Talk:Vascones

Comments 2004-2005

Relation to the Basques is (to say the least) controversial. Nope, apparently not very, it's just everything before them that is controversial.

There is one dialect of Gascon still alive in Spain today, Aranese, spoken in the Vall d'Aran. -- Jmabel 08:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Vascon is an English word, and propose to change the title to Vascones. Mark O'Sullivan 10:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some wrong information... Visigoths didn´t get to stablish in basque country, they said they defeat basque more than 20 times.. And muslims get Spain when visigoths still were trying to get Pamplona, in the middle of vascones land.

Other wrong points: Aquitania should be populated with vascones in part. But Aquitanian lenguage is obviusly a Basque dialect, or a lenguage inside of Basque Lenguages group(new theories say that current basque lenguage is the last alive lenguage of a bigger lenguage groups). And you can find the first written words in Basque in Aquitania, dated I.a.C.

Vascones just were a group inside of a Bigger same group. I mean, a tribal group inside of proto-basque culture. If you see the dialects division by territory and Roman division of human groups in the area. You could find they have a big similarity. Where High-navarrese is spoken, romans placed vascones, where Autrigones are placed, currently You could find gipuzkoan dialect, Caristios=bizkaian dialect... and you could get a strong relationship between current dialects and roman indications.

---

I'm getting more worried by this entry. There seems very little hard information in it. Can we have some sources, please? Otherwise I think we should cut it ruthlessly down. My Lewis and Short shows three Latin authors using the term Vascones.

• There's Pliny the Elder, who doesn't give precise boundaries, though the tribe are in Hispania Tarraconensis and clearly near the Pyrenees.
• There's Juvenal, who makes a passing reference to the Vascones in extremity drinking blood: the notes to my (Peter Green) edition of Juvenal explain this by pointing to Quintilian Declamationes 12 "and other references cited in a valuable note by Friedlaender (pp 584-585)", and adding "After the death in 72 BC of the rebel Roman general Sertorius, the Vascones' capital, Calagurris, was besieged by the Romans under Afranius, and the sufferings they endured became proverbial". Green gives for Friedlaender two references: one is D Junii Juvenalis Sat. Lib. V mit Erklaerenden Anmerkungen, 2 vols Leipzig 1895 reprinted 1 vol Amsterdam 1962, the other Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, tr J H Freese & others, 4 vols, London 1908-13 (presumably the reference here is to the first, but I have not checked). Calagurris in L&S is said to be Calahorra (on the Ebro in historic Navarre), and the birthplace of Quintilian, no less.
• There's Paulinus of Nola, in his tenth poem, a long verse letter to the Bordeaux academic, tutor of (I think) Gratian, and sort-of politician, Ausonius, but that is not hugely useful.

Is there any other information on the Vascones?

As to the last anonymous contributor above, as far as I know there's no evidence for Vascones in Gaul before the barbarian invasions (though there were obviously close links - Caesar mentions this specifically). I don't know the sources for the Völkerwanderung period, but anything relevant ought to be in Thompson's The Goths in Spain - I've got a copy somewhere in Spanish, but I can't lay my hands on it at present.

I think I'm proposing a radical redraft on the basis of these notes.

Mark O'Sullivan 16:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Some notes after the revamp

Strabo is the main source, I think. I've read him but also Pliny and confuse what belongs to each one. Plus all the secondary references...

Vascon is the Lat. singular for Vascones. But I strongly favor the move to Vascones, after all they are an ethnic group, hence a plurality, and also it is consistent with other related entries as Aquitani, Varduli, Caristii, Autrigones and Cantabri.

The information on Middle Ages Vasconia is now in Duchy of Vasconia. --Sugaar 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Domuit Vascones

but for all their history they remained fighting against the Vascons. Each Visigothic royal chronicle ends with the same ritual sentence: ...et domuit vascones (...and submitted the Vascons)

Removed after the doubts I enumerated in Talk:Kingdom of Navarre#Domuit vascones. --Error 01:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Auñamendi has nothing relevant on domuit. --Error 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would ask Wllacer to make one of his primary researches but it seems to me that you are just giving too much credibility to that incendiary pseudohistorian called Pío Moa.

Auñamendi Encyclopedia does have some references to Gothic Kings campaigns and claims of domination on the Vascones, though I can't say for sure if the sentence "domuit Vascones" was a ritual one (as has been claimed), something that appears in one or two chronicles and was recycled as topic phrase modernly or just nonexistent at all.

