Talk:Guernica

Painting

I am no great lover of the arts, but even though I was familiar with the painting as a common modern motif, when I actually saw it, I started shaking. ortolan88

I broke down in tears in the museum, and eventually had to leave. - Montréalais

---

Picasso refused to allow this painting, one of his most famous, to be displayed in Spain until after the end of the Franco regime. It therefore spent many years on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, but was repatriated after Franco's death. (emphasis added)

As David Cohen points out in Slate, it wasn't exactly "repatriated." It had never previously been displayed in Spain (says so right there), nor had Picasso been living in Spain when he painted it. --Charles A. L. 19:10, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Exhibited in a Metro Station?

When I saw the painting at the Reina Sofia, I remember a photograph in a side room of the gallery of Picasso standing by the painting in was appeared to be a Metro station. I suppose this must have been soon after it was painted. I suppose it could have been a Paris metro station, which is where he painted it isn't it? I just remember the picture of people walking by it, half noticing it, with the great painter standing by. It seemed an interesting juxtaposition to the importance and the greatness of the painting. Can anyone else confirm the details of this? Thanks - Taxman 21:23, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Requestet Move

to Gernika, the real name in basque--MartinS 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The name in Basque is neithere here nor there. Wikipedia style/policy is to use the most common name in English. Grant65 | Talk 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The move was made and reverted by this element above on his own personal opinion. Gernika-Lumo is a small city that doesn't deserve such attention and that probably most English people have never heard about it in either spelling. The official name is Gernika-Lumo and if Port aux Basques is now under the official name of Channel-Port aux Basques (unknown to most), the same must apply to Gernika. --Sugaar 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Should Gernika-Lumo be under Gernika-Lumo (official name) or under Guernica (city) (Spanish spelling and attribution of "city" entity that it hasn't)?

Statement in favor of Gernika-Lumo

1. It is the official name
2. Gernika is not a city but a town (chartered as such and with only some 10,000 inhabitants nowadays)
3. It's not any major place such as Biscay, Moscow or Rome that may deserve the use of the English name preferentially.
4. Everything links now to Gernika-Lumo (as I fixed it when I did the previous move)
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Basque was not consulted, it ignores ther policies of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systematic bias. The reverse move was done from the viewpoint of someone involved in the edition of military history articles.
6. The revert move was done unilaterally with no consensus (rather against it).
7. Guernica primarily refers to the painting of Picasso (another one with no Basque connections. --Sugaar 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aditionally its worth to comment that the policy that applies to this case is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and not Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), that obviously refers to something else (proper names like George W. Bush and common names such as guinea pig. The appropiate policy just says nothing because there isn't yet any guideline to how to deal with Basque names.

Nevertheless, while places like Donostia (Spanish: San Sebastián, English: San Sebastian), Álava (Basque: Araba, English?) or Soule (Basque: Zuberoa) can be subject of sicussion because of multiple official and traditional names, this is not the case with Gernika-Lumo that has one single offcial name. --Sugaar 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To deal with Sugaar's points first...(it's easy really because they have all been dealt with before):

• "It is the official name": Bzzzt. Irrelevant.
• "Gernika is not a city but a town": Ding! Yep, thats why I moved the article to Guernica (town).
• "It's not any major place such as Biscay, Moscow or Rome": Bzzzt! Irrelevant.
• "Everything links now to Gernika-Lumo": Ding! Sad but true...we have bots to fix stuff like this.
• "WikiProject Basque was not consulted, it ignores ther policies of WikiProject Countering systematic bias.": Bzzzt. How about the "systematic bias" of Basque nationalists and their supporters? WikiProject Basque is not the last word on anything.
• "The revert move was done unilaterally with no consensus": Bzzzt. Are you talking about me or you? The original location of the article was not "Gernika-Lumo".
• "Guernica primarily refers to the painting of Picasso (another one with no Basque connections)". Bzzzt. Really? How about the Google test: "266,000 English pages for guernica -painting -picasso -art"? You will see among them "Guernica" compared to Falluja, not to another Picasso painting. And saying the painting has "no Basque connections" is nonsense, like saying that the songs named "New York, New York", have nothing to do with New York City. And irrelevant to current common usage in English. Grant65 | Talk 07:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement in favor of Guernica (city)

"The name in Basque is neithere here nor there. Wikipedia style/policy is to use the most common name in English". (as per above - edit as necessary)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). That says it all. So Guernica (town) may be more correct. So be it. We are not the Basque Wikipedia, we are not the Spanish Wikipedia. English speakers do not go looking for the city as Gernika-Lumo, trust me on this. Don't get hung up on language. Grant65 | Talk 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Place your comments here, thanks.

Support Guernica Why no tag placed? Please add one. For reasons given above, plus: Yes, the city is known largely because of the Picasso, but it is known as a city. Plus this is the name in Spanish, & I think still widely used on maps etc. The "-Lumo" doesn't help - do the local road signs have the full combination? Either (city) or (town). Johnbod 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The municipality is called Gernika-Lumo because it includes the historical town (Spanish: villa) of Gernika and the surrounding rural municipality (parish? Spanish: anteiglesia, Basque: elizaldea) of Lumo, where the famous oak tree and the adjacent Biltzar Etxea (Spanish: Casa de Juntas) stand. Historically, towns and the only city (Orduña)had no suffrage inside Biscay, only the rural areas had and therefore the Biscaian Parliament was in the rural municipality of Lumo, around the town of Gernika, eventually fused in a single municipality in the 19th century probably. --Sugaar 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Basque name is the Spanish government's official name, than use it with the Anglo/Spanish name as a redirect. Seems pretty simple to me. Haikupoet 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Guernica. Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting long-standing common usages, even if they are "mistaken". As Johnbod says, the town is well-known because of the painting and to lesser degree because of the bombing of Guernica on which the painting is based. Very few English speakers will do a Google search for "Gernika-Lumo" or even "Gernika". The same reasoning is used by the Basque Wikipedia, in which "London" is redirect to Londres. I think the logic is inescapable. Grant65 | Talk 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the defendant of the move. We all know that you support your own position. --Sugaar 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Guernica per the Wikipedia policy of using the most common English name. For instance look at the debate regarding Kiev/Kyiv. TSO1D 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no such policy. The mentioned policy is for common names. The policy on geographical names (settlements) is totally diferent and much more ambiguous. And Gernika is not Kiev: it's a town of 10,000 people. --Sugaar 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And actually look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). That might be the most direct policy to address this specific issue. And the first point reads: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." TSO1D 01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the size of the city have to do with it? Grant65 | Talk 01:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It connects to its international relevance and therefore with the common use of names. Gernika, outside of the war crime of 1937 has not international relevance whatsoever. --Sugaar 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's how most people have learned about it, and as Guernica. TSO1D 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just let people comment here, without adding counter-comments which add little to the discussion. Thank you Johnbod

Support GERNIKA: In my opinion several of the comments above, even if they are based on attempts to apply a coherent language policy consistently, are in error because the arguments presented rest on the false premise that the English "name" (or spelling) of this town is Guernica. It is not. Guernica is merely the Spanish spelling. To quote someone else writing above, "trust me on this". English-language sources using Guernica only do so because: (a) BEFORE the territory in which Gernika is located obtained political autonomy as the Basque Autonomous Community in 1979, under Spanish law according to the present-day Spanish constitution (passed in 1978), which essentially means down until the end of the Franco dictatorship, under Spanish law Spanish was the only official or legal language in the (southern) Basque Country and therefore only Spanish names were recognised under the Spanish regime, and these were faithfully reproduced in English-language textbooks of the time; (b) the Spanish painter Picasso painted a famous picture and called it "Guernica". Point (b) has nothing to do with establishing the English name of the Basque town, and point (a) is also irrelevant because there is no longer any valid reason why the Spanish spelling should be regarded as the English name when the Spanish spelling is no longer the town's official name even in Spain. Therefore, in theory the proper way to spell the town's name in English is using its name in the local language which is also the town's official name by its own laws and by those of the Spanish state to which it is politically subject, and that is the Basque name (since this is a Basque town): Gernika. There should be a redirect from Guernica to Gernika.

