Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Basque Country


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Southern Basque Country

 * – ( View AfD View log  _Country Stats )

Reason Dd1495 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This article presents a term of controversial nature and of very specific circulation as generaly accepted. To draw a humorous comparison, it is like discussing all features of a Sphinx without mentioning that Sphinx is an abstract concept. This article should be either deleted as totally misleading, thoroughly re-formatted or - also following major re-work - merged with other entries.

Please let me briefly review the usage of the term „Southern Basque Country”.

in Basque

Various grammatical and lexical versions of „Hegoalde” (literally „Southern zone”) existed in various spoken Basque dialects until the late 19th century, denoting areas of Basque realm in Spain. I do not know when the term was first introduced in writing, probably in the early 20th century. From that very moment it became part of the modern Basque Nationalist political discourse; those Basques who opposed the project refused to use the term as they refused to use „Euzkadi”. Suppressed during the Francoist era, since the mid-1970s „Hegoalde” is used in Basque-language media, also in non-political discourse, though it is usually flavored with politics and at times generates controversy also within the Basque realm. It is usually preferred to other terms in order to emphasize the Basque presence in Navarre, an in militant discourse in order to advance Basque political designs on Navarre.

Basque is the only language where vernacular version of „Southern Basque Country” is in circulation.

in Spanish

Since the fall of Francoism, it is during the last 40 years, the term „País Vasco peninsular” – listed in the entry as Spanish version of „Southern Basque Country” - has been used by ABC, one of the most popular Spanish dailies, only 3 times. Out of these 3 times, 2 occurences are about explaining what „País Vasco peninsular” actually means, which is a proof that the term is not in circulation rather than that it is. The occurence left (from 1979) discusses the Basque issue in France and the impact of developments in the Spanish part of the Basque country, which is a very specific usage as well.

Another allegedly Spanish-language version of „Southern Basque Country” is noted as „Helgoalde”. This term has not been used by ABC a single time since the fall of Franco.

One more allegedly Spanish-language version of „Southern Basque Country” is „País Vasco y Navarra”. This phrase – it can hardly be called „a term” - means simply „Basque Country and Navarre”, the same way as you can list together „Aragón y Navarra” or „Extremadura y Andalucia”. It is used against a variety of backgrounds – e.g. wine production, tourism, railway network, history or politics, indicating that the two regions had and have lots in common, but by no means advancing a concept of their unity in a „Southern Basque Country”. By the same token I could perhaps surprise you with the claim that there is a term „North-Western Britain”, which means „Scotland and Wales”.

The most popular Spanish-language term referring to Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya, Alava and Navarre as sort of a unit is „País Vasco-Navarro” (also in other orthographical variations), literally „Basque-Navarrese Country”. The term is not very popular, though it remains in discreet circulation, and is applied generally against historical and cultural background. However, the term can by no means be considered an equivalent of „Southern Basque Country”; it is rather its opposition: the former approaches Navarre as outside the Basque Country, the latter approaches Navarre as part of it.

in English

The term „Southern Basque Country” is generally not used in English, except by Basque authors, in Basque English-language publications or on Basque English-language sites. If there is a need to point to the Basque-inhabited areas of Spain in distinction to those of France, the terms prevailing are „Spanish part of the Basque Country”, „Spanish Basque Provinces” or similar, denominations which usually either ignore the question of Navarre or implicitly exclude the province. If an author adheres to the North-South rather than French-Spanish division line, there is a clear preference for „southern Basque Country” instead of „Southern Basque Country”. If the term „Southern Basque Country” is used, it usually refers to the 3 provinces of Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya and Alava and excludes Navarre, hence it does not mean what is implied in the entry; exceptions are cases when the meaning of a Basque term Hegoalde is explained. Scholarly works discussing Basque question in the 4 provinces use the term „Hegoalde” instead of „South Basque Country”. Occurences of colloquial usage of the „Southern Basque Country” term in English exist on exceptional basis and they do not bother with the question of Navarre at all.

in politics

Since the early 1930s relations between Navarre on one part and Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya and Alava on the other remain somewhat thorny. In 1931 Navarre opted out of the Basque (or, as conceived at that time, Basque-Navarrese) autonomy scheme; during the Civil War most Navarrese joined the Nationalists while most Basques joined the Republicans, which resulted in heavy combat between the two in 1936-1937. In the early Francoist period there were some Navarrese territorial designs on Gipuzkoa so that the province could get access to the ocean and in general Navarre proudly boasted some separate legal establishments while those of Gipuzkoa and Vizcaya were scrapped. In the late 1970s the question of Navarre joining the Basque autonomy popped up again, with the same result as in the 1930s: the province did not join the autonomous Basque Country. This generated frustration among many Basques and some of their militant nationalist groupings keep claiming Navarre as part of the Basque Country; actually, in North-Western Navarre the Basque nationalism seems more militant than it is in the neighboring Gipuzkoa. On the other hand, the process gave rise to modern Navarrismo, a political current vehemently opposed to Basque designs on Navarre and bent on preserving separate Navarrese standing (somewhat similar phenomenon is Blaverismo, anti-Catalan current in the Valencian province).

All the above is background against which the „Southern Basque Country” term should be considered. By and large, it is generally part of the Basque Nationalist toolset; the strategy is to difuse the term as widely as possible in order to facilitate Basque claims on Navarre.