Auñamendi: Ducado de Vasconia dwells in depth on what happened in the High Middle Ages between 602 and the foundation of the Kingdom of Pamplona and the beginning of the use of the term Gascony north of the Adur. I have used that info to create the article on Duchy of Vasconia (not a mere translation though).

It mentions one by one most of the campaigns by Goths, Franks and Muslims. Some of that info should be here surely. Would you care to do that? (my wikistress is somewhat high). --Sugaar 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've almost completed a survey on MGH AA Chronica Minora (vols 1 to 3) where almost all the chronicles about Visigothic Hispania (Hydatius, John of Biclar, Isidore and continuators) were edited. The famous "domuit vascones" does not appear anywhere. In all, six campaings (aprox. 581, 589, 611, 631, 647 and 672) are recorded. Btw. as I already stated Moa this time is relying on Armando Besga, which is a well respected scholar in this area.Wllacer 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So we have 6 campaigns (only?) and no one of their historical mebntions claims in any form to have subdued the Vascones? Please clarify.

I am missing at least two campaigns in your recount: that one of 574 when the Goths founded the Duchy of Cantabria and the latter one by Roderick in 771 coincident with the Muslim invasion. The campaign of 611 is, according to Estornés, two: 610 and 612, one under each king: Gundemar (610-612) and Sisebut (612-621). --Sugaar 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate more, and the volume misses no major visigothic source. There are no two similar descriptions, (none, obviously, ending in a visigothic defeat) and none uses the phrase "domuit vascones". The most similar form is from the "Epitome Ovetensis"..feroces Bascones in finibus Cantabriae perdomuit. It's only hack is that it's written in 883 as an introduction to the ..."Albeldense"

I've ommited the 711 campaing (Roderic's) because, probably didn't happened. Let me explain. If we trust the Muzarabic Chronicle of 754 (in the MGH as Chronica Hispana DCCLIV), as most modern historians tend to follow (Collins, for instance) after the death of Witiza, the visigothic realm was in a state of virtual civil war, with at least one anti-king (Agila II -attested otherwise- controlling much if not all Tarraconensis and Septimania. Not exactly the ideal conditions for campaigning around Pamplona ...unless it was a stronghold of Agila.

(Writing from memory) With the one at 574, i think you're refering to the campaign when Leovigild broke the power of the cantabrians, destroying Amaya and Cantabria (Rioja). Vascones are not mentioned there. A few years later Leovigild campaigned against some unlocated Ruccones. There were times when some saw them as a form of "vascones", but nowadays they are usually located somewhere in Lugo. Suevians fought also against them, and the series of campaigns starting from 574 were consistently moving east to west cornering the suebian kingdom.

The account in Isidore about Gundemar is not a model of clarity. Perhaps Estornés is using a source i've missed.Wllacer 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was yesternight too unconcrete. First, as they weren't "humanitary aid" expeditions, the stated results are as unpolitically correct as can be expected. But this thread is about the appearance of a concrete formula.

Thanks for putting me in question. I slipped a mistake, instead of 631 it should be 621 (the first, not the last year of Suintila

Some of the expeditions (589,621,647,672) are justified as defensive/retaliation/police operations; And one (672), is written as it happened linked to other internal troubles, and -what deserves further study- merovingian intervention.

Estornés and Isidore rechecked for the missing campaing. Sisebut is said to have campaigned (without year) against Astures and Ruccones. Estornés does count this last one. see above why I don't.

And last, but not least, I forgot to mention that Roderic's campaign does not appear in christian sources, and, f.i. Collins' "Early Medieval Spain" tells it as part of the (late) arabic versions of the Conquest. Wllacer 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that "Cantabrians" and the Duchy of Cantabria were not Basques? True that the name is not used and Amaya is clearly in formery Cantabrian territory (more or less) but the rest of the account rather seems to point to La Rioja and other areas populated in Ancient times by the Autrigones primarily, all them mostly admitted to be Basque-speakers.

