User talk:Sugaar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4

Contents 1 Withdrawn 2 Thulean/Lukas19 3 Minor point 4 Translation of EHAK 5 Question on Basque identity by anon. user 6 Asian people 7 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 8 Mila esker! 9 Gernika-Lumo 10 Eskaya 11 Kaixo 12 Ethnic groups project 13 Evaluations on WP:ETHNIC 14 Basque Portal Inquiry 15 Question 16 Basque toponyms: please give me some time 16.1 Gipuzkoa 17 Guernica (town) 18 Re. Barnstar award 19 Eskaya on peer review 20 Genetics 21 Template:Catholic-link 22 I'm off 23 Euskarazko wikipediatik 24 Long time no see

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's your decission and I respect it. Having a heart,not being a mere "human computer" is not a defect to my eyes tough. --Sugaar 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thulean/Lukas19

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the first one who had problems with him (when he was still "Thulean"). He managed to get me blocked for 6 hours.

He's clearly dishonest in his use of warnings and his pretense of offense. He has taken the tactics of wikilawyering on PAs to displace other users from the pages he wants to edit in "solo" style. Some administrator(s) have fallen into his game, making him more confident that he can game the system. In my opinion he's a disruptive editor and if I haven't been able to "bring him to justice" yet it is largely because I was confused about how to do it. It seems that the best thing to do is to directly report him at ANI as disruptive editor and wikilawyerist and for systematic harassment (abusing warnings and policy) and ignoring consensus. He will be difficult to unveil, so I suggest the assesment of an advocate. But if common sense prevails, he should be dealt with somehow. I have never ever found any other such problematic user.

If you are starting action against him, know that I will try to help you as much as I can. Enough is enough and this user has already crossed all red lines of civility. One thing is not to bite newcomers and another very different thing is to let newcomers harass veteran productive and good willed editors, obstruct Wikipedia normal functioning and try to recycle articles into propaganda pamphlets, increasing notably the wikistress of all us. --Sugaar 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added an outside view on the RFC for user:LSLM. Maybe you would be interested in taking a look, or signing an endorsement.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor point

Hi Sugaar, I was just reading your observations to LSLM. I have to say you can be more tolerant than I am sometimes. If I had not refrained from replying to him (on the Basque people talk page or anywhere else) I would have been a lot less respectful than you are. I don't think he deserves it (not because of his ideology, which I abhore, but because of his own attitude and discourse style), but I value your conciliatory efforts, for the sake of convivencia I suppose.

Just one minor point, though: would you please stop telling people I'm Canadian! I have nothing to do with Canada (except that I am of course sympathetic to the Québecois in their anti-Anglophone resistance). I was born in England (as it says on my user page). People already get confused enough about where I am from, and it is not a matter of great importance to me (contrary to what LSLM seems to think), but let's not get them even more confused!

By the way, how am I doing with the BP cleanup? Maybe it's going a bit slow for your liking, but that is all the time I can offer. Pixkanaka pixkanaka... --A R King 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, while at times I can be quite hot headed, I have learned a bit from recent experience and now I value much more civility, etiquette and common sense, specially inside Wikipedia.

I have also shared some experiences with LSLM, as he started coming here to ask for help in regard to race related disputes in the English people article... tough I soon had to side with more sensible, neutral and well informed users like Wobble. The three of us (plus some others) have suffered harassment at the hands of certain disruptive users of racist ideas and stubborn wikilawyerism. But while I stepped down from being aggresive after I understood the subtleties of WP:NPA policy, he remained in his aggresive attitude of denounce, not being of much help really. Funnily enough it was I who got briefly blocked and not him but guess that can only be attributed to very bad luck.

So I don't really want to be nasty to LSLM. He's entitled to his opinion - though not to disrupt Wikipedia to make his point, much less in such "howling" manner. I won't easily take offense at his personal attacks because I already know him a little (in the context of Wikipedia).

Sorry about the Canadian thing. Guess that you said sometime ago that you had lived in Canada or something and it was an idea that got stuck in my head. I take due note that you are an Englishman, a Basque from England if you prefer.

On the cleanup, I think it's fine. I've taken a couple of looks to the history as you went and so far I have found nothing I disagree with (apart of nitty-picky nuisances maybe, not worth discussing in any case). Take your time: it's a long article.

Much of it is Basque history. I have already asked in the talk page and in the WikiProject about creating a Basque history article out of it and leaving the Basque people article shorter and available for further input in cultural matters for instance. Aditionally the Basque history article could be the start point for a Basque history series (draft template here). If you have an opinion on this, please share it. --Sugaar 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never lived in Canada. I lived in the United States (California) as a teenager, but returned to Europe as soon as I was old enough to have the personal autonomy to do so. I slept in Canada (Vancouver) for one night thirty-three years ago. It was on my first journey back from California to England (the flight from Vancouver was cheaper, so I took the train up from Oakland, near San Francisco). I was nineteen then, and now I'm fifty-two. That is my only "Canadian connection".