Secondly, in practice also, "Gernika" is the de facto current name that is or should be used in English. I know this because I am a Basque-English translator. I am also a Spanish translator. If translating into Spanish I might use Guernica as a hispanicised form of the name. But if translating into English from Basque I would not dream of translating Gernika to Guernica, the Spanish form, and if from Spanish into English, I would systematically change Guernica to Gernika, just as I would change Roma to Rome, Nueva York to New York, or Cataluña to Catalonia. Those of you who argue that Guernica is the "English" name have got the wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid. --A R King 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its always a mistake to try to right historical wrongs in another country (i.e. Francoist oppression of the Basque people) by tampering with common usage in English. And Guernica is an English word as surely as Londres is a Basque word. Grant65 | Talk 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? --A R King 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Because all languages change over time and borrow words/names from other languages. In this case English has borrowed the Spanish name and not the Basque one. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Gernika was the English name.Grant65 | Talk 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Now just look at how one-sided that argument is. All languages do indeed change. That means that even if "Guernica was an English word" in the past, that would be no proof that it is today or will be in the future. What is more, I assure you it won't be: the current and future spelling is/will be Gernika. How do we know that? Sugaar and I have both answered that question: it is because English doesn't actually have a word of its own, but as for most geographical proper names, it normally follows the local name, and if this was (officially) "Guernica" in the past, it is "Gernika" in the present and will continue to be so tomorrow - and as I have also pointed out, that is the way present-day English usage is headed.

Here is an example: "The Tree of Gernika is a blessed symbol of freedom for the Basque People." No, this wasn't written by me or Sugaar, it's on an American website. Now what was the basis of your argument that "Guernica is an English word": that all languages change? --A R King 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, as encyclopedists, we are not Basque nationalists, or language reformers, or any other kind of activist, we observe established common usage. Which is Guernica. Grant65 | Talk 06:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. I rest my case. --A R King 07:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google search of English language sites for "guernica -painting -picasso -bombing -1937" -wikipedia gets 332,000 hits. A search for "gernika OR gernika-lumo -wikipedia" gets 129,000 hits. That seems fairly conclusive, although the "Google test" is often denigrated by people when it doesn't support their case. I rest mine. Grant65 | Talk 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already pointed out earlier in this discussion that the name of Picasso's painting is irrelevant to the present issue. --A R King 07:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I sought to exclude it ( "-painting -picasso"). Without those, the number of hits for "Guernica" would be much, much larger. Grant65 | Talk 07:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this: go to Euskalterm: the Basque Public Term Bank (the address I've given here is for its English-language interface). This is a terminology bank maintained by the government of the Basque Autonomous Community. Select Spanish as the language. For the subject area, leave it on "ANY". Now search for the term "Guernica". Remember now, we're looking for "Guernica" in Spanish. This will return: "No term exists." Now search for "Gernika". This time there are two items found: "Casa de Juntas de Gernika" and "Paseo del Arbol de Gernika". (Unfortunately, the English section of the database is incomplete, so if you search in English you will get no response for either spelling, which proves nothing.) What does this show? It shows that the current spelling for the name of the town in Spanish is Gernika. Not Guernica. (Needless to say, it is also Gernika in Basque.) This is because the spelling Guernica is out of date. Obsolete. The historical reason for this is that Spain has lost the ability to force Basques to spell the names of their towns as if they were Spanish words, but that is not a central point in the present argument, it is just a circumstance. The central point is that Gernika is present-day accepted (and also official) usage. As you pointed out yourself, languages change. Now you will probably answer that the English spelling is still "Guernica" (since I can't think of much else you can answer to this); implying, I think, some sort of thinking along the lines of "You can say what you like but English is not going to change" (I wonder why not?). But that isn't valid, because as Sugaar started out by saying, this is not Bilbao, London or Rome, internationally and historically key cities which have long-established traditional names in many languages. This is a rather small town whose main claims to fame are a tree, a bombing and a Spaniard's painting. It doesn't have an immutable "English name". The only name it has in English is the town's own name. Which is plainly Gernika today. --A R King 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Picasso's painting is known as "Guernica" even in Basque (i.e. "Guernica Gernikara": The "Guernica" to Gernika). All references to that painting are irrelevant for this case, becuase we are talking of a living city not a ruin, we are not talking of art but of real human society. --Sugaar 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The origins/usage/currency of a word in another language are irrelevant to English language usage (c.f. Origins of the word kamikaze). Grant65 | Talk 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that, but it's just as incorrect as the first time you said so. You also provided the reason why yourself when you contradicted yourself by saying that "all languages change". Just look at atlases, maps, print encyclopedias, school textbooks etc. etc. published over recent years (e.g. since the fall of the communist bloc) and tell us whether or not English-language designations for places in other countries have changed in accordance with political changes in those countries! What's your big problem with Gernika then? I must say your continued insistence makes it look increasingly as if there's another agenda involved here somewhere... I can't believe we're still arguing about this! --A R King 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In English "Guernica" is used mainly to refer to the drawing of Picasso and secondarily maybe to refer to the bombing of the town. The town itself is almost never mentioned in different contexts. Hence, by your own logic, Guernica (town) does not exist in English, only the Picasso does. You are mixing both concepts and trying to draw everyone else into your own confusion.

You haven't still even apologized for claiming that this article is ruled by the wrong section of WP:TITLE.

The best thing will be that Alan and I get together in the Basque Wikiproject and write down a guideline for Basque place names.

And then fix the confusion. --Sugaar 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the most constructive conclusion to be drawn from this recursive discussion. Which I suggest, not without a sensation of déjà vu, we should now consider over, if only because of exhaustion of the arguments and (some of) the arguers. Unless, of course, anybody else (NB) is brave enough to add their opinion to the original survey (see top of page!). --A R King 08:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the above posts suggests that we have reached an impasse. It has been demonstrated that "Guernica" is well-known among English speakers, while "Gernika" is little-known. It has also been demonstrated that A R and Sugaar are outvoted on this and are at odds with the basic principle of naming policy in the English Wikipedia.

Sugaar, will you soon be telling us that we shouldn't use the word non-indigenous word "Basque"? And While I might sympathise with you from a personal/political point of view, I'm not apologising for pointing out policy. (Which I presume is the same in the Basque Wikipedia, given the use of Spanish/French words like "Londres", etc.) We don't have "guidelines" for different countries/peoples, the guideline (as you know) is common usage in the English language. There is no rule that we use common English language names for large cities but local names for small towns. Anyone who knows anything about the painting knows that it refers to a town called Guernica. If they don't know that, then they know so little about the painting as to be irrelevant. Anyone who knows about the bombing knows it refers to a place called Guernica. That applies whether they are Basque, Chinese, Zambian or Australian.

A R, my agenda is Wikipedia policy. I'm bemused that you feel that non-English language usage is relevant to popular English language usage; while you may feel that popular usage is somehow morally wrong/incorrect/unjust, it is a material fact. We are encyclopedists, not the International Court of Language Crimes. While the language may change in future, "Guernica" is clearly the common name for the town in English. We can change/move the article if and when it does change to Gernika. Grant65 | Talk 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no response for two and a half days, can I presume that the case is conceded and we can also move Bombing of Guernica back to its logical English name? Grant65 | Talk 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No concession on my part: I stand on my position: Gernika is a small town whose offcial name is Gernika-Lumo (often abbreviated to Gernika in road signs and colloquial speech) and not written as "Guernica" anywhere even in Spanish (and not the Spanish Wikipedia, a feud of Spanish nationalism, is not a good example: Spanish ID cards and official documents are instead). "Guernica" nowadays refers only to the Picasso.

