Talk:Iruña-Veleia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Kaixo berriz Sugaar: I think maybe you should be warned that according to opinions I have heard (privately) from very well established specialists in the Basque language (whom I cannot name for reasons of discretion, but I HAVE heard this at first hand), there is currently a strong suspicion that the Iruña-Veleia texts, and some of the other details surrounding them, may be fake. Nobody is sure yet because of the limited amount of information that has been "leaked", but what has been divulged does not sound very convincing. So while nobody is prepared to say so in public yet, privately there is a lot of doubt about the whole business. I thought you perhaps ought to be told that, considering that you have written this article. --A R King 12:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say: you have a rumor and I have a press release by scholars. In principle, further information should have came out by this Fall. I really wouldn't like to fall in rumors. If it's a "Piltdown Man" we will know for sure sooner than later. I mean: knowing how biased usually is Spanish and other academy against anything sounding "too Basque", they would not allow the slightest academic error or doubt.

For the same reason, my first reaction is to think that the rumor is politically motivated. In Spanish language enviroments you still find now and then all kind of attempts to resurrect all kind of theories that would make Basques anything but native, to increase the size of Leon at the expense of Pamplona (Navarre), etc. Equally the French still often promote the theory that Basques conquered Gascony and even Iparralde in the Dark Ages, even if nothing points in that direction.

There is too much politics around this issue of Basque history as to trust such rumors. On the other hand, Basques scholars have much more often than not sinned on the opposite direction: being too shy and cautious. I seriously doubt that it is a fake but, if it is, we will know for sure and we will know soon.

I'll be disappointe though (and the article would have to be reviewed).

I imagine there's no doubt about the hierogliphs, even though they sound much more out of place: apparently they were not used in Egypt anymore and what the heck are they doing in such a remote place as Veleia? --Sugaar 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me make it clear I'm net telling you to change the article. I just thought you would find it useful to have this knowledge of the "rumour", as you call it. What you do with that knowledge is not my business! I'm also not claiming to be an expert on the issue myself, I'm only reporting what I've heard.

However, I want to clarify some things that apparently I haven't made clear. By the way, I wrote the above message to you twice because the first time, the server didn't work when I tried to send it and I lost the whole message and had to start again. My original message had been longer and more detailed. Sorry!

First of all, while I agree with your comments about the Spanish and the French, this rumour came directly from the Basque Country, and from Basques who are top Basque scholars and intellectuals, including people with very high positions in Euskaltzaindia. I myself am a member of an Euskaltzaindia committee where I come into contact with such people, and where I heard this.

Second, I don't think the word "rumour" is quite adequate. A rumour is a belief, often without justification, circulated among people who often have no access to scientific or qualified information. In this case, what I am telling you is not being circulated publicly, as far as I know. In fact, the people who are saying this don't want it to circulate publicly, which is why there is so much discretion and why you haven't read such comments in the press or elsewhere. It is out of respect for that intention that I am afraid I cannot name who I heard this from.

Third, the people who were expressing their doubts about the writing were speaking for themselves, giving their educated opinions, and it was clear from the context that there was no political or other ulterior motivation. Apart from the fact that we are talking about scholars who have dedicated their entire professional lives to the promotion of the Basque language, and who like you (and me) would be delighted if such a discovery turned out to be authentic, the fact is that despite that feeling, they are saying that they (unfortunately) find it hard to believe. As for their reason for saying this, the point they were making is that while some people are in a hurry to jump on the bandwagon and come out publicly giving opinions about the putative discovery (i.e. the people whose observations you have read about), they (the people I spoke to) think it is much wiser at this point not to say anything until we know some more, because it may turn out in the end that it was all a hoax and they would look very silly. They were saying that they were surprised that the ones who reacted quickly had not reflected and done the same. Nobody is in a position yet to accuse anybody of a hoax because there is too little information to judge, but these people are saying it is advisable to just wait and see at this point.

Finally, some of the doubts expressed (I repeat I am not an expert on this) related to historical, cultural and archeological issues that just don't seem to fit in with expert knowledge of the period and look like anachronisms. Secondly, questions were raised about the linguistic material itself, concerning a number of details that, while perhaps not categorically disqualifying the text, make it look rather unlikely as a text from the period claimed; in a sense, these too would be anachronisms. Thirdly, it just seems rather improbable, and somewhat "miraculous", that this one instance of Basque writing should be found but that there should not be other examples around. These lines do not reproduce the arguments in detail, so you shouldn't try to form an opinion based on them, but I'm just trying to give you an indication of the kind of reasons that I heard mentioned. --A R King 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Just discovered that there's another article (stub) on the same subject (Veleia (Spain)). It's quite obvious to merge or maybe even just delete the stub (as this article is much more complete).

