Talk:Navarre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 10 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Linettes99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Is Basque an official language of Navarre? If not, should the table include the translation of the official name in Basque? - Montréalais

Sort of. It is coofficial in some parts (see Alleged apartheid in the Basque Country) and the current government tries to restrict it. But the official name is already translated in the article, isn't it? -- Error 04:00, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Official in the whole of Navarre, one of the official languages in Spain, together with Gallego, Bable, Catalan, Valenciano, Castellano and Aragones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.45.142 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry for not signing.... In fact, the Government of Navarre is stimulating its use, as it is commonly taught in public schools, and used in official documents. However, its everyday use is not homogeneous by any means. Achaya (talk)[reply]
Basque is official only in a part of the territory if Navarre[1]. In Spain cooficial languages are only official in regional administrations, like Gaelic in Cornwall.
In December of 2023, that´s the real situation.
Less than 15% of navarres understand and speak well basque [2]
The only reason to translate to Basque everything related to Navarre, is to visualize the basque nazionalist movements. I.E. PNV, Bildu, Geroa Bai, ETA... That represents only a 40% of the voters, and only a 30% of electors if we take in account 35% of abstention[3].
It is particularly strong in spanish wikipedia, where the Basque Bias not only introduce basque wherever is possible, but even creates "alternative history", to support its alternative reality.
93.156.201.99 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Even in English, Navarra is a rather more common name than Navarre (or Nafarroa) -- see this e.g. with Google advanced search for pages in English. As far as I can see, using this "English" version just seems to be a politically correct way of avoiding favouring either the Castillian or the Basque version, but we should not be following political correctness but simply reflecting actual usage. I would propose moving the page to Navarra, while continuing to note the Basque name and also noting that the region is sometimes called Navarre in English. (The page Navarra is currently a disambig, but doesn't really need to be; the bit about the battleship with that name can be noted somewhere near the end of the page.) 80.229.160.150 00:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that Navarre is the most common way I've heard it in English, but I don't have a dog in the fight one way or another. Conveniently, we could use Navarre for historical references (where it is ALWAYS Navarre, e.g. Henry of Navarre or whoever) and Navarra for the current aut.com. - Montréalais

Does anyone know why "Navarre" is more common in English? The article should address this name discrepancy. dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a retarded question. Why not ask why "Spain" is the most common name in English, or "China" for that matter (instead of España and 中国)? We speak English. — Chameleon 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iruñea[edit]

I changed the Basque name given for Pamplona to Iruñea rather than Iruña, as I think it's the more common variant. (Certainly it's what's used on road signs.) I know that Iruña seems to give more Google hits, but I don't speak Basque so am not in a position to assess what might be influencing that. Certainly the Basque Wikipedia has eu:Iruñea as the main article and eu:Iruña as a redirect, and they presumably know what they're talking about... Arbitrary username 17:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the official name for the city is "Iruña", although the Euskaltzaindia prefers Iruñea. Concerning the road signs, travelling through Navarre, one can see all signs say "Iruña". Maybe in the Basque Country some signs say "Iruñea". I think it is better Iruña since it is the official name. --Comakut 23:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. The official site uses Iruña and Iruñea in the same page (Iruñeko, Iruñean,... are inflected forms). --Error 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the official name is Iruñea-Pamplona and that's why the declinantions all follow the Iruñea form. Iruña is colloquial, same as Bilbo for Bilbao. The municipality site almost always uses Iruñea (Iruñeko, Iruñean... not Iruñako or Iruñan), with very few exceptions. --Sugaar 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you travel to Navarre,you will see that some signs say Iruñea,and another ones Iruña.The official is Iruña,but the Academy of the Basque Languaje preferes Iruñea.
Iruñea is Euskara Batua; Iruña is the dialectal form. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basque is also the oficial language in Navarre