Basques were naturally trying to regain control of the Ager Vasconum (i.e. La Rioja) and Visigoths were not eager to allow that. Surely they were simply unable to keep real control of the Saltus at all. I wonder if the end of the expeditions in 672 means that Visigoths just lost control of La Rioja (Cantabria) totally by that time, else we should expect further fighting. --Sugaar 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I know the less I'm sure of anything. As this is not a matter of scoring points or to set up a list of grievances, if the source says "Cantabrii", "Cantabria" they go to one list, if the source says "Vascones" they go to another. If the source mentions both, it will depend on the context. Doing it otherwise is only the best way to get lost. To use modern terms for ancient realities is the second best one.

The 672 (rather 673, actually) expedition is exceptional in many ways. Nor only, as i wrote earlier because of its context, but also because it is the only one (relatively) well documented in the sources by a contemporaneous and, perhaps, direct witness. It can be found in Historia Wambae Regis (MGH SS rer Mer. Passiones vitaque ... vol III, pg 507 passim) written by Bishop Julian of Toledo. Despite the big words, it was just a week long "razzia", which ended as soon as the "vascones" agreeded to pay ransom ("gifts" in the original) and their taxes. Its location was set "in partibus ... Cantabriae", which, from the context, seems indeed to be somewhere in the Rioja.

After that, the Goths hardly gave up the area. The creation of the Duchy of Cantabria is traditionaly credited to king Erwig, Wamba's succesor. And that the witness for the title, although late, unmistakenly points to the last years of visigothic rule. If absence/presence of a bishop from a Council of Toledo means something (you know i'm not that sure, at least for absence), I'd say its telling that from the four attested wisigothic bishops of Pamplona, two of them are attested in Toledo after that date (See the Spanish Wikipedia) --Wllacer 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some discrepance re. to where Visigothic Cantabria was and the only certain reference is Amaya and, then, the Riojan-Riberan apparent connection with "Cantabria City" (i.e. local legends of refugees from its destruction, Chronicles that mention the Goths campaigning at Olite, monastic legends, the toponymic "Sierra de Cantabria"...). So, when writing the stub on the Duchy of Cantabria I assumed the classical position that it was south of the mountains in the Upper Ebro basin.

Not sure when the name of the Duchy appears for the first time but the destruction (conquest) of Cantabria is clearly among the deeds of Liuvigild.

How do you know that "Goths hardly gave up the area"? I am under the strong impression that their domain was always weak, unstable and never going much way north of the Ebro. Goths could gather large armies sure but those armies weren't stable, the very fact that they were campaigning all the time in the same region shows the weakness of their posession.

The presence of the Bishop of Pamplona in Spanish synods says nothing to me: surely ecclesiatical affairs were important for the Goths but it's not clear how important they were for Basques and their traditional local self-government. The absences say maybe more than the presences, where the Bishop could be as an invitee, more as a diplomat than as standard member. Whatever the case, the bishop needed a connection outside the country, and this could well be provided by Toledo, that is way closer than Rome.

Not once the Goths (or anyone else before the Arabs) are mentioned to have taken Pamplona.

--Sugaar 14:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Last first. Pamplona is cited twice in visigothic chronicles, both times twined to Caesaraugsta. First in 467 as the FIRST conquered hispanic town by the goths, and 541 when it was lost (temporally, it seems) to the franks (Both cites, MGH AA. Chronica Minora, vol I, pg. 664 and 223 respectively).

Pamplona also appears on two lists of bishoply sees under visigothic rule which for sure postdate the elevation of Toledo as metropolitan see (c. 600) (same volume pg. 573 and 382). And don't forget the well known "De laude Pampilona"

As for the council of Toledo. Recheck your sources on Visigothic Hispania. Rome (if mattered seriously at the time) is far easier to contact thru Toulouse (or Eauze for that matter) than Toledo.

The question of the frequent absence of pamplonese bishops has been recently (1997) adressed by two articles in "Hispania Sacra", one by J.J. Larrea and the other by K. Larrañaga (both UPV-UHE), the first seeing nothing unusual, the second pointing to the weak visigothic control in the North, which allowed only sporadic appearances. To be honest, the attendees after 670 were not the bishops but their vicars (according to Moret, "Antigüedades de Navarra"), to be precise the same person (or two equally named). This does not look like "clerical courtesy".

I warned you already about the problem with Cantabria, when we discussed the "Albeldense"..In the case of the 672/3 event, I bet for Cantabria (Rioja), because the route Wamba follows afterwards to march against Paulus, is from Calahorra to Huesca, which holds, IMHO, most sense if the "razzia" was in that area.