Note: when merging, notice that the stub is disambiguated at Veleia, that should after the merge redirect here. --Sugaar 11:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity issue (update)

This week I had another opportunity to check again on the latest state of opinion about the putative "oldest Basque texts" among Basque language specialists of the highest standing in the Basque Country. Nothing has changed, I was told, since the last discussion a few months back, on which I have already reported higher up on this page. That is to say, the authenticity of the findings is viewed by my sources as being just as doubtful as it was last time.

The only information of which the public disposes (including the academic public, and therefore this Wikipedia article also) comes from press reports, not directly from scholarly evaluations. Sensibly, serious scholars are awaiting publication of the findings by those who claim to have found them before giving an opinion. Publication of findings had been promised for October (last month) but have now been delayed until the middle of next year!

All we can say, then, is that serious Basque language experts have seen strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Basque texts leaked to the press; such doubts can only be clarified, hopefully, when fuller and more reliable information about the texts is made available, but until it is, the doubts are not going to vanish either. I will not go into details again about the reasons for these doubts, other than to reiterate that they are based on both "external" and "internal" arguments.

I will give one example of an "internal" argument, i.e. one based on the content of the putative text: the use of the letter z roughly as in modern Basque seen in the text is an obvious anachronism, coming over a thousand years too early in fact, because the modern use of z in Basque to represent a voiceless sibillant is an imitation of the similar early modern Spanish usage (compare the similar use of z introduced by the Spanish colonists in America, as seen in classical Nahuatl orthography for example). From Spanish conquistadors to Roman legions there is quite a time leap, I should say! In Roman times, the letter z had a quite different value (when used at all).

So, the information about this given in the article is based on unconfirmed and dubious information from the press. Not only that, but it also uses that information selectively. For instance, in the Gara article the link for which is given on the page as a reference, we read:

«Consideramos que esta comparecencia era necesaria ­añadió Gorrotxategi­, porque las filtraciones, en mi opinión totalmente irresponsables, y cuyas consecuencias todavía están por ver, han colocado a la comunidad científica en una situación muy incómoda, levantando sospechas de fraude inadmisibles y, si no sospechas, un gran escepticismo».

(My translation; the emphasis is also mine:

"We considered this appearance [in a press conference] to be necessary," Gorrotxategi added, "because the leaks, which were very irresponsible in my opinion, the consequences of which remain to be seen, have put the scientific community in a very uncomfortable position, raising suspicions of inadmissible fraud or, if not suspicions, certainly a high degree of sceptisim.")

The fact that the claims about the text are presented in the Wikipedia article without qualification, while the existence in the scientific community of "suspicions" or "scepticism" alluded to in the same source is not mentioned, could be seen as lack of rigour. I suggest (once again) that some qualification be added to inform the reader of the real status of this information according to currently available knowledge. --A R King 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gara: Confirman la autenticidad de los textos hallados en Iruña-Veleia.

Los miembros del equipo investigador han salido al paso de las "perplejidades en cadena" que apuntaron recientemente los profesores de la UPV Juan José Larrea y Joseba Lakarra, quienes, entre otras cosas, mostraban su asombro por la supuesta aparición de la palabra "iankoa", con el artículo, cuando se supone que éste lo utilizó el euskara siglos después, basándose en las lenguas románicas.

Lacónicamente, Filloy se ha limitado a decir que este término no aparece entre los grafitos encontrados, por lo que ha pedido que no se hagan análisis con falta de datos.

Translation: The investigating team members have come forward to stop the "chain-reaction perplexities" that were mentioned recently by EHU-UPV professors J.J. Larrea and J. Lakarra, who, among other things, showed astonishment for the supposed appearence of the word "iankoa", with the article, when it's supposed that this was only used in Basque centuries later, based in romanic languages.

Laconically, Filloy limited himself to say that this term does not appear in the found graphites, asking for analysis not to be made with lack of data.

So please, stop divulgating unfounded rumors. Thanks.

Nuclear spectroscopia has shown that the texts are older than the 3rd century.

The investigation continues and it deserves outmost respect. --Sugaar 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are adopting the wrong tone there, Sugaar. Let's get things back into perspective, shall we? Nobody is "divulgating unfounded rumours". Larrea and Lakarra are highly reputed scholars in their field; I don't think you have any reason for referring to ideas that they support as "unfounded rumours". Secondly, I am not "divulgating" them; all I have done is ask you to take into account that such opinions exist (at highest levels among the Basque-language specialist community, as it happens). You are the one who is only giving out one viewpoint, and I have only suggested that your account should take into account the existence, at this early stage in the game, of a highly authorised alternative viewpoint.