Some Basques hear me speaking Basque and assume I am from the Basque Country; I've had some funny experiences like that over the years. I don't think it's because I don't have a foreign accent (I do), but some people (unconsciously) seem to prefer to override the information they are getting from their ears rather than believe that someone can speak like me without having been born here. I also don't look very much like a northern European, no doubt because I am not one, genetically. Of course my friends and colleagues know where I'm from but I think they more or less treat me as they would if I was from the Basque Country, so I don't have many complaints about Basques being racist (or "fascist") at that level at least. I was recently shown a page in a book published by AEK in which I am quoted as having said at some time (I'm afraid my memory's not very good):

Pentsatzen denaren aurka euskal gizartea oso irekia da, integratzeko jartzen duen baldintza bakarra euskaraz jakitea eta bizi izatea da, euskara badakizu euskalduna zara.

On the other hand, when Spanish people meet me the first thing they do is classify me as a foreigner. That is my experience. I put it down to a Spanish habit of thinking that requires them to classify the entire world into two pseudo-categories: Spanish and not Spanish. Probably deep, deep down in their collective subconscious this comes from an inability to swallow the bitter fact that their concept of Spain (Una, Grande y Libre) is nothing more than a concept, unconsummated and unachievable. They come to this country and think they are the natives and I am the foreigner. Whereas the Basques think that they (the Spanish visitors) are the foreigners and treat me like a native. So the Spanish visitors see me as a "foreigner" even though I know I belong here more than they do. The difference between a Dutchman and a Spaniard on holiday in Euskal Herria is that the Dutchman knows he is "abroad" whereas the Spaniard imagines he is "at home".

Anyway, enough about that. As regards the Basque people article, first of all let me say I think it's a good article and I can see a lot of hard work has gone into it. I think of what I'm doing at the moment as something like polishing a very good stone to give the surface a good shine, as it deserves. I make no pretensions of being a historian, not even an amateur one: what I know is what comes from what is called cultura general in Spanish or else the kind of information that rubs off on you when you live in a given place, and I have lived in this country for nearly thirty years now, so I should know something, but I've learnt quite a few things from reading this article as I work through it.

Probably it would be a good idea to split off the history section and make it into a separate article. That should not take much extra work as the text is already well filled out. --A R King 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we are a rather welcoming people, even if by character, we are distant until gaining trust maybe. We are also very used to immigration by now.

It's funny that comment on Spaniards believing they are at home, like if they were in Murcia. En fin.

Basque history is badly known even for Basques, so no wonder you didn't know. Only nowadays children are maybe learning local history and some serious books are reaching some public. Spanish historical books pass over Basque issues in two sentences most of the time, specially school books. And before autonomy (and even after it) we had to learn Spanish history (French in the North).

Could you search in the Basque People article's talk page and sign in favor of the split. I fear doing such radical moves without some support. Anyhow, I'll wait for your copyediting job to finish. --Sugaar 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of EHAK

I also want to ask you a linguistic question. How would you translate Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista? It's listed as Communist Party of the Basque Homelands, following the standard but probably wrong Spanish translation. I think it should be "...of the Basque Peoples", though it's obviously a word game. --Sugaar 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done what you ask concerning separating the history section. As for translating Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista, I suggest 'Communist Party of the Basque Lands'. I don't think you can really get 'homelands' out of herrietako + tierras. We have to assume that the people who legally registered the party's name are proficient in both Basque and Spanish and decided to use both those names for a reason.... --A R King 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But as far as I know the party only has a name in Basque. If it would have an official Spanish name I would not be in doubt (even if they were different, like EAJ-PNV) but the case here is that EHAK only has a Basque name and the Spanish name is just a fancy translation of the Spanish media, that may or may not do justice to the real name.

