just please don't attempt to butcher the past in order to fashion a commentary on how you believe things should have been or should now be.

There's nothing particularly POV in the article. You can of course go to the Greek mythology article and suggest that Zeus and Apollo are not gods but genies or maybe demons... and put the blame in Ethnikoi, that are the Greek Pagans by their own name, and in Hesiod if you wish. But that's Christian POV.

Unlike Greeks we don't have such a good source as Hesiod but only fragmentary oral legends recopilated in the last centuries. But still the position of Mari is quite clear: supreme genie or goddess, whatever name you prefer. But goddess is less POV. --Sugaar 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous, so I will make my comments brief. First, your assertion that I am the sort of person who would deny the theory of evolution because (i) you believe I am Christian and (ii) I disagree with your increasingly marginal take on Eurpean prehistory, is frankly ridiculous and smacks of the same religious bigotry of which you accuse me. Second, for heaven's sake, if you want to have a debate (which I am more than willing to have), PLEASE ADDRESS MY COMMENTS. None of your comments really seem to address mine (for example, do you deny that almost all of pre-Christian European peoples were hard polytheists? Do you know what that means? I think you're getting confused and assuming that the term "hard polytheist" is some kind of Christian insult. It's not.) Generally, I am merely espousing a well-established historical position, in opposition to your view that pre-Christian Europeans professed some kind of Gerald Gardner-esque, duotheistic form of Wicca (e.g., a "goddess" with multiple aspects, a "god" with many aspects, etc.). Finally, I think you have a hard time separating language from culture/ethnicity. True, the Celtic languages, Germanic languages, etc. most likely derived from the proto-Indo-European language spoken by related groups of people originating in the area of the Black Sea basin around 6000 years ago. However, just because Indo-Europeoan languages supplanted pre-Indo-Eurppean languages in much of Europe (except, for, e.g., Basque-speaking areas in northeastern Spain and southwestern France), that doesn't mean that the _people_ already living in Europe during the expansion of the Indo-European languages were wiped out. In fact, recent genetic studies of modern-day Europeans show that in many areas (especially the Celtic fringe - Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Basque country), the people alive today show remarkable genetic continuity with Paleolithic and Neolithic pre-Indo European populations. Thus, for example, to say that the language of the Celtic-speaking peoples of the British Isles does not correspond with the language of the Megalithic cultures of the British Isles is quite correct - the Celtic languages are Indo-European languages. However, to say that the culture and religion of the peoples of British Isles who eventually came to speak those Celtic languages are different than the culture and religion of the peoples inhabiting the British Isles during the Megalithic period is incorrect, as modern-day Celts are more or less the direct descendants (at least genetically-speaking) of those Megalithic peoples.Narsil27

Ok, let's avoid the personal things and adress your questions (but you are not answering mine, and we Basques like to talk plain and clear: if you are Christian, say so, don't hide behind words). I also felt I was attacked on ideological grounds by you (hence my replies).

Indo-European (Indo-Europeized) peoples were surely poplytheistic, that's clear. But there's nothing in Basque mythology of that sort. The characters that can be considered gods are:

• Mari and Sugaar/Maju (the fundamental couple).
• Some of their offsprings, notably Odei-Mikelats, which is a personification of storms (Mari and Sugaar meet all fridays to concieve these fertilizing storms, so maybe it's more fundamental after all)
• Urtzi (Ortzi, Ost) that seems also seems an odd concept with no attached mythology (mostly it's known because of weekdays and metereological ethymology and a medieval mention that reads: et Deus vocant Urcia). Most Basque scholars think it is one or both of the following: (a) a personification of sky, (b) assimilation of foreign concepts of sky-related gods (Jupiter, Christian God).

All other genii are clearly not gods and most of them are plural (there are many of them).

I personally think that the Neo-Pagan interpretation is fundamentally correct, particularly because Basque mythology (the only remnant of those pre-IE times, apart of what is buried in IE mythologies) seems to support it quite strongly. Probably Basque mythology is coincident with Megalithic pre-IE beliefs of the Atlantic (and possibly Mediterranean) regions of Europe. Urtzi (the sky-god) may well be related with astronomical practices of some more advanced Megalithic groups (Portuguese, British) but it seems that while Basques incorporated it to some aspects they were not particularly conscious of it (he?) having any mythology of its own, and the same term served to refer to Jupiter and Yaveh eventually too.

Oteiza and others (Pascual, Hartsuaga) have argued very weightly that Basque religion is clearly ctonic and that the concept of sky is that of an empty passage for Mari's herds of clouds and for Mari and Sugaar themselves as they travel from one cave to another. It's an space of manifestation, not their home.

Anyhow, I think this debate is probably more proper in regard to Celtic mythology or whatever articles there are in NeoPaganism.

Have I adressed your questions now? --Sugaar 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Erge?

I have never read about any genie named Erge. Can the author of that addition (NeoJustin, as far as I can tell) justify it? --Sugaar 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If the main contributor to this article has never heard of Erge, that reinforces my feeling that there's a big problem with sources here. This article must tell readers where its information is coming from, and what the repository of Basque mythology actually is. What's the primary material? Where can I read it if I want to?

