Talk:Biscay

History

There's actually quite a lot of evidence of roman presence, and probable explotation of the iron mines; I reckon some developping on it (instead of a fast "not easy to civilize", only true for some parts of Biscay) could be more accurate. Moreover, maybe some insight could be given on the successive people inhabiting the region? Autrigons, the original settlers, were exterminated by an allience of romans and basques, as far as I know.

• Perfect, if you know the facts go for it and edit the section.David 09:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Biscay

Question?, I understood that "vizcaya" means high place in Spanish. I believe I saw the reference in a book about the Vizcaya in Miami. Do you know if that is correct or not? It looks like Vizcaya is located in part of the Pyrenees.

thanks taxlawyer1@yahoo.com

It is generally accepted that Bizkaia, the original Basque term means something like the mountain or the cliff. It's correlate of bizkar, meaning: 1. back, shoulders, 2. cliff, 3. roof structure, 4. leaning on (bizkarretik).

Biscay is not in the Pyrenees properly but in the much lower Basque Mountains that are between the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian Mountains. Ancient Romans called all them Pyrenees though. It is a mountainous rugged area but no peak is really high (there's no permanent snow anywhere, only in the coldest months of winter). It also has large coast, not much less mountainous than the interior actually. --Sugaar 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Province?

Hi there, Biscay is not a province, neither are Álava or Guipúzcoa. The three are offcially called "historic territories", and calling them provinces is a mistake (a common one, though).

Right and wrong. The use of province is correct as they are provinces in Spanish administration, have been so historically and the term is used normally when speaking in Spanish and other non-Basque European languages. The Statute of Autonomy (applying only to the BAC) uses the compromise term territorios históricos (historical territories) in Spanish but herrialdeak (regions) in Basque. For general purposes "province" is clear. When extending on the specificities of the status under the law, using more technical terminology (but from both Basque and Spanish usage) is logical. --Sugaar 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article name

The names of the Basque provinces seem to be regularly changed, both in the text and as article names. Clearly in the rest of Spain Vizcaya is used and in the Basque Country itself both Spanish and Basque names are used, with the latter gradually taking over. Both are official names so it shouldn't be contraversial. I'd prefer Bizkaia for traditional and local usage reasons, but would also be happy with Biscay as the English language compromise or the messy Bizkaia-Vizcaya for an official sounding version. Mtiedemann 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The only official name is Bizkaia as stated the law about identity signs: name, flag and coat of arms (please read the first article in spanish and basque [1]). Guillermo 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The only oficial name for the province is Bizkaia, but in English it is known as Biscay, in Spanish as Vizcaya and in French as Biscaye too. I personally think that the English name should be used in the English-language Wikipedia, when it exists. This is a difficult issue and I would suggest to use the standard English name when available, the same that you find an article titled Lisbon and not Lisboa (which is a Redirect). This can be directly done for Biscay (redirected from Vizcaya and Bizkaia), Navarre (redirected from Navarra and Nafarroa) and Lower Navarre (Basse Navarre and Behenafarroa). But it's more delicate with the other four provinces, that don't have explicitly English names.

I want to extend this article but I will do it only under Biscay or Bizkaia. I don't want to write an entry titled "Vizcaya" (that's why I don't write in the Spanish-language Wikipedia) --Sugaar 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. It would seem to support the English names when available. Hence: Biscay, Navarre and Lower Navarre - and possibly also Labourd and Soule (actually the French names in these two cases). I think that Basque oficial name should be used for Gipuzkoa but have doubts about Alava-Araba. Probably Alava is more known.

I'll let it sleep one or two weeks and then proceed to normalize according to the above criteria if it haven't found any objection. --Sugaar 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy to support Biscay for reasons given. Mtiedemann 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to oppose the use of the English word Biscay for the province. I argue that it is archaic and redundant in this sense and that it should only be used for the Bay of Biscay and the Meteorological Office area.

