Talk:Guernica

message: to Gernika, the real name in basque--MartinS 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requestet Move 

message: "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)
thread_title: Statement in favor of Guernica (city)

message: 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)
thread_title:  specifying ethnicity 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  basque nationalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd be agreeable to that too. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'm doing it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bombing of Guernica