Why on earth you have decided to champion one side in this scholarly dispute against another, and make such a big deal out of it, I fail to understand. But you might want to consider (if you can manage that much objectivity) that my own sources, mentioned above, who (privately) coincide with the view that thinks the authenticity of the find should be questioned, are also scholars of equally high repute but not even the same ones referred to in the article you have quoted! So there is no question of it being a fringe or crackpot view. Also, your latest "proof" reflected in the Gara article you quote (and which is in all the Basque press today) only reports on a new statement by the researchers who made the original claim; of course they are saying "we are right". They have to. We haven't heard the response of the Larreas, Lakarras and the rest of the specialist community yet. So hold your horses, my friend! --A R King 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't brought forward anything. All your sources are the very sources I have brought here. You have only spoken of rumors you have heard, like if that could question anything. Please, be serious: if you have something bring it forward with sources, if you have only an academic rumor, keep it for yourself.

You are the one who should hold your horses or bring more clear documentation so we can see where the problem is - if there is any problem at all. --Sugaar 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's something more than the researchers asking for calm and denying that "iankoa" is among the texts. There is a mention of molecular analysis of the ostrakas by a prestigious French laboratory saying that they are dated in the 3rd century the later. If you want to keep pushing for the hoax rumor, you need now to also question the profesionality of the CNRS, who affirm that is impossible that the texts are younger than that:

La analítica principal sobre ellos se ha realizado en los laboratorios de espectroscopia nuclear del CEA-CNRS del Estado francés, y básicamente consistió en analizar la pátina superficial de las evidencias que ha permitido determinar que cuando ese material quedó enterrado en el subsuelo, en el siglo III, "los grafitos ya estaban hechos".

Coloquialmente explicaron que esto hace imposible la falsificación, que se hubieran hecho las inscripciones posteriormente en el material que se recuperó enterrado a la altura de un sustrato del siglo III, porque tienen elementos que sólo los genera el tiempo y es imposible hacerlo en el laboratorio.

El físico nuclear Rubén Cerdán ha explicado que para estos análisis se utilizan 155 elementos de discriminación, que sirven para descartar que en las muestras se encuentran elementos que existen en la actualidad pero que no existían en el siglo III, como determinados elementos provenientes de explosiones nucleares o restos de detergentes.

I am kind of outraged at your insistence on rumors that have no base. I know that Spanish nationalism is fanatic and miserable but I'm not willing to play their game. Thanks. --Sugaar 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Simple note about translations of the words. In modern basque "urdin" means blue, but not long ago means "the colors of the sky" from white to blue, including grey. This use of "urdin" is rare but acceptable today. the translations may be:

URDINISAR : white star, blue star, grey star.....

ZURI URDINGORI : Zuri is translated as "white" as in modern basque, can be translated "for you" , translation maybe "for you greyred"

Personaly, as basque speaker, is really amazing the understanding of those words more than thousand years before they wroted, i think is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.152.149 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2006

I know that but I simplified for matter of understanding. Urdin and Gorri were general color terms: urdin could also mean grey and even green, while gorri made reference to anything from yellow to brown.

But urdin is not "white" in any case, I think. Nor the placement of the adjective before the noun is common, at least in modern Basque (it would be "izar urdin"). Plus the "z" that we find in "zutan" is not there. I thought of "urdin izan" and "urdinez har" but they make little sense either.

Zuri could mean that, but it seems to make more sense as a list of colors. They seem to be "school texts" of some child.

And in any case, I followed the source article on their likely meanings. --Sugaar 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Final attempt

Sugaar: I will make one more try to put this into perspective (something which I feel has been sadly lacking here from the start). After this I will try to keep my mouth shut, so bear with me this one last time.

Here we have an article about the archaeological site Iruñea-Veleia which refers to some findings, including what are purported to be the earliest (by far) specimens of writing in Basque, which are currently in the news. The public (including the scientific community, i.e. everyone except perhaps for the archaelogists working on the site) do not at this time dispose of a full range of reliable facts because none have been released. There are only press reports from the archaeologists and some opinions from other Basque experts that have also been circulated in the press. These opinions include both expressions of doubt about the authenticity of the texts that have been released and expressions of support. However, most Basque specialists are refraining from publicly taking a position as professionals, which is as it should be because neither they nor anyone else have been provided with a rigorous and comprehensive account of what has been found. However, informally at least, I think there does exist at this time a general feeling in Basque linguistic/philological circles, at least among some academics and scholars and possibly among a majority of them (though obviously I don't have data to prove that they are a majority), who would agree that it would not be wise to assume, at present, that these are necessarily authentic third-century Basque texts, as the finders have claimed. Some of the reasons for maintaining this position of "abstention", "not assuming" or "wait-and-see" have been explained by those academics who have chosen to speak to the press about it. At the present time, a full report is expected for some time next year, at which time it may be possible for many of the present doubts and suspicions to be resolved one way or another, but for now this is all we have to go on.