English names do drop out of use - no English speaker would surely insist on Saragossa for Zaragoza or Corunna for La Coruña nowadays: on the other hand Seville is still Seville not Sevilla and Andalusia/Andalucía is unresolved, though tending towards the latter due to the large number of British people living there who are adopting the local form. I do not dispute that there is an English word availabe, just that that word is not in fact used by English people anymore. If it is not even first choice among English-speakers it should not get top billing here. As I said, I have honestly never met any English-speakers living in the province who use the word Biscay. The word is so redundant thatthey dont actually realise that Bay of Biscay refers to Vizcaya/Bizkaia until it is pointed out to them. I am sure that the only provinces which still retain the English form in active use are Seville and Navarre. Jameswilson 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• You allways refer to english living in Bizkaia...what about the rest of the world? I can't see a Canadian knowing that "Bizkaia" exists. Biscay is the existing UNIVERSAL english term. This is Wikipedia. I think you are approaching this from your "english living in Bizkaia" POV. In fact, what about "Vizcaya"? You mean that the modern english leanguage uses the basque name? come on! David 10:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. In my opinion the use the name Biscay is absolute rot. I know of no English person anywhere who uses this name Biscay for Bizkaia or Vizcaya. It is use on weather forecasts. Biscay is completely redundant as a name for this land area. It is an outrage of arrogance on the part of a couple of anglofiles such as you Deibid. Mondern english people use the local names, it is that simple. I don't know which planet you are from, but it certainly is not the one the rest of us live on. Basically David you "come on!" If the Canadians have to catch up, let them be happy that most Basque people could probably name only two places in bloody Canada, same goes for half the English Speaking world. What about Bombay... you have a problem with calling it mumbai just incase some one living in the rocky mountains doesn't keep up with current affairs? It is Vizcaya or Bizkaia, Biscay is the sea bit. Okay? Jeezus english people are so arrogant and dumb, and if wikipedia is controlled by the likes of David with his POV (sic) we are all the dumber for it Peta-x (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why allways basques dont allow anothers to express in their own languages, nobody cares about Seville or Sevilla, Londres London and allways basques fighting to impose their names in another languages like Biscay or Biskaya! That only happens with you guys, is something really strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norerday (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PAGE MOVED

I have moved the former entry Vizcaya to Biscay and have redirected Vizcaya and Bizkaia to this page, because everyone agrees with the official Wikipedia policy stating that english names should prevail when available in the english Wikipedia. David 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cast my objection to this - see previous section. English word exists but is no longer first choice for English-speakers.Jameswilson 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets settle this NOW: Official Biscay Government page, in ENGLISH:

http://www.bizkaia.net/home2/in_index.asp

All references say "Biscay".

David 10:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is for thick Americans so they feel at home they think it is named after a place in Miami Peta-x (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And what's the first-choice of English-speakers? The Spanish unofficial term Vizcaya or the native Basque oficial term Bizkaia?

Well, whatever the case, it's clear that the use of the English term is less POV. --Sugaar 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that English speakers use Biscay, that is the sea. I cast my objection to this also - see previous section. English word exists but is no longer first choice for English-speakers. The first choice of English speakers is not Biscay. As an example Bombay is nolonger Bombay it is Mumbai, there is no excuse for this page to continue to be titled Biscay, it is just a big trip for this guy David he is on one long rampant ego boost, you see how much damange he has done else where, I think he may possibly be autistic as his desire to wiki everything seems to be his personal goal, that only his interpretation of the guidelines are valid and the more quality information he can remove from a wiki entry the happier he is. It is just a jack off. Peta-x (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A (very quick) check of Google Books, searching in English language publications, shows no recent uses of Biscay, other than references to the Bay of Biscay. All recent references appear to use either Vizcaya or Bizkaia. The last reference to Biscay as the province/region was in a book published in 1838! Can anyone produce any examples of Biscay being used in English text (other than as Bay of Biscay)? If not, then clearly this is not the current term in English, and the page should be moved to either Bizkaia or Vizcaya. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You read the wrong books :b

• Trask, L. The History of Basque (1997) - Biscay
• Aulestia, G. Euskara-Ingelesa Hiztegia (1992) - Biscay
• Hualde, I. Basque Phonology (1991) - Biscay

All use it for the province, not only the Bay. I could find more but that should do. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, whatever people what may want to claim about English usage, as a native English-speaking translator with a good knowledge of many other languages I can only confirm what opponents of 'Biscay' have said here. No native English-speaker would ever use 'Biscay' for anything but the bay, which is why it crops up so often in British weather forecasts. 'Biscay' simply is not 'the' English name for Vizcaya/Bizkaia - there isn't one, any more than there's one for Albacete or Badajoz or.... the list goes on and on. This is literally the first time in my very long life (I'm 64) that I've seen anyone call this province 'Biscay'. It isn't normal English usage, and you can't just invent a new English term simply to deal with the Spanish/Basque clash. As far as anyone outside Spain is concerned, the place is called 'Vizcaya' in English - or perhaps 'Bizkaia' if you really want to emphasise its Basque character. In short, the article must be renamed, if only because no-one would ever look this place up under the name 'Biscay'. In the Wikipedia article on 'Provinces of Spain' the place is called 'Vizcaya'. I rest my case.188.230.248.85 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just made a quick search on google news using the term BISCAY and I found recent articles, which seem to be written by native English speakers:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/biscay-model-taxation-advance-sdgs/

https://www.archaeology.org/news/11009-221201-spain-early-dog

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2022/12/16/golf-ace-jon-rahm-follows-hero-ballesteros-in-winning-special-award-from-spains-biscay-region/

These results are limited to a period of 6 months from the search date.