I also think that this issue should be settled by writing the corresponding guideline on Basque names that is so much needed. My suggestion is the following:

1. Regions should use the English name (that exists in all cases, except maybe Araba-Álava).

2. Major cities should use the English or international name when it's not confusing: Bilbao, Bayonne, Pamplona. But "Donostia" or "San Sebastian"? When such international name is not clear, the official name will be used - i.e. Vitoria-Gasteiz.

3. Smaller mnicipalities will use the official name, wether it is Basque (Getxo, Gernika-Lumo, Soraluze...), Spanish (Tudela), French (Biarritz) or bilingual (Laudio-Llodio).

This is my basic stand and that's what I will propose in the following days in the Basque Wikiproject, to make it official after due discussion. If you Grant (or whoever) are so much interested in Basque issues as you pretend, you are welcome to join the project, naturally. --Sugaar 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, Sugaar magnificently misses all relevant points and ignores all Wiki guidelines. I personally have no specific interest in Basque issues at all; that is why it is so easy for me to maintain a NPOV. Johnbod 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, I will be glad to help you with the Basque place name guidelines, time permitting, if you want me to. The next few days may or may not be possible for me, depending on which few days, because I will be away from home for nearly four days around Christmas, but apart from that I'm here as usual. --A R King 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, I presume you will soon be mounting a case in the Basque Wikipedia for the following Australian states and territories (which I imagine are less well-known to Basque speakers than Guernica is to English speakers), to be given their local names: Australiako Hiriburuaren Lurraldea (Australian Capital Territory), Hegoaldeko Gales Berria (New South Wales), Hegoaldeko Australia (South Australia), Mendebaldeko Australia (Western Australia) and Iparraldeko Lurraldea (Northern Territory). And Zeelanda Berria should be Aotearoa/New Zealand. I don't really care if you do try, BTW, because I support the right of the Basque Wikipedia to use the common names used by speakers of Basque.

A R, I hope that neither you nor Sugaar are laboring under the misapprehension that other editors are bound by decisions of the Basque Wikiproject. Grant65 | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Grant, just for the record, Aotearoa is the authentic Maori name for their land, which Europeans stole from them, imposing on it the European name of New Zealand. I am ready to defend Maori people's rights, linguistic or otherwise, and their right to defend themselves against the political and cultural domination by European invaders, any time you like, and perhaps at some time in the future I will contribute to establishing the facts about this in the Basque Wikipedia. Perhaps a present shortage of human resources over there has delayed such work, but I assure you it is not because of any basic principle of Basque Wikipedia opposed to the use of a term such as Aotearoa. And the same goes for Australia and its indigenous population, mutatis mutandis. If you thought that sympathy for the plight of the Basques makes us blind to the injustice of European colonisation in the rest of the world, then think again. And if you imagine you're going to use this as some sort of forum for ideas with white supremacist implications and to make fun of the unjustly disinherited native peoples of Aotearoa and Australia, then I'll certainly give you a run for your money, though most of the people here would probably thank us for doing so without involving poor old Gernika in the scrawl. Have I answered your question?

And by the way, as far as I know, Sugaar does not work on the Basque Wikipedia. And as far as I know neither do you. Maybe to you i'ts all the same; obviously you're not very good at making fine or delicate distinctions. That's okay, but surely it is preferable to exercise caution when speaking on subjects one knows nothing about. --A R King 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your defamation/baiting ("white supremacist") is duly noted. As is your failure to engage with the issues/points I have raised. Grant65 | Talk 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Grant: you're saying nonsense: NZ/Aotearoa is sufficiently large as to compare with the Basque Country as whole (with advantage) and therefore it is not comparable with a small town like Gernika-Lumo.

All those names you extracted from the Basque Wikipedia are naturally in Basque, the same that Biscay is in English here. Again you are talking of major entities and not small places like Gernika-Lumo or, say, Lynchburg (Virginia). Lynchburg would be listed as such in Basque and not as "Lintxburgo" or "Lintxburga", but Edinburgh or Hamburg may well have their own Basque names (not sure which one) because they are big cities. London is Londres in Basque, Spanish and French but Nottingham is Nottigham in Basque, Spanish and French. Gernika-Lumo is much smaller than Nottingham.

And actually I don't work in the Basque Wikipedia. I work primarily in English: English is the main international language and is not anymore just an ethnic language: it belongs to all Humankind. --Sugaar 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. As is usual with you and A R, you argue about a secondary or un-related issue and don't deal with the substance of what I'm saying. I never said you worked for the Basque Wikipedia. I was showing how they also apply local names/spellings to "obscure" foreign places. Not that I accept your arguments (1) that small/obscure towns should be referred to by local names or (2) that Guernica is so obscure as to warrant such a policy.

When I was in Prague several years ago, I saw a movie poster that referred to "Nicole Kidmanova". I found this amusing and I was told that this was common with foreign female celebrities who have names that appear "male" to Czech speakers. Needless to say, such practices are totally alien to English speakers. Similarly, I also defend the right of the English/Basque/whatever Wikipedia to use local variations. Is the Northern Territory (pop. 200,000) so well-known among Basque speakers that — by your logic — it deserves a Basque name (see above) rather than its local name? I doubt that even New South Wales is a household name among Basque speakers. Both are given Basque names in the Basque Wikipedia. Grant65 | Talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt care less: we are talking about obscure towns like who knows: Aosta? Do you have an English name for Aosta that is not the Italian name? No, you don't, same for Gernika (or Gernika-Lumo).

This is more ridiculous than pretending to call Sri-Lanka as Ceylon or Iran as Persia. Stop it. --Sugaar 11:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact the best comparison I can find are towns like Port-aux-Basques, whcih would never be called Euskaldunon Portua in Basque, though it would be an obvious and maybe even legitimate translation, or Red Bay which is never called "Balea Baya", it's historical Basque name. Northern Australian Territory is like Left Bank (Biscay), which is listed that way and not Ezkerraldea (though this can be discussed surely).

You are in the position of "this belongs to my field of expertise" (as battle) and no: it does not. You have not the slightest expertise in Basque matters (or so it seems to me). This article is an article on a Basque location whose official and historical name is Gernika-Lumo and is only mispelled Guernica by those who are ignorant on the matter, obviously, and guide their shallow criteria on Picasso's fame and nothing else. --Sugaar 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I may not know a lot about matters Basque, but I do know a bit about world geography. I also understand the concept of common usage and Wikipedia naming policy.

Sri Lanka and Iran are both names which have become common names in English, as is also the case with more recent changes like Mumbai, Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar. However, East Timor remains where it is because Timor-Leste and Timor Lorosa'e have not caught on among English speakers. Neither has Gernika-Lumo.

I don't understand why you accept Port-aux-Basques when you won't accept Guernica. Both are from oppressors' languages after all. Even if Basques did call it "Euskaldunon Portua", that would be neither here nor there, since local/official names are irrelevant to common usage in English.

Claiming that Guernica is "obscure" is absurd. If Guernica was obscure, we would not be having this argument. The town of Limerick is famous intermationally only because of Limerick (poetry); that does not make Limerick obscure. Navarre is not better known by English speakers than Guernica, regardless of the respective populations. And yet it is not at Nafarroa. Grant65 | Talk 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is very subjective. I'm sure that English-speakers (specially European ones) are much more likely to know something about Navarre than about Gernika (excepting maybe Picasso's artwork). After all Navarre is part of European history since the High Middle Ages, while Gernika has only become famous some 80 years ago. Navarre also has 500,000 inhabitants, while Gernika only 15,000. Navarre is a major administrative division, Gernika-Lumo just a small town. Navarre can well be compared to Wales, Gernika to what? Hastings? Montecassino? Vukovar? Shabra and Chatila?