Basque is only official in the nothern third of Navarre (where is really spoken), and in the Capital and his surroundings. The basque name of Pamplona is: "Iruinea", because in Batua (the unified basque) there is no "ñ". But in Navarre, you can see both forms "Iruña" and "Iruñea". The real Basque name of the city founded by Pompeyo is "Pamplona", that comes from "Pampiluna" or "Pompaelo". The end "iluna" means city in antique Basque. It must be said that the "vascones" where a people that was heavily romanized. You can find a lot of ancient remains of cities in the "saltus vasconum" like "Andelos", "Cascantium", "Pompaelo", "Calagurris", etc... It must be said that the "hispanoromans" of the "ebro" river, with the "Banu Qasi", where independent from both the Cordoba´s Califate and the kingdom of Pamplona. The real name of "Iñigo Arista" is "Iñigo Iñiguez", "Arista" is a nickname. Iñigo is the basque version of the latin name "ignatius", actually in batua the form is "Eneko", less Spanish than the original. Actual batua (Bat=One in basque) is a versión of Biscay´s dialect with foreign adaptations to look more diferent from Spanish. There are more of five dialects diying because of batua. It must be said that the gobern of Navarre don´t restrict basque in Navarre, it promotes Basque as the language of administration. You can see the public job offers (in the web page of the gobern), and see that if you speak basque, you are twice valored than if you speak English for instance, and for many offers is a "Must", not a choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.171.201 (talk) 21:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

and, whats your point? Basque "batua" in not based or a version of biscaian dialect, try to read or hear Biscaian and compare it with batua or unified basque. Batua is mainly based in central basque speaking (from Gipuzkoa)and then, it takes a lot from the oldest basque literary dialect, Nafar-Lapurtera, wich it´s the dialect spoken in the north of spanish Navarre & Lapurdi (Labourt, French basque country, as you can see along the net, starting with wiki page about basque language and dialects,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language#Standardised_dialects The most widely used standardized dialect is Batua ("unified" in Basque), which is the language taught in most schools and used on media and official papers. Batua is based largely on the Gipuzkoan regional dialect, where it is the most used, although it allows use of Northern and Navarrese vocabulary and grammar. It is also referred to as Standard Basque. --88.2.227.239 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t want to discuss which of the basque dialects is the one that served for "construct" Batua. The discussion is upon the name Iruña. Somebody said above that basque is official in Navarre, and I gave information about that topic. And as I said, it´s impossible to write "Iruña" or "Iruñea" in Batua, because batua doesn´t have "Ñ". The actual name in Batua must be "Iruinea". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.146.45 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the unified Basque language is not based on the Biscayan dialect, but the Navarrese right-wingers think it so. For them Bilbao and Biscay are synonimous with the Anti-Christ, or nearly so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you proof some of your affirmations?
With references, please.
Some basque nazis call non nazis from navarre, right-wingers.
Personally, the far from the nazis, the better. 93.156.201.99 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

¿Navarre not romanized?[edit]

As far as I have read, Navarre was heavily romanized. Pamplona, was named so because of Pompeius, a known roman military, who stablished his winter camp in this city about 200 B.F. There are several remains of roman civilization in Navarre, a lot of towns are the heirs of those romanized "vascones" (¿"iberos"?). Even in 712 A.D. when Tariq invaded the Visigotic Kingdom of Hispania, in the nearby of Tudela, he found a roman-visigotic family, who accepted to convert his faith in order to keep his realms. The family was called "banu Qasi" in Arabic, or "son of Casius", and ruled the Ebro valley nearly 200 years, after that, they where relocated in Cordoba, the center of the Muslim power with "Abd-Al-Rahman III"(I am not sure with the number sorry). In the medieval age, in Navarre (wich was one of the more powerful kindoms of Hispania, evolved a latin dialect called "Navarro-Aragonés", Remains of it can be heard in some villages of the Ebro valley. It is true that the inhabitable, in these years there was few people in this lands and today too, nothern zone of Navarre, remained forgotten; and because of that, the few inhabitants not romanized didn´t change their tongue. I recommend to visit the "Museum of Navarre", in which you could see the remains of the antique civilizations who habited in Navarre, and take your own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.146.210 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was heavily romanized, and furthermore, it was also heavily influenced by France. Its population in the Middle Ages comprised: Franks, Jews, Muslims, Gascons, etc...., and the spoken languages were French, Castillian, Euskera, Aragonese and Occitan. The Northern part, closer to the Pyrenees was less influenced by Romans, but it was heavily influenced by France. During the partition of the Kingdom of Navarre, the Northern part was in the majority supporters of the French (d'Albret, bourbons) dynastic Navarrese monarchy. Achaya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t mess Visigothic Pamplona, with independent Pamplonese kingdom.
Don´t mess muslim Pamplona with independent Pamplonese kingdom.
Don´t mess Pamplonese kingdom with Tudela´s kingdom.
A millenial Navarre only exist in basques nazionalist´s minds.
Don´t mess Pamplonese kingdom with Navarrese kingdom.
The first ends in 1164, and comprises Pamplone and its surroundings.
The second start when Alfonso I, "the fighter" after conquering Zaragozas Kingdom, dies.
Even no one claimed to be Navarrese king before 1164.
Other history, is a cartoon based in romantic nazi´s visions.
93.156.201.99 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclave in Aragon?[edit]