You will probably find that what we know about ancient religion differs quite a lot from mediaeval and modern legend – let alone from contemporary tertiary sources. At least, I've certainly found that to be true in Great Britain, where Welsh mythology and Romano-British polytheism present markedly different profiles.

On to the specifics. Here are some things we do know about ancient Basque religion: In the time of the Romans, the Convenae and some neighbouring tribes left copious amounts of dedicatory inscriptions to the gods they worshipped. Chief among these (in numerical terms) were Erge, Erriapus, Leherennus (identified with Mars), Abellio, Ilunnis, Artahe, Ilixo, Alardossi, and Lahe. My source is the invaluable little Les dieux gaulois : répertoire des noms de divinités celtiques connus par l'épigraphie, les textes antiques et la toponymie by Nicole Jufer & Thierry Luginbühl (2001), whose data you can also find on l'Arbre celtique. By the way, none of these Convena theonyms are Gaulish in language; they're distinctively Aquitanian (and/or proto-Basque). Further sites outside of Gaul, especially Iruña-Veleia, will surely provide more precious information about ancient Basque religion.

In any case, we must be clear about who says what, and when. And in particular, we mustn't neglect sources that really are ancient. (For the record, I am not a Christian; I'm a reconstructionist polytheist.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

The Arcadia link seems to be very Wiccan oriented particularly, and again references the unsubstantiated and largely disputed "9 million burned witches" as an assumed fact. I'm not sure the site meets NPOV enough even to be a link.209.43.8.126 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Z. Williamson

I'm not sure which is the policy/guideline on links. Actually the link above it is even worse in may opinion but, as it's not Wikipedia's text but just something like "second opinions" around there.

I'm not going to discuss the claims by external sites on the figures of alleged witches persecuted, tortured and killed by Christians: it's like discussing about the figures of the Holocaust. One only would be sufficient crime and for sure there were many more. Nothing to do directly with this article anyhow.

Whatever the case, the linked article does seem to have some merit, specially considering there's no so much on Basque mythology in English online. --Sugaar 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Background info?

I think this article needs a sort of overview explaining what this Basque religion or mythology is, its role in the society, and its history. This article as it is now, is like having an article on the Bible and just summarizing it without explaining what it is. --Howdybob 07:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, I've begun a rewrite of this article to make it a bit more formal and to add more info and references. It'll take a while ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Urcia

which neither in Proto-Basque or modern Basque appears on proper nouns.

There is of course Jaungoikoa, but some think it is a Christian folk etymology from jainko. --Error (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that relationship between that pair is a bit opaque but they function more like common nouns in Basque anyway (as the the word for god does in most languages). Certainly jaungoikoa is nothing but a periphrastic expression anyway, like saying "the lord above" in English, which can hardly be described as a proper noun.

Do you have a view on what I suggested about deleting the Urtzia page by the way? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orko?

Isn't Orko the Basque God of Thunder? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orko_(deity)

Armorbeast (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mari's face/cave image

I hate to point out something that may be base (or juvenile) but that cave image is really vaginal. Are we sure that's her "face"? And is there a reference to be had to that gives more information about this particular image? It would be useful if someone could point out if this image of her face is in profile or something else. Hires an editor (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Lezama title

Patxi Lezama, who in the main appears to be an artist, has written a 26 page self-published booklet of undetermined content entitled "Mitología vasca". He is not quoted to the best of my knowledge by any academic publications. So the mere fact that his titled is listed as a book on Basque mythology does not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, the RS requirements. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A reference book in the Royal Academy of the Basque Language, the National Library of Spain, The National Library of Germany, The National Library of Albania, The National Library of Japan, The National Library of Russia, The University of Barcelona and a long etc, is considered a reference. If the book is listed in the best Libraries and universities in the world, it is because it is considered a reference for researchers. If not, they would not accept it in the National Libraries and State Universities.--85.85.62.11 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact a book is *listed* does not make it a reliable resource. Many national libraries have a policy of collecting ANY book with an ISBN. If I self-publish a book in the UK claiming the sun is made of melted cheese today, the British Library will still demand its 5 copies that it is entitled to by law to preserve it for the future. They do NOT check the content for academic merit. You really need to read down to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship, primary resources are less and less idea. That means just because someone publishes a paper doesn't make it automatically reliable. You need respected colleagues in the field who come out and say "this person is talking good sense and their data is good" (periphrasing). Akerbeltz (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't feel like arguing and I have no problem with this article from Basque Mythology being deleted. This article needs additional citations for verification from more than a decade ago (May 2009). You are the one who rewrites this article on May 29, 2008 to make it a bit more formal and to add more information and references, so if in eleven years no additional citations have been obtained for verification, the article should be deleted and it will not be because we have tried in over ten years. The first of the reference notes in this article was put by me precisely: 1 "Basque mythology today" (PDF). KOBIE (Cultural Anthropology Series). Bilbao. Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia-Provincial Council of Bizkaia. That said, it's time to delete this article that you rewrote to add more information and references, if in a decade you have not gotten more information and references, the fault is only yours, so delete the article.