I somewhat can support Myanmar and Mumbay, but Ivory Coast and East Timor. The case is that the latter are made up of common terms (like Australian Northern Territory), while the former are proper names. Anyhow, Myanmar and Mumbay have much grater entity than Gernika, one being a large nation of some 70 million people and the other a huge metropolis. Again your comparisons make little sense.

I don't know anything about Limerick being related to poetry. Limerick is known because it's a rather important Irish town, nothing else. Whatever the case I'm not very happy with the policy on Irish geographical names used in English Wikipedia, that, in my opinion, shows little respect for the naming decissions of the Irish people. But it's not my field of expertise, so I'll let the Irish to solve their issues with their best criteria and would like non-Irish not to interfere.

Unlike in Ireland maybe, in the Basque Country, official (or unofficial) Basque spelling is used frequently, not just in Basque but also in Spanish and English (when used). You won't find any tourism pamphlet that reads "Guernica" (except if talking of Picaso's work) but always Gernika or Gernika-Lumo.

It's obvious to me that Gernika is obscure (except for the infamous bombing) to virtually all non-Basques. I bet that virtually all your Google hits on "Guernica" are about Picasso's paint or the bombing or both. And that shows precisely the lack of knowledge on Gernika that exists outside of Basque lands (something very normal anyhow).

You can't add insult to injury: "Guernica" is the spelling that the Francoists imposed.

In brief, would you title Meggido or Armaggedon? --Sugaar 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Further remedies

1. I have cautionarily re-moved the article to the town's official name, the name where all links are pointing (except those pointing to Gernika (redirect), that should be fixed). This is provisional while the dispute is settled.

2. I have created a proposed guideline (to be discussed) in the Basque Wikiproject. Naturally everybody is welcome to come by and add their input and therefore it's been publicited in the Village Pump. The page is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Basque/Basque toponyms.

Regards, --Sugaar 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The votes cast were 3 for Guernica, 2 for Gernika-Lumo! How can you possibly justify this! Johnbod 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot sanction your actions. Wikipedia is clear on this matter as can be seen in the following guideline. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). I am sorry, but neither the rule nor its application can have any ambiguity: since the common English name exists, that one should be used. And you should never have made a move without first obtaining consensus. For these reasons, I am reverting the move. TSO1D 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I did because there was no hint of any sort of consensus/supermajority and Wikipedia is not a Democracy. I did it only as provisional remedy while a consensus is reached because it was totally contradictory that Bombing of Gernika has the opposite consensus and Gernika-Lumo/Gernika/Guernica (town).

::I fear that something had to be done while the discussion continues and that both articles (and the corresponding internal links) should follow the same system. Anyhow Grant's action was also totally unilateral and much less considerated, so guess I should have done it long ago (but didn't want to start an edit war).

So moving the discussion to Basque toponyms seemed like more realistic. Because surely Gernika is not the only settlement with these kind of problems. I believe other toponyms should be adressed (maybe in the opposite sense) as well.

Regarding WP:NC GN]], nobody mentioned that before. The conventions alleged so far are all subpages of WP:TITLE, of which the one alleged in favor of Guernica is actually talking of something else.

So maybe you are right but while we decide it, let's keep some coherence and not have Bombing of Gernika under one consensus and Gernika-Lumo under the opposite one (consensus this one that does not exist so far). --Sugaar 12:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the Bombing article should be consistent. Personally I doubt if there are many other Basque place-names (going by the policies you have mentioned above for Biscay etc) that will be contentious - Guernica is a special case because it has a world-wide fame from the bombing and the Picasso. Johnbod 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About the bombing article, it is important to note that it was Sugaar who moved it to Gernika two weeks ago. He said that consensus had been reached, but actually he was the only one supporting the move. Jmbael stated that he believed the article should stay under the Guernica name as most English speakers knew it as such, however he said that it was no big deal. Later John also voiced his concern about that action. In conclusion, I agree that both articles should use the same form of the name, and I believe it should be Guernica for both. Actually there can be made a stronger case for having this spelling in the bombing article as the incident was popularized as the "Bombing of Guernica", especially by Picasso's painting. TSO1D 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop sterotyping Gernika as Picasso's drawing? Picasso was never in Gernika, he knew nothing about it and it's not really so important about the town. Gernika is important mostly in the history of Biscay because it was (Lumo, actually - Gernika proper, as town, had no suffrage) the capital of the Lordship for many centuries. That is much more important that Picasso's tauromachy. Not even the bombing itself is really that relevant. Gernika has many centuries of history and even if the bombing destroyed some of it, it's definitively not the only thing for which this town should be mentioned.

I did move the bombing because there was consensus in that article (see talk there) and therefore I moved this article to be in concordance.

And therefore please stop move-warring until a consensus is reached. Thanks. --Sugaar 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether Picasso was right or informed is of little consequence here, what matters is that the title of his rendering of the bombing is the most common pathway through which English speakers have come to learn of the bombing and the town and with the name of Guernica. In any case, this was but a minor argument that I made. The main one is that per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) the most common English name for the town, which is Guernica should be used. And how can you accuse me of move-warring when it was you who first moved the bombing article with little support (actually if you read the talk page you were the only one advocating the move, Jmbael only stated that he didn't feel strongly enough to oppose the move) and then moved this article in the middle of a debate where the number of users agreeing with you was actually smaller than those opposing this view. TSO1D 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, please start editing in good faith as per Wikipedia policy. Editing in good faith includes not accusing other editiors, myself included, of being underhanded, biased, having a hidden agenda, etc. Grant65 | Talk 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of Sugaar's flagrant disregard of consensus and the wishes of a majority of those participating here, by moving the articles, I have now moved them back to Bombing of Guernica and Guernica (town) (since it is agreed that Guernica is not a "city").

The earliest version of the article on the town, from September 30, 2001, refers to "Guernica". There was no mention of "Gernika" in the text of the article until August 9, 2002. A similar situation applies to Bombing of Guernica (June 17, 2004). I believe the rule in such cases is that, in the absence of any consensus, it remains under the original name. Grant65 | Talk 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You should start editing in good faith. Reverting because you are going against consensus in one case and have not sufficient consensus in the other. Discuss, do not edit-war. --Sugaar 11:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming from you, that is rich Sugaar - you have now changed the titles of both this and the bombing article against the majority view Johnbod 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, we have been patient with you, but you are wasting a lot of people's time and are in danger of disciplinary action. Please revert your moves of the pages, or at least state here that you will not revert them if they are moved back to Guernica (town) and Bombing of Guernica. If you do not, within the next day or two, I will have to make an official complaint against you. Grant65 | Talk 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who is actually in danger of disciplinary action. You breached the consensus re. Bombing of Gernika, you first moved this article without consensus and without fixing most links, you then re-moved the article despite knowing that your position has no consensus, starting a move-war. And now you are making threats (with no grounds).

I won't consider all that by the moment, after all, if we are going to solve this conflict, we will need all the good will available. But it's you who are wasting my time and my energies with your very subjective and stubborn approach to this Basque geographical article.

Please, be reasonable and accept this is well beyond your field of expertise. Also, be reasonable and accept that English is much more than the language of the Anglosphere but rather the premier international language, the first global language maybe. --Sugaar 06:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your insults and false accusations are plainly ridiculous and hypocritical. Consider yourself reported. Grant65 | Talk 16:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What insults? You can "report me" if you wish, but you just have no grounds and will be dismissed.

Remember that there's need of two to have a dispute and you have been quite aggresive in this one, really. --Sugaar 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Gernika and can't believe this is even being discussed:

1. Grant65, you argue that names like Mumbai are now accepted, but don't stop to consider how they came to be accepted, or what it was that initiated the change. Believe me - there isn't some kind of change of frequency in the ether and all English speakers start using the new name. Here's an example of how this kind of thing works: ever heard of Bengalooru? No? Well you'd better add it to your Word dictionary, because you'll be hearing a lot of it soon. (Note that the article bemoans the change, but accepts it as inevitable. You should too.)