What's the exclave that is in Aragon? There's no mention of it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a village surrounded by aragonese lands that belongs to navarre. It´s called "Petilla de Aragón", You can see it in google maps. There are many "exclaves" in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.36.178 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!! I know there are many exclaves but I'm making some maps and Petilla de Aragón is one of the ones large enough to see on a map of Spain, and they highlight on mouse hover so I needed them to be correct. Again many thanks!! 217.166.94.1 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Naming debate[edit]

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) 12:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't undo page blanking[edit]

I can't undo the page blanking vandalism because the previous version has a blacklisted site that I'm unable to identify.

This looks like it could be a pretty troublesome issue if large scale vandalism like this isn't easily and quickly revertible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.122.50 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having just the same difficulties and have told an admin User talk: Materialscientist about this. 149AFK (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Navarre[edit]

Navarre doesn't have borders with Castile and León. Please, edit that mistaken field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.164.233 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols[edit]

I have reverted the changes by Miguillen. They require a source. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UT

The official version decrpción Coat of Navarra and the version for use on the flag appears in the Official Gazette of Navarre (BON) BON n º 140 of 11/20/1985.
Besides common sense can not be that a coat of arms of a flag have reliev effects in the crown. Is not the first time I've mentioned and still do not understand how someone who has done so many flags falls into the same trap. regards.--Miguillen (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it is insufficient, you must provide links. Your opinions and ownership problem regarding Spanish heraldry is tiresome, you can not just say something and it be true. If you keep reverting these changes, I'll take it to a dispute resolution board because I'm not playing games with you. Fry1989 eh? 20:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
where is the source for File:Flag Of Navarre.svg and File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg? it seems we can't use either of them? Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing can and is being asked about Miguillen. He hasn't provided a single source for the ones he likes, despite multiple requests. As for the usability of the two you have listed, it is called a blazon, which is a textual description of a heraldic image. As long as your drawing follows that, it is no more "correct" or "wrong" than another. Two heraldic experts here have tried to explain this to Miguillen. If you want to discuss the implications of following blazons, I'm sure Adelbrecht, Heralder, Xavigivax, Sodacan, Ssolbergj, SanglierT and other users who do heraldic work for Wikipedia will all be more than happy to do so. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reduces the list to Heralder with whom he bequeaths an understanding and Adelbrech. with Sadocan, Ssolbergj, SanglierT have not exchanged words and are partners Xavigivax Workshop Vexilología Heraldry and the Spanish Wikipedia and know that these designs are not your style as purity imposes heraldic color.

gold chains on a red background, with an emerald in the center of the union of its eight arms of links and, above them, the Crown Royal symbol of the Ancient Kingdom of Navarra

The coat of Navarre is a rather complex case on which I've already worked on writing an article about him. The story is that although its purely heraldic origenen from 1910 set a design presented with a description that does not meet the rules of heraldry and it's impossible to play this definition graphically without knowing the design. That coat was amended in 1931 with the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic by changing the royal crown and a mural crown in 1937 after the Civil War and the victory of the camp was relocated sublebado royal crown was added and the Distinguished Cross of San Fernando documents defined in the same way as in 1910.

After the end of Franco in 1981, the award-winning retreat and somehow turned to the agreement of 1910 presenting a new image in 1985 was given final shape with two official forms but one that we see here is the work of Domingo Aznar Megana whose aim was protocol and uses the flag of Navarre and a simplified version for use by the Government of Navarra as corporate image according to the laws of Navarra symbols. both appear in the BON Regional Decree 140 of 11/20/1985[1] (Not available on line, but if libraries) More information can be found by reading this interesting book that explains everything: Title:El Escudo de Armas de Navarra - Author: Faustino Menéndez Pidal de Navascués and Javier Martínez Aguirre - Editory: Gobierno de Navarra (Departamento de la Presidencia)- ISBN 84 235 2016 1

In short it is a mistake in this case seek rigor as heraldic version is defined such official level (presentation) but has a great history in the plane defined heraldic and so the part that is in the arms of Spain.