Anyhow, I'll let it go. --Sugaar 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Last night I had to answer you very briefly because I was short of time. Here are a few further thoughts on the EHAK question:

• Names of political parties (at least of the EHAK variety) are sort of like commercial brands: not necessarily easily to translate because they weren't originally made up with that in mind, but to make a particular (market?) impact on a particular target population in the original language. As such, it may be best not to translate them at all in normal circumstances. For example, it is not clear what the best (or "correct") translation of Herri Batasuna into English is, and the fact is that it is rarely translated, unless it is on occasions when the text is explaining to readers what the Basque words mean. But not as an actual denomination used as the subject or object of a sentence. So for example you might find: "The party was founded in April 1978 as Herri Batasuna (Unity of the People)..." (quoted from the Wikipedia article Batasuna), but also "Herri Batasuna's founding convention was held in Lekeitio..." (same source). Notice that if the second example said "Unity of the People's founding convention was held in Lekeitio...", this use of Unity of the People would be fulfilling a different function than it does in the first sentence quoted: there it is what we could call an "explanatory gloss" (it's just explaining the meaning to the reader), whereas here it would be a full "discourse translation" (actually used as part of a normal sentence). So what I am saying is that normal practice is to gloss such a name as HB, but not to translate it in ordinary discourse contexts. This is very important if you are a translator, because knowing what the purpose of the translation is (as a gloss or as a "discourse translation") may affect how you decide to translate the term. How? Well, one important difference is that if the translation is going to be used in discourse contexts, it is important to find a standard, "official" translated name and use it very consistently: in an newspaper article you can't be saying, for example, "Unity of the People called for a demonstration to ask for the legalisation of Popular Unity" because the reader won't know that they are referring to the same party. What I am saying, then, is that we don't need to find a "standard" translation for EHAK (we can just call it EHAK, like HB), we only need a gloss.

• I thought the party had been legally registered under the bilingual name EHAK-PCTV, and I'm still not sure it wasn't, but perhaps you have information to the contrary.

• I'm not even sure what the real Basque name is, because two different versions are found: Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista and Euskal Herrialdeetako Alderdi Komunista. Of the two, herrialdeetako definitely sems to make more common sense, and it is also the less ambiguous of the two: herrialde means 'region' or 'country'. It is the form that is used by Gara, for example, which I thought was rather likely to be significant. If that were the only form of the name, we would know better how to gloss it.

• I don't know what the story is regarding (1) how come there are two Basque versions of the party's name circulating in the Basque media, and (2) what the hell the shorter version, Euskal Herrietako, is supposed to mean because it doesn't in an obvious way mean very much at all. But I am sure there is a story behind all this, if only we knew. In any case, it is strange.

• The shorter name is difficult to interpret, but I would rule out your guess of "Basque peoples", first because that doesn't make much sense ("Basque peopleS" in the plural? why in the plural?) and secondly for a grammatical reason: if the intended meaning were animate (and the "people" meaning is definitely animate) you can't say herrieTAKO, it has to be Euskal HerriEN Alderdi Komunista. Of course, semantically the meaning "towns" makes no more sense than "peoples", so we can rule that out too. The only remaining meaning of herri that occurs to me is the one which comes closest to being synonymous with herrialde: 'region' or 'country'. So, "C.P. of the Basque regions/countries"? This still sounds odd. If "countries" is meant, then it is saying that there is more than one Basque Country, which is very surprising. And if "Basque regions" is meant, then why call it that rather than just call it the "Basque Country" as we normally do? Still another way to try and make sense out of the expression Euskal Herrietako is to understand it as the plural of Euskal Herria, "Basque County", but again, this implies there is more than one "Basque Country", which is just as nonsensical. As for the longer name, with herrialdeetako, it rules out all these possibilities except the penultimate one ("Basque regions"), but we still are left wondering why this name.

• I think that it is fairly obvious that, as I said before, there has to be a "story" behind all this. While we don't know what happened (I don't, anyway), I can easily manage a couple of possible scenarios. One is that when the founders went to register the party, they couldn't call it Euskal Herriko Alderdi Komunista (which makes a LOT more sense) because another group had already registered that name, so they had to improvise some way of making the name slightly different so that it would be admitted.

• That might explain the choice of herrialdeetako, which at least seems to mean something in Basque. But if the original name was herrietako, that doesn't fully satisfy me as an explanation, unless we supplement it with a second conjecture, which would not be incompatible with the first, such as (1) that herrietako sounds more similar to herriko which is what they really meant, or (2) that the founders were in a hurry or under pressure, or for whatever other reason, didn't take long enough to think carefully about the name. If the original registered name is herrietako, then I can understand why people like the folks at Gara chose to "improve" the name a posteriori, calling it herrialdeetako. If the original name registered was herrialdeetako, on the other hand, then I can't understand at all why people who understand Basque would want to change it to the enigmatic Euskal Herrietako.

• Coming back to the problem of how to translate (or rather, gloss) this, we should not drive ourselves crazy trying to translate the untranslatable. At least the Herrialdeetako version of the name is translatable. And the Spanish translation with Tierras is about as close as you can come, I think, to an intelligible translation. So the English gloss should probably take that as its cue. Which probably leaves us with "lands". I don't think "homelands" is very correct, but it's not all that incorrect either, and probably represents someone's well-meaning attempt to put some coherence into a not very coherent original term. --A R King 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to document the issue better but I believe that Euskal Herrietako is a direct derivate from Euskal Herriak, a term that is sometimes used in order (I beleive) to express the plurality of Euskal Herria. Hence: if Euskal Herri-ko, then Euskal Herri-etako, and the direct translation would be "from the Basque Countries" or "Peoples" (understanding as I do that the Herria of Euskal Herria means originarily people and it is extended to mean nation and hence country, in the line of Krutwig).