2. As for your argument from Picasso's painting: yes, there's a famous painting titled "Guernica." There's also a famous symphony called Leningrad. If you want to maintain consistency, shouldn't you go change the name of the article for Saint Petersburg back to "Leningrad"? Obviously not. So your argument isn't universally applicable, and it's not applicable here, either.

3. Lastly, consider this: why did Picasso name his painting "Guernica" and not "Gernika"? I'll tell you why: because it was the official Spanish name when he painted it. Now tell me this: what would he title the work if he painted it today? Gernika, because it's the official Spanish name. (Which theoretically means that if there were a User:Picasso, he would be arguing for Gernika, too.)

I've read the discussion, and have to say that while other users have made some provocative statements, you yourself haven't exactly exercised the highest level of diplomacy. So how do we move this to the next level and get the dispute resolved? Your threats of disciplinary action are obviously not a move in the right direction. Madler 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A good starting point might be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), where it is stated that if a more common English name in usage, then that should be used. Now, I understand that the origins of the name stems from the fact that Spanish was the official language during Picasso's period and that his work is the major avenue through which English speakers have come to learn of the city. And I realize that the official name is Gernika-Lumo. Nevertheless, for for better or worse, Guernica is the more common English name, and I think we have to stick with it. TSO1D 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the discussion pages for Bombay (oops!), Calcutta (where?), and Burma (no such place!), and didn't see you or Grant65 applying the naming conventions there. In fact, I recommend you take a look at those discussion pages, as they are an immediate and very real demonstration of Grant65's statement that "languages change."

Yes, languages change, however I haven't seen such a change in the usage of the name for Guernica. I can't explain why some changes are successful, such as those you mentioned, while others are not, such as Kiev, however that's just how things are. TSO1D 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, you caught me mid-edit.) I checked the discussion pages for Bombay (oops!), Calcutta (where?), and Burma (no such place!), and didn't see you or Grant65 applying the naming conventions there. In fact, I recommend you take a look at those discussion pages, as they are an immediate and very real demonstration of Grant65's statement that "languages change."

In fact, if you look at the naming conventions page, you'll notice that in the end the examples (Volgograd, etc.) they give all wind up moving to the current local name.

So this is the situation:

* There are plenty of examples of other cities' names being changed in English to reflect local/official pronunciation.

* The examples of dispute resolution on the naming convention page all point to moving to the local version.

* Guernica the painting can stay Guernica, but the city and the painting are different things, just like Leningrad the symphony and Saint Petersburg the city are different things.

* No one will directly address my point of how name changes become widespread in English, and the reason is obvious - the changes have to start somewhere. They don't instantaneously go from unknown to commonly accepted. It's a process. And to admit that it's a process is to call into question the vague rule in the naming conventions that the "accepted" English name be used. In fact, add "-art" and "-movie" to the Google search above for "Guernica," and the results are even closer, and basically the same since you can't totally isolate out all the restaurants, etc.

In sum, none of the arguments for Guernica, either as being the accepted name or on the basis of the naming convention stand up to scrutiny. Madler 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By saying "that's just how things are," you are in essence opting out of the discussion. If you don't know why these things change or care if they do or not, why are you posting to this discussion page? Madler 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically your position is that Gernika is not the best known name in English, but it ought to be, and Wikipedia ought to be leading the change. Kiev is an example you might look at. Next stop Rome I suppose. Please also note that Saint Petersburg is a name in English - the local spelling and pronunciation are different: Sankt-Peterburg in the Roman alphabet. Johnbod 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because Sankt-Peterburg is German anyway, and can be easily translated into English. Plus it's a historically famous city with an English name right from the start, i.e., 300 years ago. My position (and that of the others supporting Gernika) is that "Guernica" is the best known name in English of a painting by Picasso, and that odds are if anyone even knows about the town, then they know that it's Gernika, since, as has been exhaustively and repetitively stated by people who know a lot about the Basque country, the town itself is not big, and does not figure big except in relation to the bombing and subsequent painting.

So, to sum up again:

1. Gernika is the official name in Basque and in Spanish.

2. The Wikipedia naming conventions page supports use of local names when there is a dispute.

3. Arguments that the name is well known because of the painting by definition support the position that the town itself is not as famous as the painting, and consequently that the town is not known to English speakers in and of itself (like Bilbao), but for a bombing and a painting, and that therefore, like other towns without historical names in English, the local name should be used.

4. Cities whose official names have changed more recently than Gernika have this reflected in their Wikipedia articles.

5. Page redirects and disambiguation pages exist. Ergo, no confusion for anyone trying to find "Guernica."

Frankly, it's getting hard to believe that everyone arguing against Gernika is doing so out of a zealous desire to enforce the Wikipedia naming conventions. Look at all the other recent name changes: none of the participants here lifted a finger to, say, keep Calcutta. It's puzzling, to say the least, that there is such vehement opposition to Gernika. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madler (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure people have, if you look at Calcutta's talk page will find at least four archives with discussions on the naming topic. I definitely do not agree with that move. Several high ranking users complained that that move constituted a violation of Wikipedia policy. That move only passed because of the number of Indian users who supported the move. The vast majority of other users were opposed. TSO1D 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, are you seriously going to argue that Mumbai is not the accepted name today for what used to be called Bombay? Do a Lexis-Nexis search. You'll see. Secondly, the way you dismiss the Indian users who pushed for it, as though it were some kind of unthinking mob that gang-raped the guardians of the Wikipedia name conventions, is ... undiplomatic, at the least. It's their country, you know. The arguments about the Anglosphere are extremely relevant. The peoples of the world have a right to have a say what their cities are called in English. Lastly, what do the naming conventions have to say about a city like Mumbai, with two accepted names? Maybe it's time we rewrote the naming conventions. Madler 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's not how I meant it at all. But you have to agree that people who belong to one ethnic group often share similar views on certain matters, especially those pertaining to their country. The same can be said for virtually all nations. The ethnic brakedown could be seen on famous debates such as Gdansk/Danzig, or Kiev/Kyiv. However, my argument was that voting is evil and that letting the majority decide on an ad hoc basis leads to inconsistencies. Therefore, I believe the central naming conventions of Wikipedia should be upheld on all articles. TSO1D 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be as pointless to expect an assumption of good faith as to expect logic or consistency from you. In fact (sadly), I am active in several naming disputes at the moment, where (needless to say) I have seen no sign of you - there are plenty of these to go round. Since you have neither Croatian nor Italian interests, the red mist will presumably not operate, so do go & take a vote. You will have some fun deciding what the "local" names are - be sure to read everything on the talk pages before you make up your mind.