The English-language article on the subject, which I believe you have written, only gives the version of the team who announced their findings to the press. It contains nothing to reflect the existence of the scholarly opinions that recommend caution or of the current "dispute", if that is what it is. When I made my first comments to you on this page about this, they were to point out to you that such "reasonable doubts" do exist. And that is still the only thing I am trying to tell you. Your reaction was not what I would have expected.

You insist on referring to the scholarly opinions I am talking about as "unfounded rumours". You have also intimated, more than once now, that the scholarly opinions I am talking about are some sort of anti-Basque Spanish plot. And you have complained that I am "divulgating" (by which I understand you mean "spreading") the aforementioned "unfounded rumours". I take these "points" is reverse order. I am not trying to spread/divulgate anything, I am not even defending a yes/no position on the authenticity issue, I am asking for a bit of balance in the article (and also in your attitude, if at all possible) by reporting on the full range of views/information now available. As for the Spanish conspiracy theory, which you have recently once again alluded to, you are obviously not listening because I told you before that I am referring to the opinions of respected scholars in the Basque academic world. There is nothing Spanish about them. Of course, even if there were, your way of reacting (I am not Spanish either, who's bringing the Spanish into this?) would surely smack to many of paranoia and an inability to address the issues per se. Finally, why do you insist on dismissing the opinions that suggest we should exercise caution, expressed publicly and privately by many specialists, as "unfounded rumours" just because you (obviously) don't like them?

The upshot of this is that, sadly, at the present time, the article on Iruña-Veleia in the Spanish Wikipedia appears to be a lot better and more balanced than this one on the English Wikipedia. (Unfortunately they haven't got around to writing anything at all on the Basque-language Wikipedia yet.) That's a shame in my opinion. I must therefore refer interested readers who can read Spanish to the Spanish-language article [1], and draw their attention in particular to the references included in that, which will provide some of the sources and information lacking in the English article. (I suppose it would be too much to ask to have those references added to this article too? After all, the ones already cited here are also in Spanish...)

From one of these references, a newspaper interview[2] with the academic Joakin Gorrotxategi, I quote to conclude (English translation follows):

-Si el puzzle no encaja, ¿no surgirán sospechas de falsificación?

-La respuesta a eso tendrá que ser el final del estudio. Yo aún no estoy seguro de que eso sea auténtico. Pero, ojo, de la misma manera que reclamo que no se puede decir ahora que todo va a misa, por la recíproca no podemos decir que esto es falso. No creo que esto se vaya a dilatar, parece que de aquí al verano ya estará el informe definitivo.

-¿Se le ha pasado por la cabeza que el hallazgo pueda ser falso?

-Para mí están abiertas todas las posibilidades, también que sea verdadero.

Translation: - If the jigsaw puzzle doesn't fit, won't that lead to suspicions of forgery?

- We'll have the answer to that at the end of the investigation. I am still not convinced that it is authentic. However, just as I am now claiming that it is too soon to assume that everything is true, conversely we cannot be sure that it is a fake either. I don't think this will go on for long, apparently the official report is going to be available by next summer.

- Has it ever occurred to you that the find could be a fake?

- I consider all possibilities open, including the possibility that it may be genuine.

The position of judicious caution so clearly expressed here is what I am asking to see reflected in the article, and you are dismissing my suggestion as "divulgating unfounded rumours".

I rest my case. --A R King 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also keep a judicious caution. Yet if we have a respectable researching team and an also repectable laboratory claiming that they are real and that their age is at least from 3rd century CE (that would make them 1st-3rd century, because they use Latin alphabet), by the moment the weight is clearly on the side of being a real finding of important consequences (not the only one in that site, btw).

Most of the reserves placed by Gorrotxategi are philological cautions: philologists have reconstructed a supposed proto-Basque and had certain expectations that don't seem to match what has been found. But, as linguist, you should know well that it's not a very "exact science" and that it's largely based in assumptions and theories that may well be flawed.

In a personal note, languages do evolve but colonizing languages (like Latin) seem to evolve much faster than static ones (like Basque), due to the accent and substratum influence of colonized peoples. This is not something that Linguistics seems to accept easily (based as it is on IE studies, a rapidly colonizing family) but I'm strongly convinced it is the reality.

In any case, I think that the best is to give the finidings validity till proven otherwise (something that doesn't seem likely after the datation). Nevertheless, if you want to add a section on caution statements, I think that would be good for NPOV - though probably would need to be reviewed as months pass and more and more information comes out.

Just notice please that your referenced interview is prior to the announcement of that datation, which is extremely important in giving credibility to the finding. If you could find some objections/reserves from later dates, it would be much better. --Sugaar 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's both keep our eyes open for new statements of opinions of Basque (or other) scholars on the matter. You will probably be quicker than me because this is not a high priority issue for me. For that reason I prefer not to edit the article myself, so I'll leave that in your hands (or those of any other interested editor).