The original name, as far as I can recall is Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista, what the first time I heard of I associated with the (probably extinct) minor party Partido Comunista de los Pueblos de España (PCPE). You can imagine!

But guess it is a very complex matter and the information available is just way to confuse. I never read before Euskal Herrialdetako (what would read "of the Basque Regions" or "of the Basque Provinces") anyhow. I find surprising you read that in Gara. I'm even more confused than when I started with this. --Sugaar 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of Euskal Herriak (other than as the singular ergative subject, of course: Euskal Herriak behar zaitu, 'The Basque Country needs you', for example; but not used as a plural). I'm not saying it's never been said, only that I've never heard of it or read it, and it sounds weird. As for Krutwig, something tells me that he was not the source of inspiration (directly, at any rate) for the people who were thinking up EHAK! My own memory (which is fallible, however) also tells me that it was first announced as Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista, and if you follow my reasoning above carefully you will see that I am implying that this was probably the original name. If you're going to change a name (even unofficially), you're probably doing it to make it better, not to make it worse, and the advantage of Herrialdeetako is that it makes (a bit) more sense than Herrietako, so if some part of the Basque press has "improved" the name it would probably be from Herrietako to Herrialdeetako rather than in the opposite direction, which implies that the original was Herrietako. At least that is the reasoning I was applying in my above comments. But I wasn't relying on my memory about the party's name(s); my statements are based on a quick survey using Google that I carried out after reading your original question, before answering, so it was an empirical observation, but if you like you can replicate the experiment and do your own search on the two forms of the name (with herrietako and herrialdeetako) to see whether it is true that they both exist on the net and who has been using which! By the way I've done some translating (into English) for Gara myself and have needed to translate articles mentioning the EHAK, but since the name is not often spelt out in full, I didn't normally need to worry about translating the name, other than to gloss it (following the distinction I made above - so you see, I was actually speaking about that from experience, not just hablando por los codos for the sake of it). As for your final comment, "I'm even more confused than when I started with this," that's sort of the way I feel too :-) Alan --A R King 11:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Euskal Herrietako Alderdi Komunista" gives 100 google hits, "Euskal Herrialdetako Alderdi Komunista" only 18, all the latter ones in languages other than Basque (Spanish, German, English, Catalan, Galician...).

I know that Euskal Herriak (intr.) is rare... but it does exist, examples: a song by Urko, Euskal Eskola front page, a blog article: "Euskal Herriak, zein?". And in the unmistakable tr. form of "Euskal Herriek" too: Google hits: 667.

The meaning is clear: "Basque Countries", implying the modern plurality of the Basque Country and its political and historical division. And the declination, as I think we have discussed before is, like in Euskal Herria (but plural, logically). --Sugaar 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be Euskal HerrialdEEtako, not HerrialdEtako, although there are some (fewer) hits with the single E too (because for some Basque speakers there is no difference in pronunciation and only one e is pronounced, but it's still a misspelling). But for some reason I don't get the same results as you: there are a lot more than 18 hits (for "euskal herrialdeetako alderdi komunista" I get about 2,850), and there are pages in Basque too (perhaps there are more in Spanish than in Basque simply because there are more websites in Spanish than in Basque).

Urko's "Zazpi Euskal Herriek bat egin dezagun" is obviously referring to the seven Basque provinces and is metaphorical, such as when you say in Spanish "En 1936 existían dos Españas, la republicana y la fascista"; it is not intended literally, as the beginning of the second stanza shows: "Agur eta ohore Euskal Herriari..." (singular).

The second reference you mention (the slogan "Euskal Herriak bere eskola") is very clearly singular, with ellipsis of an understood verb such as "behar du", "nahi du" or "exijitzen du": "The Basque Country needs/wants/demands its (own) school (system)". (If it was in the plural, it would be grammatically wrong, or it would mean something like "The Basque Countries are their school", which makes no sense.)"