The title of duke of Cantabria is recorded, at least, in the "Albeldense" for Peter of Cantabria (fl. c. 710) . The meaning of it, it extent, and its weight for later events, has been since ever (and probably will ever be) source of wide discussion between medievalists Wllacer 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Move?

I suggest to move to Vascones, now a redirect page.

Reasons: as ethnicity, they are a plurality and some have asked for that already above. The only name recorded is Vascones (and variants like Barscunes), whose obvious singular is Vascon.

Additionally all the other realted ancient tribes of the area, like Aquitani, Autrigones, Cantabrians, Caristii, Varduli are in the (historical) Latin plural form.

Please discuss.

Support. Do it. Vascon is unknown in English and would not have been correct even in Latin (the singular there would have been Vasco). In any case, Wikipedia uses plurals for peoples. Andrew Dalby 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure if I'm going too fast but I have already requested the move. I doubt anyone would oppose it anyhow. The reasons are very clear and not controversial. --Sugaar 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Article moved, per request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Singular of Vascones

Some people have sustained without providing any rationale in the discussion that the singular of Vascones is Vasco.

I think that's absolutely wrong. Per the Latin declensions entry, it must be either Vascon or Vasconis. The second form I have never heard of but the first one is common at least in Spanish, where the plural in -es is derivated from atin 5th declension apparently (or at least simmilar in mechanism, like in French but not like in Italian, that follows mainly the 2nd declension: plurals in -i).

The name Vasco (and variants in other languages like Basco, Basque, etc., and rare archaic forms as Basclensis) is a medieval evolution. I'm not sure of the rationale behind (if any) but the documents seem to speak in this order:

1. Barscunes (apparently from Celtic bhar-: marche or mountain land)
2. Vascones (as attested in Roman and early medieval documents, first as tribe then as generic for Basques)
3. Vasconia - i.e. "country of the Vascones": Vascon+(n)ia (in Medieval texts and up to present). Derived: Wasconia and eventually Gascony.
4. Vasco: maybe from Vasconia minus -nia. Or maybe just a drop off of the final n of Vascon for other unknown reasons. Attested since late Medieval times in different variants

Whatever the case, I have yet o see any reasoning for the defense of Vasco as Latin singular of Vascones. Per the Latin grammar it just makes no sense. --Sugaar 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for reasoning. Here's a source:

Basque ... member of a race inhabiting the slopes of the western Pyrenees; their language ... [Borrowed from] Fr[ench] Basque; [borrowed from] L[atin] Vascō (in pl[ural] Vascones, [as found in] Juvenal, Pliny) which has also given Gascon.

C. T. Onions, Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966) p. 78.

Incidentally, this is the Latin 3rd declension, not 5th declension. The form is parallel to many other Latin words, for example, dictio, plural dictiones (English "saying" or "diction"). Andrew Dalby 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should add that the line (macron) over the o is used only in linguistic dictionaries and grammars, to show that this final -o was a long vowel. The macron isn't used in normal writing, so Vasco (not Vascō) is the Latin singular form that ought to appear in the article. Andrew Dalby 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... But it's not so clear, I suspect. Auñamendi Encyclopedia says:

El gentilicio "vascon". El gentilicio castellano actual vasco deriva del latín (también en transcripción griega) uasco , tema en -n, oblicuo vascon-, plural vascones, todos ellos acentuados en la sílaba inicial (váscon, váscones), bascli en síncopa.

Not very clarifying, I must admit. (Note: I'd translate into English but I'm unsure about linguistic terms such as "gentilicio" and "oblicuo").

It is noticeable that the form "váscones" (not modern Spanish: "vascones") actually is found toponimy, for instance Váscones de Zamanzas (a village of northern Burgos province). Also follow this stress rule vasco, basco and basque, but not Spanish vascón.

But anyhow the I don't yet see very clear the singular being vasco and not vascon (or both). Apparently it's only registered in plural form (AFAIK), so we could well either leave it that way (without singular parenthesis) or either write a section in ethymology and linguistics of "such important word".