Best regards.--85.85.193.226 (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC) From now on, we would appreciate it if you did not write or rewrite any more Wikipedia articles if you did not have enough additional citations to verify. That wastes valuable time for taxpayers and administrators searching for and removing those items.--85.85.193.226 (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people adding serious sources, whether they've been editing Wikipedia for 20 years or are some drive-by IP editor. That's why I don't have a problem with the Garagalza paper. But the Lezama stuff can't be taken seriously in an academic context. At worst, it's careless adding of unreliable sources. At worst, it looks like promotion. That's why I will continue to remove this "source" wherever I find it. A job, funnily enough, that takes up a significant amount of time that I might otherwise have been able to spend on editing content. Think about that, why don't you? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

In the academic context of the State Universities, National Libraries and Royal Academies, Lezama is taken seriously. It seems that you have something personal, animosity, enmity or antipathy towards the person and you created the bio page. Your worst enemy is yourself--85.85.193.226 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You are an expert in juggling, with half and half truths, with misleading statements that include some element of truth to lead to a false conclusion, you present something credible and you use those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as a good reason to believe that the statement is true in its entirety, and that the statement represents the entire truth by misrepresenting the truth. For example:

If you publish a book in the UK, the British Library will require 5 copies to which it is entitled by law to preserve it for the future.

Now, if you want that book to be available in other National libraries that is not the country of origin of the publication, IF they verify the content for academic merit and interest for researchers, experts in the field. The National Libraries acquisition policy is NOT to collect ANY book.--85.85.193.226 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Universities also do not accept books if they lack research interest.--85.85.193.226 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

An expert in juggling and half-truths says: "Blog content cannot be considered as sources." This is another half truth taken out of context to pass it off as absolute truth, but the absolute truth goes like this: (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs). "Some news organizations host online columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable sources as long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control".--85.85.193.226 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When you enter into a continuous and permanent editing war for a personal matter, you should let others of the thousands of thousands of wikipedia users and administrators decide.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that I'm ignoring all the repetive noise until someone actually shows hard evidence that Lezama is taken seriously by any bona fide academic working on Basque mythology. Anything else is a waste of time and energy. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Some news organizations host online columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable sources as long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control [[1]], [[2]].--85.85.60.33 (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC). Subject to full editorial control of the newspaper Deia.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, Lezama is taken seriously by Iñaki Anasagasti, President of Euzko Gaztedi of the Basque Center. Responsible for Radio Euzkadi, Gudari and various publications. Deputy in Congress for Bizkaia, spokesperson for the Basque Group, Senator representing Bizkaia. First Secretary of the Foreign, Defense, Latin American, Mixed Commissions of the European Union and of the Regulations Commission.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The real living scholars currently working on Basque mythology are non-existent and you know it! if not long ago you would have added them as sourcesIf you know anyone else related to Basque mythology add it.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It is necessary to remind you that in this article on Basque Mythology, there has not been any conclusive evidence for more than 10 years, of genuine scholars who work on Basque mythology, only and exclusively there are published books. For that same reason, this article needs additional citations for verification or it will be removed.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ana Sagasti is not an authority on the topic, it doesn't matter how many politcal wings someone chairs or shows someone hosts on radio. And it's not even a proper article, it is literally word for word from Luz Cultural [3] and frankly reads like someone just copied and pasted the blurb from the back of the book. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the dates you will see that it is a cultural magazine who takes the complete article by Iñaki Anasagasti and not the other way around.

Jose Migel Barandiaran Mitologia Vasca, Txertoa is not an authority on the topic. Arriaga, J. (1984). "Euskal mitologia". Txertoa is not an authority on the topic. Arriaga, J. (1984). "Euskal mitologia". Txertoa is not an authority on the topic. Baroja, Caro (1995). "Lamiak, sorginak eta jainkosak". Gaiak Txertoa is not an authority on the topic, etc, etc, they are publishers, which curiously reissue self-published books by those authors, therefore they are not references they are Bibliography. So I don't know why you speak of authorities on the subject, the authorities on the subject are them and they are deceased.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Basque mythology is already solved, you don't need to thank me.

Regards.--85.85.60.33 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Numbers aren't your strong suit, are they? The Sagasti copypaste is dated 02/17/2019, the Luz Cultural article 8 diciembre, 2018. Last time I checked, 2018 comes before 2019. I'm done debating with you. Come back with something that will make the bar or I'll simply ignore - and if necessary revert - you. I really have better fish to fry than argue with some incoherent IP editor. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yours has no remedy. I have done more for this article in a few hours than you in ten years.--85.85.193.12 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way I put this bibliography years ago and you deleted it, I don't know why you leave it now and you don't revert the changes. Incoherent? have a good day and go fry fish as you say.--85.85.193.12 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC) You are capable of doing anything to get away with it, even putting the reference tag back to show the public that you are the one who is right.--85.85.193.12 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Since you do not agree with my contributions I will revert the changes before you do it. You have to be "consistent".--85.85.193.12 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Very similar IP addresses to the ones above are being examined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sorginak.--- Possibly (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)