This theme is very interesting if you inform interested. But please if you have not previously shown not try to impose anything on the fact that if you see that it is wrong.

Have a lot of information here that using the translator something you can understand: es:Escudo de Navarra already shown some of the sources you can find many more. Regards.--Miguillen (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How you or I feel about the other users I have named is really irrelevant, I was listing them as an option for Frietjes to choose from if she wishes to discuss blazons and how to follow them, and any other finer matters of heraldry. What is relevant quite frankly is consensus. You have no consensus at this point to dictate what version should be on this article or not, and neither do I, but don't pretend your opinion is somehow more valuable than anyone else's.
Now, you have been repeatedly asked for sources that File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg is somehow "wrong". You haven't provided any. Also Adelbrecht, who is a heraldic expert, had a very heated discussion with you about this very issue only 2 years ago. The only reason he gave up, out of his own words, was because you were getting too tiresome for him to continue. He has never capitulated in his stance that you are wrong and make up rules to force File:Escudo de Navarra (oficial).svg, and he admits regret in not pressing the issue further at the time. There's absolutely no reason why you should be allowed to dictate this article and what version of Navarre's coat of arms/flag it uses any longer. You have had more than 2 years to prove your point in this issue and in that time you've not provided any sources, you've only reverted any of us who support File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg and tell us that we're all wrong and don't understand.
Lastly, what the Spanish Wikipedia chooses to do has no bearing on English Wikipedia, but just for fun, they like to use File:Foral18.jpg on there, which looks a lot more like File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg than File:Escudo de Navarra (oficial).svg to me. Fry1989 eh? 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture you show me contains a baker includes a coat of arms embroidery while the other played a shield painted version. The tones in shield designs are not defined in writing and differ greatly depending on the format and playback media (embroidery, painted) (cloth, paper etc). Like I señaldo on previous occasions the problem is not the color tones used (never ask follow the editorial policy of the Spanish Wikipedia). The problem is the relief effect of the crown that is to put different colors to the same color giving a more characteristic of other supports (heraldic words). I have felt in this responsibility from the beginning because in that adaptation to the official model (see File history) was the propeller and therefore do not want to be used incorrectly. Flag model can see File:Flag of Navarre.svg that suits embroidered versions but omits that effect anything real in this type of support. Regards.--Miguillen (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses, excuses. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