If we choose the second, we may find some help also in Auñamendi: "Vascones", where it reads:

El gentilicio "vascon" aparece por primera vez en las fuentes grecolatinas y en monedas acuñadas entre los s. II y I AC en letras ibéricas y en un nominativo plural celtibérico que se lee barscunes o bascunes, en una ceca cercana a la actual Pamplona v. moneda. Tovar (entre otros 1987) supuso que este exónimo es indoeuropeo, de una raíz bhar-s-, bien atestiguada en celta con la significación de "cumbre", "punta", "follaje", con lo que la etimología podría apuntar hacia algo así como "los montañeses, altos o altaneros". Sería, pues, el apelativo que sus vecinos depararon a los antiguos vascos, aunque no hay que olvidar que existe una raíz preindoeuropea bar- que de nota "límite, extremo, frontera, marca".

Aditionally it may be mentioned Tovar's theory of basoko (mentioned later in the same entry) and maybe even that other one that suggests it's transliteration of eusko (quite unlikely in my humble opinion), like the Auqitanian tribe of the Ausci (who actually seem related to Aux).

Just for the record. (If you need translation, please ask). --Sugaar 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As Andrew Dalby correctly points out above, the well-attested Latin formation Vascones, which is a plural (terms referring to a people or inhabitants of a place - called gentilicios in Spanish terminology - are usually plural) definitely implies a Latin nominative singular form Vasco (with a long o, as Andrew points out). That is a matter of basic Latin grammar. Some gentilicios are not actually attested in the singular form in old writings, but Andrew says that Vasco is, which makes it not just an implied form but a historically attested one.

The reason why the Spanish-language sources quoted by Sugaar say vascon, not vasco, is simply because they are in Spanish, not Latin. Behind this lies a funny Spanish habit (funny in the eyes of non-Romance speakers, at least) of "translating" words in classical languages into the modern Spanish equivalent rather than actually using the name in its original classical form. I'll give you an example: the classical Latin author Cicero, is Cicero in his own language, Latin, and in English, for example, he is referred to by that name, Cicero, but in Spanish he is called Cicerón, which is a Hispanicised form of Cicero. It doesn't mean that Cicerón was his name in his own time and language, but Spanish speakers and writers speak and write as if it was. So when the authors of Sugaar's source, writing in Spanish, say that the Romans' name for an X was vascón, what they are really saying is that their Roman name, translated into Spanish, is vascón. As a matter of fact, in Latin, it would be vasco (with a long o). It's a strange logic, I know, but there you are.

Thus it is apparently the case that the Latin denomination in Roman times was vasco or uasco (VASCO, actually). However, it seems to me that Spanish vasco is unlikely to have developed directly from Latin vasco, a nominative, since the normal source is the accusative. So in Castilian the expected outcome from Latin vasco (gen. vasconis) would be vascón rather than vasco (just as the Spanish word that comes from Latin ratio is razón, not *razo, for example). Which leaves us, once again, with the problem of how to account for the Spanish, Gascon, French and English forms (vasco, basque etc.). Any suggestions, Andrew? Cheers, Alan --A R King 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the following before I had seen Alan's comment. I'll add it in anyway for what it's worth!

Thanks for your reply, Sugaar. From Auñamendi Enciclopedia I understand and agree with this: "El gentilicio castellano actual vasco deriva del latín (también en transcripción griega) uasco , tema en -n, oblicuo vascon-, plural vascones" (uasco in Latin is the same as vasco, because in Latin there was only one letter that was written either U or V). The oblique cases have the -n- insert: they would be vasconem (accusative), vasconis (genitive), vasconi (dative) vascone (ablative). I say "would be"b because I don't know if any of them is actually recorded. The nominative case, which is the one normally cited in reference works, remains vasco, or uasco if Auñamendi Enciclopedia prefers that spelling.

The reason why medieval and modern forms in various languages are Vascón, Gascon, etc., is that these forms are derived from the Latin accusative singular Vasconem (stress on the o). This is normal in the development from Latin via proto-Romance to French, Spanish, etc.; the nominative singular is very often forgotten and the accusative singular is usually the source of the modern forms.

But the fact that there is an alternate form in modern languages, e.g. Basque and Vasco (stress on the a), happens to demonstrate, in this particular case, that there was a nominative singular Vasco (stress on the a). In this particular case (as in some others) the Latin nominative singular was not forgotten. That would be my view, anyway.

I believe that Auñamendi Enciclopedia is relying on a different explanation for the origin of forms such as Basque and the Spanish forename Vasco: the Enciclopedia or its sources have taken it that in the oblique cases and the plural of this word, the stress was optionally on the same syllable as the nominative (thus Vásconem, not Vascónem). That's quite possible, but it's not a neat argument, because you have to accept that there was also, at the same time, a form with the stress in the expected place (Vascónem, Vascónes) otherwise you have no explanation for the modern forms like Vascón, Gascon (stress on the o).