Your third reference is again a singular with ellipsis of an implied transitive verb: "CAT domeinua lortutakoan, Euskal Herriak zein?" means "Now that the CAT domain has been obtained, which should Euskal Herria (have/get/ask for...)?" If there were any doubt (and there isn't), the question is spelt out in full a few lines later in the article: "Baina, orain, neure buruari galdetzen diodana honakoa da: ea zer domeinu lor dezakegun euskaldunok gure kultura eta hizkuntza nazioarte mailan ere ezagutua izateko." "But now what I ask myself is the following: what domain we Basques can obtain in order for our culture and language, too, to be known (or recognised) on an international level." Following the parallellism, the elliptical title (such ellipsis is a common Basque textual device which is quite easy to interpret for Basque speakers - if you think I'm wrong, ask somebody!) could be expanded to something like: "CAT domeinua lortutakoan, Euskal Herriak zein (domeinu lor dezake)?", i.e. "Now that the CAT domain has been obtained, which (can) Euskal Herria (obtain)?"

As for your 667 Google hits for "Euskal Herriek", I had a look, and while I don't have time to examine all 667 of them, of the first ten, at first sight most are obviously referring to the same text, the Urko song we've already talked about, and as I said before, that's a poetical metaphor. --A R King 12:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Check them. I can only say that I have read it more than once long before EHAK arose. The meaning is obviously to pluralize something that is singular like in "dos Españas", in this case three or seven Basque Countries... a diverse and multicolor Basque Country in any case.

Maybe Urko is the original inspirator of the term but it's not EHAK's invention in any case. --Sugaar 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Basque identity by anon. user

What, pray tell, makes a person "Basque" in your mind? Is it the fact that they speak Basque with fluency? If so, then by this definition you yourself would not qualify as Basque. Is it the presence of "Basque" surnames por los cuatro costados? Again, if so, by this definition you would not qualify as "Basque." Is it the fact that you were born in El País Vasco? If that's the essential qualifier then your good friend King could not be considered Basque. Is it subscription to a belief that El País Vasco should have ever greater autonomy or even total independence? If so, then some fluent Basque speakers of ancient Basque ancestry would find themselves in the absurd position of not really being Basque. So I ask you, with an open mind and without prejudice, who or what (other than the cliffs, the stones, the trees) is Basque? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.143.127 (talk • contribs).

It's a complext question that has three complementary answers:

It's typically said that Basque is that who lives and works in the Basque Country. This the integrative answer (and the most commonly used one, specially in politics).

Traditionally Basque has been Basque-speaker primarily, as the Basque language has no other term than euskalduna. This would be the linguistic solution.

Some people also consider ancestry important, specially Aranists (some old-fashioned PNV people basically) and some anti-Basquists that try to reinforce their self-denying Basque identity by such means. It is clearly an important element also among the Basque diaspora. This is the racialist reply.

While all are valid I think the third one is not really important. You can be Basque of ancestry and an enemy of the Basques, their culture and their language, like Pierre de Lancre (originally Rostegi). You can be of Galician or whatever other origin and a friend of the Basques, like Pepe Rei. You can also adopt many intermediate attitudes... obviously a Basque that is of "pure" native ancestry, speaks Basque since childhood and lives and works in the Basque Country is the "archetypical Basque" but obviously you don't need to fulfill all those conditions to be Basque.

My choice is obviously for the first one, though the language is also important, after all it is the oldest language of Western Europe, in a sense the language of all or most of our ancestors (real or putative: if you are "adopted" European you can also feel those ancestors probably). Ancestry (genetics) is more interesting from the archaeological viewpoint but it's not so important in real life.

I went to school with a guy named Smith, a family long estabilished in Biscay, I'm not surprised of variety and I am not xenophobic for the most part. What I don't like is when a guy that comes from Madrid and that we have treated well starts ranting that "nationalism is a nonsense" or that "what's the diference between Murcia and Bilbao?" (notice they never mention Southapton, Marseilles or Timbuktu, their "pseudo-internationalism" is always camouflaged Spanish nationalism. I know many people that has come from outside and have at least tried to learn some Basque and do accept our need for self-rule - they may have a diferent background but they are open and they normally integrate very well.

My personal dificulties to learn Basque are based in two reasons: (1) my mother's aversion to all that was Basque and (2) my inability to be sufficiently disciplined, specially when it involves dealing with the same group of accidentally gathered people month after month (insociability). Still I have finished 7th level and I can understand nearly everything in Basque, another thing is to speak it fluently, specially when everybody is so ultra-nice that they change to Spanish at the slightest doubt.

And you? --Sugaar 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian people

Replied on my talk page. :-) --Ling.Nut 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Mila esker!

Thanks for the barnstar. ¡Qué ilusión! I don't think I've done all that much yet, but this will egg me on to keep at it. I think you deserve one more than me, but I see somebody else beat me to it! Jo ta ke irabazi arte! --A R King 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ez dago zergatik. I think you deserve it. And, of course, motivating you was also something I thought about <machiavellic smile>. Anyhow, every good hardwroking Wikipedian should have at least one barnstar (a well deserved one, of course). --Sugaar 13:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gernika-Lumo

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Not the common name in Basque. Not the common name in Spanish. The common name among English speakers. That's it. Bye. Grant65 | Talk 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an RfC open. That is a subpage. The main page of the policy says: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist. And redirects to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) that says nothing and redirects to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) that is a policy in developement (under discussion, not a policy yet).