Hi everybody, I checked the History section. There is a redundancy with the more extensive Kingdom of Navarre article dealing with Navarre during that period, basically up to 1833, or 1839, or 1841, depends. Also there are a handful of incorrect statements. Similarly to the history of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, I would suggest starting the section in 1833 from the moment Navarre becomes legally a Spanish province, or leave just a short outline for the previous period, and focus on the later, province of Spain period. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Present-day politics[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering what the point is of this template. In fact it sticks perfectly to a summary style in the first paragraph, news style later—we are talking about present-day events—according to the wikipedia style link you provided. It will be far more cooperative and add more to the article if you contributed with your own data, sources, and information altogether, so that the reader gets a distinct picture of the topic referred in this section. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put the essay tag to tone it down, but the real concern is neutrality. The main goal of the text seems to be to identify the bad guys of Navarran politics, and of course they happen to be those who are anti-Basque. If the section had been written by an IP, I would have deleted all of it immediately. --Jotamar (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and I would revert it immediately. Listen do it as you think it's better, you seem to feel uneasy with some pieces of information that are providing keys (sometimes conspicuously missing) to understand the content of the relevant article or section, even getting concerned with not the accuracy of specific information, the case of Basque language in the area of Tudela, but its alleged "neutrality", e.g. not suiting your views, or just widespread clichés among some people. It's not whether it suits your views or not. If you think something is being omitted add it yourself, that will be appreciated and help balance the article, I won´t oppose it if it's accurate and relevant to the topic. Other than that, your contributions may come across as disruptive, or POV editing.
This section in particular is pretty complete to summarize in a pair of paragraphs to understand its Navarre's present-day situation. Granted, it's quite short and I may have overlooked some points. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well??? Iñaki LL (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll rewrite the section from scratch, but first you should clarify, so that I don't miss any point, what on earth mean exclusive institutional dynamics, sustained political crisis, current status quo, a state affair, reactionary, precise status of Navarre, ideological profiling, or defiant. Also, what kind of encyclopedic relevance have the comments of two ministers in Madrid, in an article that does not explain even the most basic political organization of present-day Navarre? --Jotamar (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beg you pardon? (...) You rewrite it, yes, and I may rewrite yours. You mean it needs more detail? Fair enough. Two paragraphs don't give much margin. I'll try to go through some of them, since you don´t seem to understand the wording and in case it's too dense:
  • Exclusive institutional dynamics: no Basque nationalist party, in particular the Basque nationlist left, can rule in major Navarrese institutions, regardless of the popular will, e.g. arbitrary exclusion from all major organs (including the financially broke CajaNavarra), statements of Madrid officials in 2014 (calling almost for a crusade against the above parties if the content and tone of the statements is anything to get by), bypassing of PSN leader in Navarre 2014 by Madrid party barons (despite the party's nominally federal structure), arbitrary recurrent exclusion of EH Bildu from the launch of the "txupinazo" (San Fermin), exclusion of EH Bildu from all institutional control organs in Pamplona and Government of Navarre, statements of UPN and PP officials in Navarre and Madrid, PSN's prohibition to its local branches to make any alliances (even voting same option as EH Bildu in some council decisions), PSN's passive support to the gridlocked Barcina's government 2014,... This affects all topics Basque, e.g. radio licenses (recurrent irregularities), overreactions against Basque flags, prohibition of regular emissions of Basque Television EITB in Navarre but licensing other based in Madrid or Valencia, even one or two with reputed far-right views, exclusion of Basque language schools from international exchange programs, denial of due (as per legal provisions) funding to Basque language instructors, breach of established Basque language officiality provisions, etc.
  • Sustained political crisis: UPN and PSN alternation and mutual support (either passive or active) with no alleged common values but joined by a (negative) drive—preventing access of Basque nationalist parties to government bodies, at the expense of transparency, for one.
  • Current status quo: self-explanatory, check dictionary
  • A state affair: a state's critical matter that may involve breach of coexistence rules (legal and political guarantees)
  • Ideological profiling: ideological+profiling, check your English sorry
  • Reactionary, a category within rightist politics, inability to accept innovation in ideas and political advance
  • Defiant: check dictionary. Here: defiant in the politics of Navarre
  • Precise status of Navarre: political status
If were to make an article with my take on what goes on in Navarre politics, be sure that just relying on every day news one could find a long trail of revealing details, but that is not my purpose and I do not work for this. This is just a short outline with relevant information of its political dynamics nowadays, introduction plus years 2012-2014. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, something is missing? Add it yourself, I still do not know on what field you specialize or what you do on the wikipedia, since you are not specifying it. Drifting from article to article others have built with no good reason and no improvement may be considered POV editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recap: The section cannot be easily fixed, and it's obvious that user:Iñaki LL is going to revert any change anyway. The whole section is a disgrace both in terms of intelligibility for the average WP reader, and in terms of neutrality. A clear case to ask for 3rd party opinion. --Jotamar (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has left me a strange message in my talk page. I suppose he just had a problem checking the changes in the History tab, so I won't answer it. --Jotamar (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested here: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. --Jotamar (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Navarre and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@Jotamar: and @Iñaki LL: Please bear with me since I'm unfamiliar with Spanish politics and can only comment on this from a layperson's view and regarding Wiki policies/guidelines.