Whatever the truth of that argument, the nominative singular in Latin would still be vasco. It is extremely rare for Latin nouns to end in -n in the nominative singular. Now, in your second quotation, the encyclopedia says "El gentilicio "vascon" aparece por primera vez en las fuentes grecolatinas"; well, believe me, they are not citing a precise Latin form (though I can see that their expression is highly ambiguous): they are simply saying that the word vascon, in one form or another, is first found in Greek and Latin sources of the 2nd century BC, which is true, of course.

I learnt all this stuff in Romance philology classes 40 years ago ... what fun to come back to it again! I'll leave it to you now, Sugaar and Alan, to decide what's best to do. All good wishes Andrew Dalby 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if you can you throw any light on the question about Gascon basco I have posed on Talk:Basque people, I'd appreciate it. Alan --A R King 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Vasco. Compare mansio, Scipio, leo, Teutones. I don't remember any case of a nominative -on in Latin. Perseus has no instances of nominative singular. The Online Etymological Dictionary offers from V.L. *Wasco, from L. Vasco, sing. of Vascones. Auñamendi itself quotes Mitxelena: A este respecto advierte Michelena (1984) "no debemos olvidar que el texto no está en romance, de modo que lat. uasco es diferente hasta por la forma de cast., etc., vasco" y que "en latín no es sino el caso recto, desprovisto conforme a un esquema frecuente en esa lengua de la nasal de otros casos, entre los cuales se cuentan todos los del plural, incluido el nominativo-vocativo" explaining how Vasco corresponds to vasconis, vascones,... I am not sure about the accent variants. I'd like to include the macron but I will leave it to others, who may be more certain. I proceed to change it. - Error 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm stepping out. I leave it for the linguists. I just was worried that the claim didn't seem sufficiently justified. Now it seems it is, even if there are still some doubts maybe. --Sugaar 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there is no doubt whatsoever about the nominative singular of vascones being vasco in Latin. You sort of have to either know some basic Latin grammar or take it on faith from those who do! (You don't need to be a linguist.) But Mitxelena's point is also pertinent; to paraphrase, basically he's pointing out that the -o of Latin vasco has nothing to do with the -o of Spanish vasco, and therefore we shouldn't think of Latin vasco as "corresponding" to Spanish vasco (instead, it corresponds to Spanish vascón). All of this is quite straightforward if you've ever studied Latin; if you haven't, it's probably confusing.

I think Error's amendment is fine, except that Vascones (Latin singular VASCO) needs a comma after Latin, so I'll put one in. --A R King 07:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate translation

Hi Metroxed, I see you are undertaking a series of translations from the Spanish wikipedia. I would like to point out that such a decision can´t be made out of the blue and should be done with respect to other contributors, since these articles belong to no one. You might as well develop from current versions or refute the statements given if you think there is a reason for it. I saw your edits in several articles, and I decided to add a few details in the Varduli, but there was good content before in the current Vascones article, so you may enrich it but definitely NOT OVERWRITE it. I went through it and besides finding quite a lot of English writing mistakes, the article is inaccurate quite a lot of times (a translation from the Spanish Wiki doesn´t mean it´s better), is not enlightening more than it was before and I have not time to correct other editors serial inaccuracies, especially if they are not done with a collaborative spirit. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright then.--Metroxed (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarify tag

@Srednuas Lenoroc: Re the territory of the Vascones, I was just wondering what part of the Clarify tag needs be clarifying. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What part? The one that in your haste you fail to recognize.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Beg you pardon? Iñaki LL (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims of an error are not made lightly and it would be one of many wishes to rectify it on my own instead of wait upon others that call in question the need the clarify. I can only say that the assumption that the clarification was in error is incorrect. It can only be pointed out that it is all in the details. Maybe their is a visual ability absent in others that I can see that brings me to mark the article as needing clarity.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Srednuas Lenoroc:I urge you to be more precise in your claim and more clear in your English above. What part of the geographic delimitation you do not understand? Thanks for adding content based comments, so that we get to something. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a period of refrain before you continue to be rude instead of effective in your skills set.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What??? Rude? That's funny! Ok I think I see more clearly now what is happening, I will not bite it. Still I wait for a content based argument for the sake of the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)