As for your comment about linguistics, I think for this purpose it may be compared to history. Historians don't of course know everything about the past, but they do sometimes have good reasons for expecting some things and not expecting others to be the case, that is, for discriminating between finds that sound perfectly feasible and those that raise specialist eyebrows (such as obvious anachronisms of one kind or another). And the same can be said of linguists as regards linguistic data. This is not the right place to discuss "how they know that", of course. I am not claiming that linguists know everything. But I am not going to take seriously a claim that linguists' professional opinions ought to be ignored whenever it suits someone based on the argument that 'it's not a very "exact science" and that it's largely based in assumptions and theories that may well be flawed'. And if you want to know my opinion, present-day linguistics is not just Indo-European-biased: it is English-biased. But I also recommend you distinguish between linguistics and "philology" as taught and practised in Basque universities. --A R King 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit after merge

I've removed: This article is about the Roman town in Spain. See also Veleia (Italy). becuase Veleia already disambiguates to both. I've also fixed the link at Veleia disambiguation page. --Sugaar 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation of "jaun"

Somebody changed my original translation from "mister" to "master". Master is not the meaning of jaun. Master would be jabe in the sense of "slave-owner" (jabe means "owner"), ugazaba or nagusi in the sense of "boss" or maisu (a Latin/Romance loanword obviously) in the sense of "teacher" (itself irakasle)

Instead Jauna is used like "Mister" (Mr.) in English or Spanish "Don". Odriozola Jauna is (in current usage) Mr. Odriozola, though in the appropiate historical context could also be Lord/Sir Odriozola. --Sugaar 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sugaar. I was the one who changed "mister" to "master" in the glosses of IAUN. I see you have changed it back again. The reason why I made the change is that the English word "mister" is normally used as a title, e.g. Mr. (=mister) Smith. In fact it is rarely spelt "mister", usually it's abbreviated. So it is only partially equivalent to (e.g.) Spanish "señor", the use of which is not restricted to titles but has another meaning in "el señor de la casa". In Basque this is "etxeko jauna" (compare "etxeko andrea"), or we can also say "etxeko jabea" (owner). But you can't say *"mister of the house". Even "Bai jauna!" should not be translated as "Yes mister!" unless you are portraying a very colloquial (dialectal) usage. Basically, whenever you're not saying an actual title as in the "Mr. Smith" formula, you don't say "mister" in English. Therefore I don't think it's very appropriate to gloss IAUN as "mister" in the present context. That was my reason for proposing the change, for your information. Ondo izan, --A R King 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but you can't compare languages so directly. Jaun is used modernly mainly as "Mr." (mister) or "sir" (or "Lord" in religious contexts). But the usage is not linearly the same as in English or even Spanish. I can't know if 1800 years ago this translation would be valid, in any case "master" is not correct. So either keep it as "mister" or remove it (keeping only the "lord"/"sir" meanings). --Sugaar 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around. Jaun still means "master" or "lord" (any good Basque dictionary will tell you this), and this is undoubtedly it's original meaning. The whole idea of calling someone "mister so-and-so" is a modern concept (in any language) that was foreign to Basque in past centuries, so the idea that this was the original meaning of IAUN eighteen hundred years ago would be anachronistic. In English "mister" was originally the same word as "master" and the "mister" sense is thus also derived from the concept of "master" - which by the way is related to French "maître" (from Latin "magister"), which is also the French translation of Basque "jaun". If it was up to me, I would gloss "jaun" as "lord, master". Since they're identical, it looks like you got your glosses out of the Gorka Aulestia dictionary published in Reno - a source I'm afraid I cannot recommend very highly. --A R King 21:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the 2000 and it doesn't say so. Master is an English term that, while derived from Romance, has some meanings (slave-owner, boss and teacher/professor) that are not equivalent in other languages. The same term in Spanish ("maestro") only has that third meaning being an old-fashioned term for teacher, a remark of excellence or a term used for spiritual teachers. In Basque it is the same: its equivalent "maisu" has only that meaning of teacher (that is impossible to render as jaun).

I'm not sure what you mean by "original meaning". Arguably this term is a derivate of jas (clan), meaning surely "chieftain" or "clan principal". Whatever the case, lord, sir and mister are valid modern translations. Master is not. Master should be translated as either: maisu (teacher), nagusi (boss) or jabe (owner). Jaun can only be used in some contexts as a replacement of those terms because of the hierarchy/respect it implies, the same as English "sir/lord" or Spanish "señor". Aditionally (declined as jauna) it is the exact translation of "mister" (Spanish "don/señor") when it accompanies a personal name.