This might come as a shock to you and Sugaar, but my own subjective guess would be that Bilbao and Guernica (city) are about equally well known to most people in Northern Europe. In fact I would bet money that a higher (small) percentage of British people would be able to associate Guernica with the Basque country than Bilbao. The power of a symbol - if only Bilbao Athletico did better. Johnbod 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. To repeat myself, "Guernica" is the famous name of a famous painting, not a town. Were it not for the painting, the bombing itself probably wouldn't be so famous today either. It was hardly an isolated incident. You cannot argue that the town is famous for anything aside from the bombing and the painting.
2. You say you can't expect logic from me (and then without a hint of irony reject my good faith out of hand - nice), but I'm the one presenting logical arguments. All I get from you (plural) is a bunch of hand-waving and pointing at a page which contradicts your position.
3. Thank you for mentioning the football club Gernika. Which spelling are football enthusiasts more familiar with?
4. I'm against voting, too, but if the upholders of the naming convention are this intransigent, I don't see what else we can do. It's hard to believe that you don't see that "accepted name" is a very fluid term. Madler 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please (and this refers to all involved) restrict your comments to the matter discussed not the editors. Madler, I am confused though, why do you believe that the naming convention supports the Gernika version here? I'm all for policy on this, however my exposure to the guidelines has convinced me that Guernica would be the best version. TSO1D 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions present examples of exactly this kind of dispute, where the current local name is chosen over the better-known one (Stalingrad/Volgograd, etc.). You say your exposure to the guidelines has convinced you that Guernica is better, but wouldn't exposure to real world use of Basque toponyms be more to the point? I'm not being flippant; judging from the fact that the naming conventions are so general, a lot of flexibility would be expected in their application. That expectation has not, to say the least, been met in reality. Madler 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On your numbered points above:

1. Yes of course the town is famous because of the bombing and painting (and the oak). Why it is famous is not at issue here; the point is that it is famous enough to have a commonly used name in English, which under WP policy we should use.
2. An excellent illustration of what I mean; I was clearly referring to your accusations above of lack of good faith against myself and other editors.
3. ?? I mentioned the Bilboa team. I have never heard of a Guernica team, nor is one mentioned in the article.
4. Why do you think I'm against voting? I'm not, but I think voting should be based on NPOV and WP policies.

Johnbod 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Madler. I really can't believe either this is discussed and much less from the arguments that are being used.

There's no "Bilboa", John. It's Bilbao, sometimes called Bilbo, from where Bilbo (sword).

I really don't know how much good faith you three have. I'm assuming good faith by default but it's more the "benefit of doubt" than any clear impression I have. The edit-warrying attitude of some of you has not been any demonstration of "good faith" so far, really. But rather an impositive authoritarian attitude.

I really can't believe that you accept Mumbay and not Gernika (or Gernika-Lumo), when Mumbay is much less extended than Gernika even in English. All your argumentation is merely anecdotic and definitively not solid at all.

I agree that WP policies and NPOV should dominate. But in this case there's nothing clear in the policies, whatever you say. And obviously we have different POVs. Nevertheless, considering that there are several "Anglos" favoring Gernika or Gernika-Lumo, I think that this one is the less POV of all possible solutions.

Aditionally you can't forget that Gernika-Lumo is not in Wyoming but in Biscay, the same that Mumbay is not in Chester but in India. --Sugaar 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Madler, all I can say to you is this: it may have to "start somewhere", but this is not the place. Individual newspapers and magazines do some strange things in terms of editorial policy, often because they make decisions on the run, but an encyclopedia is not the place for language engineering/reform. The same goes for the Indian cities so often cited in these cases: the new names clearly entered common usage among speakers of Indian English before they were changed here.

The article from The Economist that you refer to above says: "Only English-speakers, it seems, are expected to kowtow to name-changers' whims. No one berates the French for Pékin, Le Caire and Edimbourg, the Italians for Ucraina, Città del Messico and Pechino, or the Germans for Kapstadt, Singapur and Temeschburg. Dear Name-Changer, feel free to adopt any moniker you fancy, but do not hector others if they jib. A city of beans by any other name will smell as sweet, or beany." I couldn't have put it better. Grant65 | Talk 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Call me Marc. The point of the Economist article is that English no longer belongs only to the native English speakers. Please note that it accepts the inevitable.

About the "hand-waving" comment. This is just a statement of fact. You tell me I'm being illogical, I tell you that I'm making an effort to leave out anything extraneous to the discussion. I present arguments, people keep pointing to the naming conventions.

I never argued that Wikipedia is the place to start spreading new names. I'm saying that at this point in time there are more references to Gernika the town using that spelling than "Guernica." No, Google will not help here, due to interference from the hits related to the painting, last names, etc.

Naming conventions aside, Wikipedia is useless if it does not reflect political reality. The US gov't uses the spelling Gernika in biological reports and in congressional records. The reality is that 1) the spelling "Guernica" is for the painting and 2) the spelling "Gernika" is more common for the town. Never at any time has the town figured large in the west's historical imagination aside from the painting. Madler 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the spelling "Guernica" is not for the painting and the painting alone! If nothing else, it is also for the bombing which inspired the painting. See Bombing of Guernica:

The extent of the damage, death and destruction in Guernica was first revealed the next day—April 27, 1937—by George Steer, a reporter for The Times, covering the Spanish Civil War. He published the full extent of the carnage... His Times report was syndicated to the New York Times and then distributed worldwide; it shocked the world and outraged Pablo Picasso. Steer's reports on the horrors of Guernica were greatly appreciated by the local Basque people and Basque authorities who honoured his memory in April 2006 — on the 69th Anniversary of the bombing — by naming a street in Gernika after him (Calle George Steer) and unveiling a bronze bust of him with the dedication: "George Steer, journalist, who told the world the story about Guernica."

So that is "Guernica" in an English text by inhabitants of the town. (The plaque has inscriptions in Basque, Spanish and English.[1])

I suggest that most people who know the painting by name know that it refers to "the bombing of a town in Spain". And you can't escape from the fact that — because of the bombing and subsequent painting — "guernica" has come to have a symbolic/metaphorical use and power. Trying to detach that usage from the actual town, seems perverse and destructive of significance, like moving Cologne, which is about the city not the perfume, simply because Germans have always called it Köln. Grant65 | Talk 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the oak and the Biltzar are in Lumo.

The problem here is that you guys know little or nothing on this issue: the oak and the Biltzar (parliament) have always been in Lumo, a rural municipality surrounding Gernika (town). This is obvious because towns had no suffrage in Biscay and were considered partly out of boundaries. Only rural municipalities (elizaldeak, approx. to "parishes") had vote. Only in the 19th century was this reformed and Lumo and Gernika fused in a single municipality (not sure of the exact date). Can you stop edit-warring without knowledge? --Sugaar 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly playing with different types of boundaries here. So a Basque would say "I'm going to Lumo to see the oak"? Odd that it is called the Gernikako Arbola then. This is all part of your effort to claim that Guernica is soooo tiny & insignificant that it can't possibly have an English name! I am discussing not edit-warring; I have only made a few edits to the article itself, which I am glad to see appear to be uncontroversial - mostly clarity & language points. Johnbod 09:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing with nothing: I'm just stating a historical fact. A modern Basque would surely say Gernika, but not always. My sister, for instance, got married in Lumo, just a few dozens of meters from the tree and really the name Gernika was not much used in the conversations re. her wedding... it was almost all the time Lumo, Lumo and Lumo. If the modern municipality is called Gernika-Lumo it is for a reason and it is a historical reason: because the tree and the parliament are in Lumo, the historical capital of Biscay before the fussion of the municipalities.

You can see HERE a historical map where Lumo (named as "Luno", the Spanish name under Francoism) appears clearly surrounding Gernika and occupying most of the modern joint municipality. The map uses only Spanish names and spellings, most of which are not even co-oficial since long ago (but otherwise is a good reference).

Your review is not uncontrversial. It's a total nonsense. --Sugaar 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sugaar, your latest revert and edit on the article is just childish. You never saw these great errors until I mentioned I had done edits Johnbod 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not even look at them because I'm so tired of all this nonsense that I didn't even look. But when you claimed (a few hours later) that they were uncontroversial I felt obligued to take a look. And believe me: they are not just controversial but plainly wrong.

