Talk:Labourd
The 670 document makes no mentions of active whaling, only that whale oil or blubber was obtained from a whale or whales. This easily could have come from a str
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basque Whaling
The 670 document makes no mentions of active whaling, only that whale oil or blubber was obtained from a whale or whales. This easily could have come from a stranded whale or whales. Also, the Basques did not began whaling in the New World until the 1530s. The claim that they simply followed whales until they reached Newfoundland in the 14th century is clearly dubious. It is nothing but a claim made by authors centuries after the fact. The vessels mentioned in 1412 off Iceland have been found to refer only to foreign ships, not Basque whalers as previously believed. See my Discussion page for more information. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Naming debate
I have started a general naming debate on the naming conventions of Basque provinces at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque and would like to invite all interested parties to take part in the debate. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Its not part of a historical Basque Country
Sorry for not being logged in (I am "Achaya") I have modified the page slightly. It was mentioned that it was part of the Historical Basque Country. The Basque Country has not been a historical entity before it became an Autonomous Community in Spain. Never in France. Lapurdi was part of the Kingdom of Navarre, which was a historical entity controlled first by basque-Navarrese Kings, and later by French Kings. Let's just be historically accurate about it. It is better to keep a neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.9.61 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Just an addendum, please check that in the Spanish version there is a clear sign warning about the lack of neutrality.... Achaya (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just had a look, yes, that change from BC > Navarre looks fine to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Achaya, you are free to give your opinion. However, the nature of the Basque Country has often been discussed and it's not the matter of discussion. IT IS a cultural and historical region with no common official institutions but with clear bonds and common traits. Furthermore, it was not part of Navarre since perhaps 11th century, when Labourd was part Gascony and it owed allegiance to the Navarrese kings. For a reference, take a look at other regions like Kurdistan, Lapland or Swabia. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Kaixo, Que tal Inyaki (perdona por escribir tu nombre asi, pero es que utilizo teclado Ingles)... Yo soy tan Euskaldun como lo puedas ser tu, te lo aseguro, y mi opinion de acuerdo con hechos historicos y situacion politica es tan valida como la tuya. All neutrality problems (change to English so other readers can follow this...) arising from political matters could be eliminated by careful phrasing. Euskal Herria, as you and I understand it, has never been a political-historical entity, although it has been a cultural entity, but don't try to eliminate other populations that made the Kingdom of Navarre as we know it existed, as a political/historical entity, including: Franks, Jews, Muslims, Gastons, etc, etc. I just ask for a little bit of clarity when phrasing things. I don't feel by any means identified with a "Euskal Herria" as many of us are not identified, but rather with "Navarre". I am not going to continue with more discussions, but I will be changing the text so that we can reach an agreement.
Achaya (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Achaya, I don´t think it´s about eliminating anyone. It can be a matter of nuance and explanation. We are not talking about an administrative or political entity, although you have done such an identification. A part of the population is trying to make that into a reality, out of a cultural and historical community and common traits, something that has been regularly attempted, call it New Phoenicia at the time of Emperor Bonaparte, as Provincias Hermanas after the Carlist Wars, or in the process leading to the failed Statute of Estella in 1932. "It's one of the traditional seven provinces of the Basque Country" poses no problems, since the concept of Basque Country is explained in that very article. It can be added that is was abolished during the French revolution, that's why it's not an administrative reality. However, the Basques in these provinces still identify themselves according to those provinces: lapurtar, baxenabartar, xiberotar. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Inyaki, thanks for the clarifications. I have no problems with that, really. Nice to have been "talking" to you...Agur Achaya (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Akerbeltz and Achaya, I'm afraid the edit doesn´t fix the wording, since Labourd was not Navarre (I would say never but that may be an overstatement) and it's not by some or many Basques, it just WAS one of the Basque provinces, it's not a subjective approach. I say IT IS because it is fresh in their memories, it is an identifiable territory with associations that organize themselves according to those territorial boundaries (Lapurtarren Biltzarra, Lapurdi irratia, etc.) and it's claimed by a large political movement. It is anyway a traditionally identifiable province and that can summarize all the above points. Lucian Bonaparte was not a Basque and considered it one of the traditional Basque provinces long after they had disappeared as political territorial units. Regards, and urte berri on! / ¡feliz año nuevo! Iñaki LL (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Akerbeltz and Inyaki, I think the new wording is fair enough...no problems with that 31.54.140.128 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Land Area
Im not sure if 900km2 is the actual area of this province.
Else where I have seen figures ranging between 850 to 860km2, but those sources are blogs and personal websites which I can not give credit to as a reliable source.
Can someone give a proper source to its lang area?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexfordummys (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The most reliable data come from Basque sources, since Labourd is not an official French administrative region. I give absolute credit to this, it belongs to a Basque Government's website (ES/EU languages). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.