This one suggests to avoid revert wars (something that you breached) and make an RfC. Something that you should have done, as you were contravening the opinions expressed in that article's talk page. Aditionally, the same discussion took place in Bombing of Gernika with consensus for the move.

You should be less aggressive and discuss your actions before getting into a conflict. You should base your cations in something more than your personal reading of the wrong subpage of WP:TITLE. --Sugaar 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I apolgise for my tone earlier. It probably resuts from involvement in these debates before (see Talk:East Timor). If the policy says (and I haven't checked), that there are no special naming conventions for cities then that is both odd and in conflict with general naming policy, which is to use the common name in English. That is why München is a redirect to Munich, in both the English and Basque Wikipedias. Grant65 | Talk 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for lowering your tone, Grant. It's always better to discuss than to edit-war.

The question is, as I see it, that Munich is a city of millions and Gernika is just a small town that, apart of the historical, bombing and the hype related to it, has no other international projection. It is nevertheless a little but meaningful piece of Basque history.

Hopefully in some months from now we will devise some sort of naming convention for Basque sites. It is indeed a problatic issue, and the English names are not the biggest problem as you can imagine: many places have different names in Basque, Spanish, French and sometimes English too. In some cases they even have several names in one of the languages alone.

My idea on how to solve it is: using the English name in the case territories when they exist (most of them actually, though some are copies from French), use the official name in the case of towns and cities (excepting maybe the bigger ones such as Pamplona, oficially Pamplona-Iruñea, I believe).

Practice nevertheless has brought some places as San Sebastian to use a single name and not precisely the common English form. The reason seems to be possible confusion with other San Sebastians (not sure). In other cases (Alava for instance, the Spanish spelling has been used, notwithstanding that it's only co-oficial and that English obviously doesn't use stress marks).

It's a complex issue and when I moved Bombing of Guernica to Bombing of Gernika and Guernica (city) to Gernika-Lumo, I was acting moved by the discussion we had in the first article (and did both simultaneously). My reasoning is that Gernika is not such a well-known place as to merit English (i.e. ill-pronounced Spanish) name. It is known for the bombing and Picasso's painting... but people really don't noramlly travel there, nor appears in most maps, etc. --Sugaar 20:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eskaya

Thank you for the rating. Please let us know what else to do, or the next steps. Please keep me updated, too. Best regards! --Pinay06|talk 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the details. Yes, we will definitely work on the suggestions. The pictures will be uploaded soon. Please include Eskaya in your watch list so that you can be kept updated, too. Best regards. --Pinay06|talk 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy: I appreciate your enthusiasm but really I have other things in mind. Once you nominate it for GA and pass the trial, let me or the WikiProject know, so we can re-asess it to the corresponding rating. --Sugaar 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to impose. Thanks, anyway. --Pinay06|talk|Email 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaixo

Hi Maju,

Nice to meet you.I was wondering if you could host Basque music on Wikipedia.I'll write it on a CD.

Do Basques play cricket?

Image:Http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/78/Pic7811.jpg

Not sure what you mean. Wikipedia is not a free host. If you have some music without copyright or with a free use licence that is relevant for the project, you can upload it yourself (in Wikimedia commons better) and link it inside the appropiate pages. But I recommend you to learn a bit about Wikipedia before.

Music is not my field of expertise, anyhow. My computer is mute all the time (and I'm happy with it). --Sugaar 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic groups project

Hi Sugaar,

I was just looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups for the first time and wondering whether you are already aware of this and taking it into consideration. My guess is you probably know about it but just in case, I thought it wouldn't harm to ask. I haven't had time to read through it and assimilate the proposals, but it looks like it is relevant! Alan --A R King 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look into the members list. Guess I'm a recent but most active member. --Sugaar 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I thought I'd ask just in case - or as I believe some say in Iparralde: justu enkas. :-) Alan --A R King 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluations on WP:ETHNIC

Hi Sugaar,

Of course we've nodded at each other before, and I have seen your many recent contribs to WP:ETHNIC. I saw your recent reevaluation of Basque people in the large table on the WikiProject page, and i was wondering if you know that we are phasing out that table. If you evaluate an article using the template on that article's talk page, then you can remove that article's entry in the table on WP:ETHNIC.