What next

The entry as it is now poses to discuss the term („is a term”), but in fact it does not. There is no information on its linguistic antecedents, origins, versions, first appearance in print, usage, denotations, acceptance levels, derivates and so on. Instead, the entry discusses the object supposedly denoted by the term, it is 4 provinces of Spain, advancing the concept of their unity. Also many links from other WP articles direct to this page as discussing not the term, but the area in question. The entry does not utter a single word on exclusive Basque usage of the term, confuses the reader by wrongly suggesting that the term exists also in Spanish and possibly English, ignores the controversies related and maintains silence on partisan usage of the term. By and large, it discusses the entity which does not exist, the term which (except Nationalist Basque) does not exist and presents Nationalist Basque perspective as impartial encyclopaedic article. It leads a reader to assume that there is a unit named „Southern Basque Country”, discussing its history, features, sub-divisions and so on. As such, it is unacceptable as entirely misleading.


 * The easiest way forward would be simply to delete the article, and this is the option I would recommend.
 * Another option is to merge it with one of the existing articles, either on Basque Nationalism or on Basque Country (greater region). This would require some work and will take time.
 * Perhaps the best option is to re-write the article entirely, so that it becomes what it pretends to be: discussion of the term. Such an entry should clearly state that the term is in circulation only in Basque, that it is politically-loaded, and that it is part of the Basque Nationalist toolset.

--Dd1495 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have as much time as Dd1495 usually does to elaborate on the topic or create what looks almost a research paper or report to advocate for the removal, so I will try to outline my case with the main points. There seems to be a recurrent insistence on several Spanish editors to mimick the politics in Spain towards the Basques, more so nowadays, by denying the existence of the Basques as living in a certain territory and bringing up that assumption to the WP. Furthermore, there is an increased attempt to assimilate the name ‘’Basque’’ to a Spanish nominalism, i.e. Provincias Vascongadas or Comunidad Autónoma Vasca (País Vasco) hence a Basque equals an inhabitant of those three provinces, a restrictive administrative approach, far away from its historic, ethnic meaning. In Basque, it is just euskalduna, no matter where they come from (Navarre, Gipuzkoa or any other district). In Basque, the original language of the Basques, the idea of a division of between 3 and 1 districts has been historically almost inexistent, referring to Nafarroa, Bizkaia, Araba and Gipuzkoa as equals, each with their own General Councils, and called Euskal Herria as a whole (including sometimes also the traditional provinces on the French side).


 * Navarre remained in 1936 the claimed core of the “Basque race”’s ‘’true traditionalist essence’’ for the rebels, opposing it to the fellow Basque provinces that had shifted towards progressive and Basque nationalist positions. However, as of the 90s, UPN’s ideological approach shifted to astonishing positions, like rejecting altogether the ‘’Basqueness’’ of Navarre (unlike a decade earlier).


 * It seems that the editor above tries his best to create a restrictive, anti-academic approach to the Basque collective (cultural, ethnic) reality, only accepting its existence if a equivalent administrative units exist. He has even created an article where the necessary reference to the Basque people’s territory in Spain is replaced with a link to a name in Spanish, see here, instead of the reality itself, as if it were something of a fantasy (sic). That procedure is not correct and should be fixed, since we are not talking about linguistics. Tellingly the proposal to create a statute for the Basque Country in 1931 is not even cited in that article. However, I should say, if the name is an issue, I am fine with a discussion on it.


 * It is most striking the outlook behind the idea of not collaborating on the improvement, but erasing altogether, detracting information from the reader instead of adding or improving it, removing the territory of a people with all its common features, such as history, language and law, that account also for 19 and 20th century critical events in Spain, like the Carlist wars. It really looks like WP:IJDLI. As in other articles, the preferred approach of the above editor seems to be the conversion of certain articles into personal pages. Contributions are welcome, this is the WP, a collaborative project!


 * By the way, by the same token, we might as well remove Kurdistan (called by the Turkish administration, the "south-eastern borderlands"), Lapland (Finland), or Swabia, since they have no administrative equivalent. Are they an invention as well? I see this removal proposal as an overt political statement, so I just should encourage editors to keep editing on the article in question contributing their best with accurate and reliable information. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is an absurd proposal. The geopolitics of the Basque country are complicated and having this article separate (alongside Basque Country (autonomous community) and []) allows writers and readers to deal with topics relevant to each sub-unit, without having to cover it all on the same page. It is no different than the different articles which exist on Catalonia (disambiguation). Akerbeltz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A PS: this term incidentally (as südliches Baskenland) does appear in German, including academic writings (for example in Haase). Sure, it's not common either in German or English but not that many people write in either language about the geopolitics of the Basque Country, same as not many English authors cover Nushu.


 * Delete - As Dd1495 well explained, the term is clearly biased. It should be completely rewritten to define a Basque nationalist concept and not a neutral geographical one.--Raderich (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Per WP:NPOV, it's not up to us what is or is not a real place, and it has been covered by reliable sources. The politics of the situation shouldn't play a role - it's not our place to decide. It might need to be rewritten, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the arguments stated above. Also, discussion has been on for more than 15 days, and it is not conclusive. WP:ADF directions are clear, discussion should be closed after 7 days (168 hours). The article could be improved and that is not a problem in this or any articles. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments given for deletion are actually arguments indicating that the term is notable enough to be kept. The article needs to be clear about alternative names. Thei nformation given in the nomination should help.   DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.