You can call your boss jauna but it means "sir", not "boss" or "master". If you were a slave or serf of past times you could surely use jauna to call your master, but again it is with the meaning of "sir", "lord" or "milord", not a translation of "owner". Spanish "amo" (master in the sense or slave-owner) translates as:

1. jabe. 2. ugazaba, nagusi

The second aception has more the meaning of "boss" or "patron" actually. While jabe is owner in general. Nowhere you see jaun, which is translated into Spanish as:

Jaun: señor 

... explaining then that it's almost compulsory with priests, where it's equvalent to Spanish padre (English "father").

Spanish señor can't be translated as "master" either but as sir, lord or mister (Mr.). --Sugaar 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sugaar, my advice to you is to invest in a new Basque dictionary. Despite the misleading name, your Hiztegi 2000 is very out of date. At one time (long ago) this was the standard dictionary because it was the only usable one (of Batua), but now it's hopelessly antiquated. The original author, Xabier Kintana, put it through several editions (and changed its name each time) but made hardly any changes so that you're actually using a dictionary that was "up-to-date" in the 1970s (and even then, to be honest, many of us complained about its numerous defects). Also, Kintana is a prescriptivist and his dictionary is prescriptivist in the extreme, meaning that it doesn't tell you what usages exist, but what usages the author thinks should exist. A useful tool in its time (for which a whole generation is very grateful, including myself) but not much use these days, and certainly not a reliable sources for a discussion such as this one.

For historical questions there are better dictionaries, including Azkue's classic work and the supplement covering northern dialects by Lhande, and of course the definitive source, now completed, is Euskaltzaindia's Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia (by Mitxelena and Sarasola), if you can get hold of it. If on the other hand you want an all-round modern dictionary, I strongly recommend the big Elhuyar (now available on-line [3]). But even a present-day pocket dictionary, such as the little Vox one which is easy to find (a serious work nonetheless, with Ibon Sarasola himself as one of its editors) will do you a lot better than Kintana's.

I will not bother to argue about your opinions of what means what because they only seem to be based on or inferred from the scanty information you have gleaned from the sources you quote. Instead, I'll just copy here the entries for jaun in the small Vox and the large Elhuyar dictionaries and let them speak for themselves, while also demonstrating my point about the incompleteness and unreliability of Kintana.

From Vox (the Oinarrizko Hiztegia, second edition of 2001):

jaun i (titulu gisa) señor. Elizegi jauna, el señor Elizegi. 2 señor, dueño, propietario. 
3 Dios: Jaunaren eguna, el día del Señor.

From the Elhuyar Gaztelania-Euskara Euskara-Gaztelania (for convenience I'll copy from the on-line edition, referenced above, which is almost identical in content to the printed book edition):

jaun 1 iz. Señor, noble
Bizkaiko jaunak: los señores de Vizcaya
Dukerri bateko jauna: Señor de un ducado
2 iz. Señor, hombre; individuo de cierta categoría social
Egun batean pobre, beste batez jauna: un día pobre y otro día señor
Jaun egina etorri zaigu: nos ha venido hecho un señor
Jaun- eta andre-multzo bat: un grupo de hombres y mujeres
3 iz. Señor, dueño
Zeruko eta lurreko erregea eta jauna delako: porque es dueño y señor del
cielo y de la tierra
4 iz. kortesiazko tratamendua Señor
Mikel Segurola jaunari: al señor Mikel Segurola
Erretore jauna (Ipar. jaun erretorea): señor párroco
Alkate jauna: señor alcalde
Bai, jauna: sí, señor
Jaun goren hori: excelentísimo señor
Jaun agurgarria: estimado señor
5 iz. maiusk. (Jainkoa) Señor; Dios
Jaunaren eguna igandea da: el día del Señor es el domingo
6 iz. pl. Erl. (aingeru-mota) Dominación

--A R King 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A little comment

If I am not wrong, the use of Z in basque writing is relatively modern (in old times, S and Ç were used for it); thus, I can´t understand that it were in roman times. An other point: In the basque order of words URDINISAR is not blue star, but star of blue. In basque "standing" is not ZUTAN, but "zutik". IOSHE ,with an modern english SH?. J. Aranguren158.227.33.102 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If for "old times" you mean since the 16th century, you're probably right, as the alphabet used was based in neighbouring romances, where "Z" is rare. But here we are talking about a much older time.

How do you think "zutan" should be translated? Like "sutan" (burning)? --Sugaar (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct category?

Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Were basque christians in the 3rd century AD?

I think the article would benefit from a discussion about the implications of the finding of christian references (the Calvary and the sentence in Basque about Joseph, Jesus and Mary) at such an early date. It is often asserted that the Basques were relatively late converts to christianity (see the Wikipedia article about Basque People for an example), and these findings would seem to contradict that. I´m not an historian, so could someone with more knowledge on this topic include a few lines about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know how to interpretate this exactly. It's clear in any case that Christianity was quite spread around by the 3rd century CE and we are talking of a romanized spot: a major city (in the regional context) maybe only comparable to Pompaelo. Along signs of Christinaism also signs of Egyptian culture and religion have been found, so it may just reflect the complex religious situation experienced in the Roman Empire as a whole, with Tha Theia in decline and oriental religions in ascense. Anyhow, it was surely something affecting educated romanized people and not the rural masses (generally more conservative).