Therefore, it seems that there is some use of the term. Bizkaia search gives a similar result, once proper names, like Bizkaia Tower, are eliminated.

The search for Vizcaya does not give any result associated to the Spanish territory.

So, IMHO, the term Biscay might have been declining as a reference to the Spanish territory that gives name to the bay, and that the reference to the bay is the current understanding for most of English speakers. Notwithstanding this, the term Biscay is still in use by native speakers journalists, which seem not to be afraid of not being understood by the English speaking community. Considering that the use of the term Bizkaia or Vizcaya is confrontational between the different peoples living in Biscay, I would agree that the usage of the term Biscay is more neutral and less polemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.64.66 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, even National Geography uses Biscay to refer to the Spanish province: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/biscay-guide-spains-basque-country 2A0C:5A82:E405:F400:FD1E:F5E3:DA30:CD08 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to be careful that the naming of this page doesn't bleed out into "real-world" usage.

I think that this page still being called Biscay despite (a) the official name of the place being Bizkaia (for some years now) and (b) the English name being more associated with the Bay might be leading journalists and bloggers to favour Biscay only because "wikipedia calls it that". Don't really see why perceived English usage should get priority over the official, widely-used and easy to disambiguate name of Bizkaia.

So as far as I'm concerned it should be moved (though I haven't the energy for rules lawyering and bureaucracy over it, so knock yourselves out.) Chaikney (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Miami

Please, all information on Biscayne Miami should be in its own article. This article is about the original Biscay in Spain. David 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Adams

There is some material at Talk:Fuero#John Adams that may belong here. If not, someone may want to suggest where it does belong. - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Quite interesting, I didn't know about that John Adams trip to Biscay. You can include it here if you want, in the 'Modern Age' section. David 08:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism

If somebody can find a citation (I'm recalling this from memory) then it may be worth noting in the recent history section that Biscay, along with Gipuzkoa, was one of two provinces to have abstention rates of over 50% on the constitution, due to strong nationalist tendencies. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming debate

I have started a general naming debate on the naming conventions of Basque provinces at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque and would like to invite all interested parties to take part in the debate. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Official names

I have to point out that Vizcaya is still the official name for the province, it is in the process of being changed though, but the bill must pass the congress vote --Nachx (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Since 2007 "Bizkaia" is the only official name. Vizcaya is no longer official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokingarcia (talk • contribs) 08:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvement

I will try to improve the article and add complete information and new sections. One of the first things to do, I think, is moving the History section a little bit up. Greetings.--Metroxed (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Prehistoric biscay.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Prehistoric biscay.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Prehistoric biscay.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Forua.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Forua.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Forua.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bilbao1575.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bilbao1575.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bilbao1575.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Biscay formation.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Biscay formation.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Biscay formation.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Caption about Zumalacárregui

The current version of the page uses a portrait of Tomásde Zumalacárregui with this caption "Carlist General Tomás de Zumalacárregui. Zumalacárregui, a Basque, saved the Carlist cause from the brink of disaster in 1833." Shouldn't we just say he delayed the disaster? --Javierme (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075203/http://www.euskadi.net/elecinf/elec_actuales/mun_jjgg/concejalias/concejalias_1_2_48_mun_c.htm to http://www.euskadi.net/elecinf/elec_actuales/mun_jjgg/concejalias/concejalias_1_2_48_mun_c.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Official name in lede

83.213.202.129 (talk · contribs) added "whose official name is Bizkaia" to the first sentence of this article a couple days ago, making the lede "Biscay (Basque: Bizkaia; Spanish: Vizcaya), whose official name is Bizkaia, ..." which seems repetitive to me. Since then, Impru20 (talk · contribs) and 83.213.202.129 (talk · contribs) have repeatedly reverted each other. Please come to a consensus and stop edit warring. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 21:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no issue here. "Bizkaia" is already used in the lead. I cannot know what is the issue brought by this IP user (whose only contributions in Wikipedia limit to these edits here). I'm willing to discuss, but I do not know what much can be discussed on this, as repeating the same name twice does not seem reasonable (the IP even brought the Spanish wiki page as an example; page which only uses "Bizkaia" once). Impru20^talk 05:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)