Talk:History of the Basques

Maps

A map shouldn't take up more than about half of the in-article column space. Maps add greatly to the pleasant appearance of the articles. Wjhonson (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Navarre

was it a Basque state? Böri (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. It was a state with a high percentage of Basque-speaking people, but the kings, nobility and the whole ruling class were Spanish-speaking. Studies on the language show its use in Navarre was already receeding when the kingdom expanded, being ultimately confined in the isolated northern mountain ranges where it is mainly spoken today. For comparison, the language has been much more preserved in the then Castillian provinces of Biscay and Gipuzkoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.40.27 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

German occupation in the Basque Country

Hi there, I do not see how this section could fit in the History of the Basques not more than a couple of lines, mainly linked to the ordeal undergone by the Basques fleeing the Spanish Civil War, the support found by the Germans in some pro-Vichy Basques personalities, and the support provided by others to the refugees and the allies, remember, this is about the Basques/Basque people. The article is too pumped up by now, why not create a new article? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved content to new article. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neolithic Farmers

The section labeled with: "The following alternative theories about the prehistoric origins of the Basques have all had adherents at some time but are rejected by many scholars and do not represent the consensus view:"

Contains the following bullet-point: "Basques as Neolithic settlers: According to this theory, a precursor of the Basque language might have arrived about 6,000 years ago with the advance of agriculture. The only archaeological evidence that could partly support this hypothesis would be that for the Ebro valley area."

Despite that multiple articles on the Basque, including this one in the following section ("New Genetic Evidence in 2015" or some such name) support the idea that they're at least partially descended from Neolithic settlers.

Shouldn't this be cleaned up? I think it should be made clear that the theory that they are descended from Neolithic settlers is unconfirmed but that it's not rejected either.

97.95.165.72 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest serial edits by new username

WP:OR is not allowed in the WP. Please do not alter sourced statements. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bring your claims to discussion. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not Anund Graenhjalm, whom you seem to revert systematically on a minor conflict. But I can hardly describe his interventions in the article as alteration of sourced statements. The statement you reintroduce is supposed to be "sourced" by a thousand year old manuscript, that is a primary source, written in Latin ; that is called a primary source and should not be used, except maybe as a complement to a secundary source. (Additionally, the given web link is dead). Moreover (I have not checked this assertion by Anund Graenhjalm, but it seems pretty likely) this primary source uses the latin expressions 'Pamplionensium regum' and 'Regibus Pampilonensibus', whose English translation hardly seems to be "Basque kingdom". Chonchonchon (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)