Tell me what's childish: to edit with no knowledge of the matter as you do or to try to keep the article truthful and informative as I do? --Sugaar 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the article from The Times (cited above) factually incorrect, when it says that the English language inscription on Steer's statue in the town uses the spelling "Guernica"? Clearly the inhabitants regard that as the name of the town in the international English that you refer to. I mean of course they do, that spelling is how the town became world famous. Grant65 | Talk 09:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in Application of Naming Conventions

This discussion is getting nowhere because the current guardians of the naming conventions involved seem to be under the impression that foreign toponyms in English are immutable. I have presented many examples of this not being the case (many from the naming conventions page itself!). These have been rejected out of hand. I've also presented evidence that the spelling Gernika is arguably as common in English as Guernica when referring to the town. This is also been rejected out of hand. Moreover, the guardians have failed to prove that "Guernica" is not more famous as the name of a painting than as the name of a town. Beyond that, the naming conventions themselves are contradictory and cause more confusion than they resolve. There is a very live issue of names imposed on oppressed peoples by their oppressors. Whatever the naming conventions may state, it is only reasonable that those peoples, once out from under the yoke of their oppression, be allowed to decide how their place names are reflected in English. In sum, this kind of bureaucratic intransigence by people with admittedly very little knowledge of the people, language, or region is ridiculous. The article title should be changed to Gernika. Madler 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• After watching all this mess for a while, I have to agree. The logical name is Gernika. Guernica (town) only exists because Guernica (painting) existed before, it makes no sense and it looks odd. And I hope Sugaar resumes his activity, his contributions will be surely missed.

David 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "confusion", "inconsistency" or "intransigence", although I note the borderline insulting level to which the Gernika faction have descended again.

The common name of the town in English is "Guernica", because the town is well-known to English speakers as a result of the bombing and the painting which followed it. There is no logical reason to exclude the painting or the bombing from consideration, in deciding the article's name. It appears that even the city fathers and mothers refer to "Guernica" in English texts (see above).

Yes, Marc, the common names of places do change, and the common name in English may be "Gernika" at some point in the future, but it is clearly "Guernica" at present. Wikipedia policy is very clear and consistent with that in other Encyclopedias: as encyclopedists it is not our role to be setting precedents, but to follow common usage. We are observers not trendsetters.

Finally, in addition to flouting basic naming policy, those campigning for "Gernika" are advocating a breach of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for amelioration of the linguistic casualties of fascism and/or Castillian ethnocentrism. The only way we can help in those regards is to describe them accurately in the relevant articles.Anything more than that is not what an encyclopedia is about. Grant65 | Talk 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Grant65. Sadly the debate has just been going round in circles since the first few days. I think everything has now been said & we should all move on to other things.

Johnbod 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I will also say right now that I have not said anything insulting to anyone. What is insulting is to be labeled a "Gernika faction" and to be accused of "descending" to a "borderline insulting level."

No one is promoting anything other than having the name of the article reflect current reality. You say "Guernica" is "clearly" the English name, but don't provide any evidence to back this up, other than Google results which I showed were just as conclusive in the other direction. You have ignored this.

If there isn't confusion and inconsistency in the naming conventions, why does the page include examples such as Stalingrad changing to Volgograd? Which is better-known to English-speakers? The fact that you constantly ignore my pointing this out is intransigence. Anyone reading this can see that, and I don't know why you would think that that is insulting. If you don't want to be called intransigent, I politely invite you to respond to that inconsistency.

Another matter that has been ignored: please provide evidence that "Guernica" is not better known as the title of the painting than as the name of the town. Madler ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the last point, what on earth would be the relevance of that, either way? Of course the painting is more famous globally than the town per se. That is a large part (along with the Bombing) of the reason why Guernica is the most commonly used name in English for the town. Without those it would be as obscure as sugaar claims it is. I don't see any reference to WP policies in your comments. That is what this is all about. 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marc, in particular I find the word "intransigence" insulting, when it is matters of opinion that are concerned.

As far as Google searches goes, I have no idea what you are talking about. Try searches of English language pages, using Google advanced search

• 90,200 English pages for "gernika OR gernika-lumo OR gernika-luno -art -movie -picasso -painting -bombing -site:wikipedia.org"
• 204,000 English pages for "guernica OR guernica-lumo OR guernica-luno -art -movie -picasso -painting -bombing -site:wikipedia.org"

Stalingrad is different in that the name only existed for 36 years, and before that it was also known as Volgograd. It's not as though Gernika/Guernica was called "Pueblo de Franco" or something for a few decades. I'm sure we could find English language encyclopedias from the period 1925-61 which refused to recognise the name Stalingrad. Also, because of the tendency for noxious 20th century regimes to change names like Volograd arbitrarily, attitudes to naming have become much more resistant to these kind of temporary changes. Volgograd also meets the test of common usage:

• 859,000 English pages for "volgograd -battle -war -german -defeat -victory -site:wikipedia.org"
• 229,000 English pages for "stalingrad -battle -war -german -defeat -victory -site:wikipedia.org"

Grant65 | Talk 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually checked what those 204,000 pages (just double than the other option) talk about in fact. I tried the same search some weeks ago and had to desist because no matter how many "-" I put to the search equation, I always ended with articles talking of the bombing or the painting or a magazine named after Picasso's picture...

I tried adding -massacre -art but anyhow all or nearly all "Guernica" pages talk of bombs or art.

Additionally there won't be any "Gernika-Luno" for sure. It will be either "Gernika-Lumo" or "Guernica y Luno", as Luno is a Spanish mispelling/mispronunciation of Lumo only used in Spanish sometimes (sepcially under Franco). Again this is a good example of the lack of good arguments and nearly any relevant knowledge on Gernika, by the "militaristic-artistic" faction of this discussion.

There's just stubborness and feeble Anglocentrism in the pro-"Guernica" side. --Sugaar 11:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Or then again, it could be just a typo! Johnbod 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy anger! Anyway I've proposed a compromise over at Talk:Bombing_of_Guernica#So-called_consensus. Anyone interested might want to take a look. Haber 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied there. I think both articles should be consistent as Bombing of Gernika talks of Gernika-Lumo, the town. It's my initial position since we reached a consensus precisely in that article in mid-November and I haven't yet seen any reason to change it. All I see is apology of ignorance, and wikipedia is not a magazine: it should be thought as a reference, as a center of knowledge, as something really serious, not the triviality of the Pokemon and Star Trek pseudo-culture that pollutes us. --Sugaar 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As usual Sugaar (1) quibbles about a irrelevant triviality (the spelling of Luno) while failing to rebut evidence that is inconvenient to his case and (2) complains about stubbornness and "Anglocentrism" while failing to recognise his own stubborn "Vascocentrism". Sugaar's new complaints about global popular culture, show an unpleasant elitism and a failure to recognise the role of encylopedias.