The (eventual) goal is to evaluate all the articles in that table, and remove the table completely. ;-)

Thanks for all your hard work! --Ling.Nut 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I should have deleted it then. Thanks. --Sugaar 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Maju.How do I see whether u've replied my comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.190.212 (talk • contribs).

Not sre who you are, but if you're logged in you can use the watchlist, I guess. --Sugaar 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque Portal Inquiry

Betcha gave up on a reply ;)

As a matter of fact, I'd be very interested in helping with the Basque Portal/Wikiproject. I'm an absolute wikidunce when it comes to editing/formatting/bells/whistles, though, so I'll do what I can.

Thanks for the invite. - Madler 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your interest. Pass by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Basque and Portal:Basque at any time and join us. Your help will surely be of great use. --Sugaar 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

You seem to be knowledgeable about Basque tpoics and I had a question. Is the surname Aranzabal of Basque origin or is it Spanish? If it is Basque do you know how common it is? Thanks 24.254.92.184 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aranzabal is Basque without any doubt: it means Wide Valley (aran=valley, zabal=wide). I don't think it's common but most Basque surnames aren't: they usually link to one or few households and, with due research, it can be surely traced. Sadly Auñamedi Encyclopedia online has no further info in this particular surname. Searching in Google (Aranzabal+apellido) gives 21,800 hits... and it seems to be of Guipuscoan origin, having as most notable contemporary member a soccer player born in 1973 in Donostia-San Sebastian.

Surely it's much more common in Guipuscoa than in Biscay, where I live and where I don't recall having ever met a person of that surname.

Hopefully this helps. --Sugaar 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If it is not common in the Basque Country then it's certainly rare in Virginia. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.92.184 (talk • contribs).

Sure it must be rare in Virginia. It may well be found in Latin America though, as Basques participated in colonial adventures either as "Spaniards" or "French". Guipuscoans were specially important in the Spanish-American trade (the Compañía Guipuzcoana de Caracas was the equivalent of Western Indies companies elsewhere). If you can't trace your immediate ancestors to Latin America, they may have also arrived directly from the the Basque Country, as many settled specialy in Western USA (California, Nevada and specially Idaho), though most of these surely came from the North (France).

Btw, I found a brief reference in Buber's Basque Page, saying that it comes from Ubera, Guipuscoa and that it has the following coat of arms: a field of blue, three gold towers arranged horizontally (every single Basque surname has coat of arms for reasons of "universal gentry"). --Sugaar 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that my ancestors are from South America (Peru, I was born there) but I'm not sure how recent.

I can't tell for sure. Here it gives a different coat of arms: oak on silver field surrounded by red. A search on Clusty for Aranzabal+Peru gives 193 results. I leave to you to research further. --Sugaar 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque toponyms: please give me some time

Hi Sugaar, As I said last week, I will be happy to enter into a constructive discussion about your Basque toponyms proposals. I haven't started yet because I've been away and/or busy for the last few days, so please give me time. To give you an idea what to expect, I support you as far as the overall idea goes and also agree with most of your suggestions, but there are some points where I'd like to make alternative suggestions and also to explain my reasons for making them. Since I can't do this in two or three lines, I prefer to wait until I have a bit more time. So, we'll talk later, okay?

As regards the Gernika/Guernica issue, it looks like things have gone the wrong way because of a combination of some people's belligerent agenda and other people's misguided judgments based on a lack of full appreciation of the facts of the case. I think your arguments are correct and balanced but there are obviously still people around who don't understand (and others who just don't want to). Perhaps with time some of them will be won over. I am convinced it is a long-term problem of general education, and that not only is this problem not limited to Gernika (or a "handful of place names" either), but it is also not limited to the Basque Country, by any means. Therefore, there are moments when it may be tactically advisable to concentrate on the general issues, and I see the Basque toponyms proposal as a step in that direction, which is why I support it. --A R King 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The issue of Gernika-Lumo has precipitated this discussion but it was something necessary since before the creation of the WikiProject: too many contradictory issues. Obviously it will need some months before we can discuss and bring out a consensuated and well defined document.

In the case of Gernika, I see it as Sri-Lanka or Harare... but with much lesser international resonance. In such cases, the official name should prevail always or almost always... it's like calling Iran "Persia", you know. It makes some sense... but it's an anachronism and lack of politeness.

Anyhow, I was astonished at how they treat the issue of Irish town names: official names are simply ignored on grounds that the locals use the English names (what is not proven). --Sugaar 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gipuzkoa

Hola, sí, los articulos con guipuscoa en el tiulo sí son validos en la wikipedia, pero se trata de simplificar todos los redirects en uno solo. El otro dia vi el articulo gipuzkoa/guipuscoa con dos nombres diferentes y tuve que redirigirlo a gipuzkoa. Solo se trata de redirigir todas las entradas a una. Si tu me dices que es mas correcto utilizar Guipuscoa, pues se redirigen todos los articulos a Guipuscoa y listo. Ahora mismo hay mas articulos con Gipuzkoa en su titulo que Guipuscoa. --Raymond Cruise 12:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saludos, Amigo.