Reading the above discussion and also the disputed section, I don't find anything blatantly wrong with it and see no justification for a complete rewrite or removal. The content seems sourced to some extent and if suitable RSes document this, then it's relevant to this page. At most, the section may need to be toned down in case it uses heavily loaded Words to watch or WP:EDITORIALIZING. I'll watch this page for a few days, so both of you can enlighten me if I've overlooked anything. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Ugog. Just one question for you: Do you understand everything the section says (or hints at)? --Jotamar (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the relevance of the observation about the difference in total population between Navarre and the Basque autonomous community, merging both communities would mean that Navarrans would become a minority in the new entity. Is it so hard to understand? --Jotamar (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As apparently User Ikaki LL thinks that his wording is flawless and can't even stand a warning tag, I see no alternative but to modify the section, the best I can. --Jotamar (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ikaki LL is about me. Someone thinks he is entitled to add bla-bla-bla on the wikipedia and thrive on the work of others, adding reactive and obstructive edits, putting the text the way they like. I keep seeing no specific data, no constructive attitude, no verifiability. Relevant info was deleted. However, I integrated some of the edits if that helps stabilize a definite text.
It seems quite obvious that you don´t know much of Navarre's history, but you do seem to have an opinion, that I have not a doubt. Navarre has always been up to 1980 but one of the Basque territories in a par with Alava, Biscay, and Gipuzkoa. Navarre is also double the population of Álava. You might as well add that information to clarify. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence makes no sense: Between 2012 and 2014, a series of corruption scandals broke out involving regional president Yolanda Barcina ... that included influence peddling, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds ... or ideological profiling of public school instructors. And is ideological profiling a corruption scandal ?? --Jotamar (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To hint that Fernández Díaz has a personal position (different from his party) about the Donostia-San Sebastián International Peace Conference is absolutely misleading. Besides, that question is only indirectly related to politics in Navarre proper. --Jotamar (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What can be wrong with claryifing that Bildu is a radical Basque nationalist coalition? --Jotamar (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the exclusion of Basque nationalist parties, what do UPN and PSN have to say about it? Do they admit it happens? And if they do, what explanation do they give? Apparently, the point of view of non-Basque-nationalist parties does not exist. Of all the points I have just raised, this is certainly the most serious one. --Jotamar (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen you keep adding obstructive objections and you are wasting my time big time, you have altered small but relevant discussion text , and this is not a forum. Should you keep disrupting, I will take this to the next step. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone tell me, what can I do with this guy?! --Jotamar (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Navarre has never been one of the "vascongadas".
That name has always given to the three provinces actually intergrated in the Basque country. 93.156.201.99 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time passes and this is going nowhere. What I certainly won't do is to let this conflict rot. User Iñaki LL refuses to answer my questions, has shown disdain towards me and has tried to block me from editing this page, here. So, with no dialogue and nobody stepping in as mediator, I see no alternative but to recover a more neutral wording for the section, even if that means an edit war. --Jotamar (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I tried my best, there is an obvious attitude problem with the above unhelpful editor, no matter what the 3o opinion or DRN, insists on having his own way. Will take next step as soon as I get round to. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section Requests for comment/Jotamar[edit]

This is not an RfC related to article improvement. Deals with editor behavior issues. Bring up such problems on the WP:ANI if need be. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement

Re above section. The editor Jotamar persists in raising objections and making obstructive edits in section Politics in Navarre, see also Talk:Navarre. The editor has increasingly engaged in obstructive editing, insisting in adding wording according to his preference, or overuse of demanding tags. Is that behaviour acceptable at all? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a a map and more of a index/list of the districts, divisions & Municipalities of Navarre..[edit]

At present there is nothing but A single link, in the index box, for it's capital, Pamplona. 81.102.111.206 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name in French?[edit]

It is not customary on Wikipedia for the local administrative division of a state to be written in the opening sentence in a foreign language because that region may have historical connections to a neighboring state. e.g. The article on Catalonia does not give the French name because it was part of France: It provides it in the three local official languages: Catalan, Spanish and Occitan. French is not an official or unofficial language of Navarre region.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You in a hurry? WP is no place for fast editing. I told in the edit summary and I am repeating, it does not need be official. However, if you happen to find that information bring it here. Navarre has a long tradition of close ties with the French kingdom, the king of France was entitled in French "de Navarre", and it was the official language of the (remains of the) kingdom of Navarre since 1622. Plus WP is no forum, bring relevant evidence, keep it short and smooth. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can include the French language name in the article Kingdom of Navarre, here (an article on the modern region and political entity of Navarra)it would be contrary to the general practice on Wikipedia, for good reasons which should be patent to you. Do article leads on wikipedia have the Arabic name of the Spanish autonomous region of Andalusia on the basis of historical connections? Or the Spanish name of Portugal, Naples or Sicily or Brugges since they were part of Spain? No. Exactly. It would be something extremely stupid to do. The same logic applies here. Its not just that it looks silly (it does), its just wrong.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Wikipedia:AVOIDABUSE. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info[edit]

Please refer to this talk, or this section, since besides your removal of sourced content the issue, topicwise, relates to the refusal to accept the word Basque. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colours in parliament chart[edit]

Hi Impru20, I was wondering, is there any way to update the colours in the parliament chart? Despite the change in numbers, previous colours will not go! Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. The legend was modified, but the chart was left unchanged, so the 2015 one was still in place. I've also updated the colors to match the ones used in the templates and in the chart to preserve consistency. Regards. Impru20talk 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Navarre&oldid=1193944235"