Finally, this dispute revolves around the common spelling of "Guernica" in international English, not the meaning of the word. Grant65 | Talk 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I suppose that Picasso's mural made the name Guernica much more known in English that any local spelling. This should be taken to WP:RM. Asterion^talk 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is "trivial" about the spelling of Lumo, Grant (and Asterion)? --A R King 10:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is trivial because it is obvious that "Gernika-Luno" (like "Guernica-Lumo") is not correct. I was using different permutations of the names of the town in Google searches of the rival spellings to show how common "Guernika" and "Gernika" are. Grant65 | Talk 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand why you would say that "it is obvious" that Luno is not correct, yet insist that Guernica is correct. Both Luno and Guernica are Spanish misspellings of the local (Basque) names (Lumo and Gernika respectively). How on earth do you justify defending one while rejecting the other? --A R King 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan, you're not listening...I'm saying that joining the Basque name for one place and the Spanish name for another is not correct, as in "Gernika-Luno" or "Guernica-Lumo". Which is what Sugaar was complaining about....and also missing the point. Grant65 | Talk 20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Spanish name was Guernica y Luno. By the way, I don't know about Luno but Guernica is no misspelling. It is just the current Spanish spelling of the a word of uncertain etymology, just as Gernika is the current Standard Basque spelling. --Error 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the case. As far as I know the only currently official name of the town is Gernika. Under Spanish law. Who's not listening to whom? --A R King 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The official name is Gernika-Lumo. --Error 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree??? :-) --A R King 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the official Basque name is not decisive in an English language publication. Furthermore, according to the article in The Times cited here, the Gernika-Lumo town council uses the spelling "Guernica" in an English language text on George Steer's statue.[2] Grant65 | Talk 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A translator's error! --A R King 07:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How the hell could it be an "error", when it was done by a Basque? Grant65 | Talk 09:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was correcting just the official name. There are arguments for any of the options. By the way, Tirso de Molina wrote "Garnica". --Error 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To add some napalm to the debate, I have not seen mentioned here that probably the historical spelling in Spanish and Basque was Guernica. The current spelling conventions of Basque are not that old. Actually Gernikako Arbola's original lyrics are "Guernicaco arbola". --Error 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee thanks, but that's not really relevant. Gernika is clearly the accepted Basque spelling now. It's the name to use in English that is the issue here. Johnbod 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Error: England used to be spelt "Englande", "Englaland" and other things besides: hardly useful information for resolving how to spell the name of a Modern English Wikipedia article though, is it? Furthermore, be careful about what you call "historical" (in what sense and in what context): someone could argue that "historically" Viet-Nam is actually French Indo-China, but someone else can point out that it was only French Indo-China after the French came along and stuck that label on it. Which is what the Spanish did with names all over the Basque Country, the Catalan Countries, Galicia etc. etc. In another sense, we can indeed say that the name "French Indo-China" is now (merely) "historical" - obsolete, that is. Which is the analogy to be applied to "Guernica-Luno", also obsolete. --A R King 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please take this to requested moves and let other uninvolved editors to express their views? Otherwise this will come full circle. --Asterion^talk 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Grant65 | Talk 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, this is pointless. I have protected the page against moving. This needs to be taken to requested moves, debated openly and consensuated. Then another admin should come around and make a decision on whether to move it or not. The sooner this gets taken there, the sooner this will ge done with. Asterion^talk 18:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

specifying ethnicity

Casually browsing an article about a television character, I noticed that it pointed out that he was of Hispanic descent. I couldn't decide if this was ridiculous, because white Americans seem to always refer to the color/ethnicity of non-whites, but almost never that of white people, or if it is OK. Any thougts? Murderbike 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

basque nationalism

"Whatever the naming conventions may state, it is only reasonable that those peoples, once out from under the yoke of their oppression, be allowed to decide how their place names are reflected in English." The English language is not a theatre for you of basque autonomy interests to wage a campaign of Euskadi awareness. I've seen Catalan rewriting their names into the English entries, and Spaniards misunderstanding how to translate certain things w/ regards la Guerra Civil. When it comes down to it, this is English, you do not decide. English usage does. Guernica > gernika. The quote demonstrates this person and others are thinking w/ their hearts not their minds. The Jackal God 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

besides the naming convention, i corrected several instances of mistranslations and bad grammar. It's much less sore on the eyes now. Perhaps take that into consideration if you're contemplating a revert. The Jackal God 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I too late to join in? It seems to be that the Francoism vs nationalism debate is unhelpful here. What is at issue, as many have pointed out before me, is the name in the English language, not the name in Basque (and certainly not the name in Spanish). The problem is that most towns and village that are not in an English speaking nation have *no* name in English, for the simple reason that the vast majority of native English speakers have never heard of them. For this vast majority of towns of villages there can be only one sensible policy, which is to use the official name of the town or village. This sensible policy seems to have been applied elsewhere, even to much larger cities (an interesting example is Corunna, which I have known all my life by its Spanish name La Coruña, but appears in WP by its (official) local name A Coruña. It seems to me that when in doubt this is a wise policy to follow. If there is no clear cut argument case for using the Spanish name (and I don't see one) I believe the official local name should prevail: Gernika. Thunderbird2 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You say: "The problem is that most towns and village that are not in an English speaking nation have *no* name in English, for the simple reason that the vast majority of native English speakers have never heard of them." Well, it could be argued that the "vast majority" of English speakers have heard of "Guernica", because of the bombing or the painting. And how would anyone prove that they hadn't? Grant | Talk 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a clear-cut case i suggest you read the archived discussion from around the beginning of the year, when the matter was discussed at enormous length. Johnbod 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I saw no clear cut conclusion in the discussion on this page, so I added my remark against the most recent entry. Is there a separate archived discussion where I can find a concise explanation? If so, how can I find it? I'm not sure about a majority, but I agree that many native English speakers have heard of the bombing, which is inextricably linked to the town. But is that really a reason to adopt the *Spanish* spelling in English? It seems inconsistent with the policy elsewhere with, for example, Girona, Lleida and (already mentioned) A Coruña.Thunderbird2 09:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Corunna is a borderline case, because it is somewhat well-known, in spite of its size. Guernica is, however, very well-known, especially since the bombing happened within living memory and the painting is one of the most famous artwork in history. The other towns mentioned above are not well-known. Grant | Talk 09:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we have different opinions about where to draw the line, but we both agree there's a grey area in between. In that situation, shouldn't we try to follow WP guidelines for resolving naming disputes? The objective scoring system we are advised to follow gives 1 point each for "current undisputed official name" and "current self-identifying name". That's 2 points to Gernika. Then there is one point for "most commonly used name in English" which you argue is "Guernica". Accepting that point for the sake of argument, according to WP guidelines, Gernika wins 2 points to 1. Thunderbird2 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rules are superior to guidelines and the rule is: use common names.Grant | Talk 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see - that makes sense too. I can't deny that Guernica gets more Google hits than Gernika, but (and I know this has been said before) most of these are about the painting, which has a Spanish name because Picasso was a Spanish painter. My conclusion is that it is far from clear, but I will bow out now, and politely suggest that A Coruña be renamed Corunna :-). Thanks for your patient explanations. Thunderbird2 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

There is a town in Argentina with the same name, see Guernica, Buenos Aires. Therefore, I propose to rename this article to Guernica, Biscay. We could also rename it to the official town name in spanish Guernica y Luno or Basque (Gernika-Lumo), but I think it makes more sense to use Guernica, Biscay.Jordiferrer (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Guernica is the primary topic and, sadly, also the established English spelling so I don't think the proposal flies. We could add a hatnote about Guernica, Buenos Aires. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this town would be the principal topic when referring to towns named Guernica. For this reason, the name seems appropriate to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In such case we should consider renaming it to simply Guernica, and move the current disambiguation to Guernica (disambiguation) --Jordiferrer (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article should just be "Guernica," and that the current Guernica should become Guernica (disambiguation). Everything else Guernica-related stems from this town.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be agreeable to that too. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm doing it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica

Currently the bombing is mentioned under "Modern History" as well as under "Symbol of peace". Perhaps a dedicated section of the article should be "Bombing of Guernica". It is a highly significant event enough. Also, references to the event would not be all over the article. I am aware of the independent article Bombing of Guernica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparuk (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article is scattered. Worse, it's inconsistent about the same event: Modern History section reads, "The bombing went on continuously for three hours." A bit over 350 words later, the Symbol for Peace section reads, "For almost four hours bombs rained down on Guernica." Neither is sourced and the Bombing of Guernica article doesn't seem to support either conclusion.. If anyone has a source for one or the other, please change both. Also, the latter section is written in an emotional, non-encyclopaedic voice. Since I don't know the facts, I can't fix it. Last1in (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

of the Italian--German attack on a defenseless population without military facilities, leaving the bombing efficiently intact: the communication nodes, key infrastructures (including the symbolic-spiritual monuments of capital importance for Vizcaya and the Basque People located in this Villa immemorial, for its later pro-agandistic use as a place of ultramontane monarchical pilgrimage), the arms factories, for its later use by the faction of the reactionary coup army, raised against the popular democratic institutions, with the help of financiers, a large part of the Church and internal and external agents of the liberal-conservative International Fascist Alliance of Capital. User: Brañas Albizu Salisbury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.141.184 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)