I don't tell you anything. I'm fine with either one, whichever is more correct. If Guipuscoa is a consolidated English term then it should be that, else, it should be Gipuzkoa (being the official name) - at least that's my opinion (I never read Guipuscoa before but I'm not a native english speaker, you know). Whatever the case this should probably discussed in the article and/or in the proposed guideline talk page. That's why I mentioned the issue.

These things are somewhat delicate and that's why I'm trying to create a policy that will define the best usage. By the moment it's in discussion phase and it will take some time (months, I guess) to reach a consensus, after everybody interested has participated. --Sugaar 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guernica (town)

Hi, you might want to have a look at the Wikipedia essay on the wrong version. When an article is protected, it's not an endorsement of the version that gets protected. I simply moved the article back to its original title (it looks to me like you first moved it on 11/16, and then moved it three more times in the last ten days, never with a consensus behind you) and then move-protected it. If you're going to go against a Wikipedia guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), that's fine as long as there's consensus, but there didn't appear to be one, so I moved everything back to where it was at the start so that the discussion could take place without the backdrop of a contested page move. Therefore, if you're not happy with where the article is now, work through the article's talk page to form a true consensus to move it to Gernika-Lumo, and then let me know so I can remove the move-protection from the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I restored the article to its state prior to the move war. If there's a consensus to move it to "Gernika-Lomo," I'll unprotect and we can move it there. If there's no consensus - and right now, that's where it stands - you should probably take the matter to mediation. Either way, you're focusing far too much on where the article is right now during a temporary period of protection. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No: you did not restore anything. You just undid my last actions and then protected. You took sides and used your administration priviliges for that side taking. I'll consider opening an RfC on your behaviour or bringing it to ANI. Probably the first case is more logical. --Sugaar 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Barnstar award

Hey Sugaar, thank you so much for the Barnstar of National Merit! :-) That was a very kind gesture. Oh, and by the way, I have proposed a Basque Barnstar of National Merit two days ago (see here). If you like it, maybe you can just replace the barnstar in the award that you just gave me, as suggested. I'll postpone placing it on my userpage until you decide if you'd like to replace. I made the barnstar similar to others of the kind [1], although I could not make the background transparent due to lack of a good pic editor in this computer. Still, I like it. I must run now, later I'll comment on the amendments you proposed for the rotation system in Portal:Basque. Best regards,--Húsönd 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the idea: when this kind of barnstar existed that you changed the generalistic national merit one for it. I think it's the case. Yet, I prefer you do yourself it because I'm not so good with wikitricks (unless there's already a template). --Sugaar 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The award has now a transparent background so I can finally give it to you as well. You truly deserve it. :-) Best regards,--Húsönd 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Basque Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you this barnstar for creating the WikiProject Basque and your overall dedication to Basque-related content on Wikipedia. Regards, Húsönd 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! I'm copy-pasting it to the user page. --Sugaar 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eskaya on peer review

Hello! Just wondering if you can take a second look on Eskaya as a peer review? . Maybe you can also ask your network of wiki friends to take a look. Any comment will really be appreciated. Thank you. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

you seem to be knowlegable of european prehistory, i recommend you read "origins of the british" by stephem oppenheimer, a far superior book to blood of the isles ( he breaks down r1b into 14 subclades and analyizes mtdna into greater subclades too and works out where and when these subclades first appeared. --Globe01 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Catholic-link

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm off

I'm off because of this. I'm unhappy here anyway. You are an excellent bloke. Have a good life. Love. Alun 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euskarazko wikipediatik

Kaixo Sugaar, Aste honetan euskarazko wikipedian Euskal Astea ospatzen ari gara. Ideia da ahalik eta eduki gehien jartzea Euskal Herriaren inguruan, asteko herrialdearen ideiaren baitan. Beno, harira. Gauza da historiaren inguruko artikuluak egiten hasi naizela eta nahiko zaila da guztia nik bakarrik egitea. Gainera aukeratutako gaiak agian ez dira egokienak, hau da, zatiketa nola egin den. Ni ez naiz historialaria, baina suposatzen dut gauzarik garrantzitsuenak jarri ditudala. Zure laguntza eskatu nahi dizut, beraz, orrialde hau ahalik eta gehien hedatzeko. Prest al zaude? -Theklan - Discussion 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no see

Hey, I haven't seen you making many edits lately and I just thought I'd see how things were going.--Joebengo 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)