Later on, with the introduction of feudalism, Basques went rebellious and the Roman control of the area was apparently brought to an end or at least to a very unstable military presence, with clear signs of burning of villae and the apparent creation of an "inner limes" around Vasconia. Maybe then Chrisianity receeded.

But it may also be the case that Christianity was there all the time, even if alongside other more traditional beliefs, much like Christianity exists now alongside traditional Native American or African beliefs in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere, sometimes in synchretic forms (that's why saints veneration was invented, right?). Pamplona (Pompaelo) and Bayonne (Lapurdum) are very very old bishophric seats that were indeed active in the earliest decades of the Middle Ages (not sure about the date of their foundation) but Pagan practices are also recorded as late as the 16th century, when the Inquisition intervened more aggresively, specially in the mountains. Basque mythology has arrived (very fragmented) to the 20th century but much of it deals with clear tensions and struggles with Christianity. Often two versions of the same legend are respectively Christian and anti-Christian or, others, have an ambiguous meaning, like the lamia nymph) who felt in love with a Christian peasant and, after he died of internal contradictions (love vs. religion) she would go to his funeral but remain outside the chapel.

It's said that chapel-building killed the lamiak. But obviously his did not happen in one day nor year. It's said that the Olentzero (the Basque Santa Claus) is the last Jentil (obviously "gentile": pagan) who, instead of going underground liks his relatives, converted to Christianity. Etc. The first historical Lord of Biscay is said to have been married to goddess Mari but have offended her by making the signal of the cross at home. Etc. It's evident that the sociological (and political) struggle between the old and the new religions was long. This length was probably favored by the tolerance that the Basque states, specially Pamplona-Navarre, generally professed to all beliefs. --Sugaar (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sirs, 1-There is no a firm proof that this place should be called Iruña-Veleia.Some scholars are naming it now Iruña-Oka. 2-There is no a single evidence that the Basque inscriptions do not belong to the 3rd Century AD. Three independent international laboratories have assessed it. 3-The "official study group" has been choosen among locals.The conclussions may be unsuitable,since international experts,particularly linguists,should have been included.If the findings are valuable,as it seems,life work of some experts within the "official study group" would be destroyed. This conflict of interest is probably the cause of repeated delays in the last 2 years,avoiding to publicy show the found material .The last delay has officially been announced a few days ago. """DEVA""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.41.186 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the evidence is pretty firm now, when the Foral government of Alava has revoked the digging license of the company which was doing the works, and is trying to sue the pants outta them. Unless anyone wants to keep arguing about what the experts say about knowing Descartes about 14 centuries before he was born? Because the latest group of experts were less than kind about the supposed works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.103.137 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted; will you apologise?

I am not a very vindictive person by nature. I have a tendency to forgive and forget - eventually. But I'm just wondering: given the rude way in which I think I was treated in the above discussion page (thank goodness for permanent discussion pages) taken together with the eventual rectification which has subsequently been ratified throughout the scholarly community and even in the Wikipedia article concerned, do I deserve an apology? --A R King (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Archaeologists and linguists do not necessarily agree that inscriptions were forged

I came here just after I finished reading an article published in Four Stone Hearth, a monthly carnival of the best of the blog posts relating to four-field anthropology (paleo, archaeo, linguistic, and cultural). The article [4]s suggests that there is reason to believe that the inscriptions are authentic and that the accusations against the archaeologists may have been politically motivated.

I don't know who's right or wrong in this matter (it's not my field), but if the folks who run Four Stone Hearth, who are well-regarded in their fields and have no axes to grind (so far as I can tell) think that the archaeologists may be right, then the article should be revised to say only that there's a controversy, and NOT to take sides in the controversy -- which it currently does.

I'm holding off on making those revisions until other folks have had a chance to comment. Zora (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious voices claiming the authenticity of the Veleia inscriptions. There are too many irregularities among the inscriptions.

Remember also that the archaeologist that worked at Veleia said that during the excavation no inscription was found, that the inscriptions "appear" after the washing of the pieces. Given the huge number of inscriptions allegedly found it is too odd.

Of course on Old Basque is little what can be said for sure, but the problem lies in many other questions. How to explain NEFERTITI, ANQVISES, odd iconography, or the use of modern punctuation signs? One oddity is possible, two maybe, but there are too many.

Besides this: where is the documentation of a god name MISCART?. And besides the fact that I do not see the M, consider the series: SENECA, SOCRATES, VIRGILIO ... MISCART Is not serious.

The article is biased. It claims that "Gorrochategui, did originally but changed his mind later on", but the fact is that many people doubt on the authenticity of the Veleia inscriptions but give the benefit of doubt until further research. Gorrochategui was one of the first researchers that claim he was not sure of the authenticity, later he was sure of the forgery. To call the team "ad hoc" is another distortion or to say that "a press conference tries to demonstrate that all was a forgery". The alleged irregularities of the official team are claimed but I do not see them.

Another problem is that the findings are so odd that the "normal" behaviour that I would have expected from the Veleia team is much more cautious on the authenticity of all the inscriptions.

As it is stated in the note number 7 even the alleged physical analysis have been accused of being a fake, copied from a manual.

Last but not least, remember that Wikipedia uses reliable sources and you can not compare official reports written by reputed experts and professors with self-published matter by self-claimed experts and blogs. There are many reputed journals on epigraphy in the world, let them try to publish in them.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dumu, it seems that you've already made up your mind on the matter and want the article to reflect your view. But we have one reputable source (Four Stone Hearth) that thinks another view is worth presenting. Four Stone Hearth has been publishing for years, is run by accredited professionals with degrees and academic jobs. It may be a blog, but that doesn't mean it's contemptible. It's at least as credible as a government report (which is not the same thing as publication in a peer-reviewed journal!).

It's the WP way to present the controversy, not to use the article to propagandize for your point of view. I don't have time now, but in a few days, I will read what I can of the literature and attempt to revise the article to be more even-handed. Let the readers follow the references and make up their own minds as to who is more credible. If your view is correct, you have nothing to fear. Zora (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very simple. There is no controversy.

I have read a great deal of the official reports and they are very conclusive (read for example on the Veleia use of the mathematics sign "=" which is an invention of the XVI century for example), and many of the "alternative" versions. Evidence is overwhelming.

Note that the Veleia alleged discoveries have not even been published by the excavation team in any reliable source or journal. Have they even tried to? I am afraid not.

WP rules follow reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. Wait until any reliable source is published (if any, if sometime) claiming that the "discoveries" are not a fake. There are many journals on epigraphy in the world. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, a fact that you do not seem to be aware. Refer also to WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In a newspaper it has been published a report on a physical proof (not an opinion) that may be interesting to mention in the article Nuevas pruebas contra la mentira de Veleia. The graphological report asserts that the inscription on 11.249 was made after gluing the pottery (with modern glue to reconstruct the piece). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I haven't had time for a rewrite, but I did do some reading. I found the linguistic arguments convincing; however, the physical evidence was problematic. You had one kind of evidence pointing one way, another kind pointing the other. So an article debunking the physical evidence is indeed useful.

I've changed my mind re the controversy. The guy with the website supporting the claims for the inscriptions seems a little "off"; the archaeologist making the claims is a contract archaeologist, not an academic, and I'm afraid that contract archaeologists, AS A WHOLE, don't have the credibility of academics (not meaning to impugn any particular contract archaeologists, many of whom are quite reliable). My own conviction, at this point, is that someone was playing a joke on the contract archaeologist and he took the bait, seeing fame and fortune dangled in front of him. BUT ... I don't think we should say that in the article. We have to give the evidence, pro and con, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. I think most readers will come to the same conclusions that you and I have reached. Zora (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear all, This article is of course the opposite of objective. It doesn't mention at all that we are treating with a controversy. The official version that everything is forgery and that Eliseo is a crook sounds good, is sustained by newspaper articles and even by an article in Archaeology. Unfortunately, the reality seems a bit more complicated. There are a dozen of reports written by different specialists (all with Ph.D.) that find substantial errors, serious gaps in the investigation, and maybe even biasing (see: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes). To name just one aspect, several inscriptions are covered by rests of a crust (looks like carbonate in the picture) that is sufficient archaeological evidence to consider these inscriptions as authentic (if this crust is not artificial, an element that is not investigated! See http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org). My opinion is that we don't know yet. So we will propose substantial changes for this article. An alternative view on the Veleia affair can be read in http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/affaire.

Saludos, Koen

PD. Profesor Emeritus Jean-Batiste Orpustan (a respected Basque philologist and academic from the university of Bordeaux, claims that inscriptions in Basque are credible (see http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/conferencia-silgo-iglesias and http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/silgo)

The the contents of the newspaper article you cite is not correct,Dumu, you can see (here: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/veleiaonline:sobre-cola-mentiras-y-pruebas-forzadas) with you own eyes that the glue is on top of the inscriptions in the questioned inscription. Not everything what appears in a newspaper article is reliable, and maybe less in the case of Iruña Veleia.

You are quoting your own opinion in a webpage as evidence. Please read the rules on reliable sources and their use in Wikipedia (take a look to the fact that adding as reference blogs were you write could be considered spam). Read also that wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOT#FORUM. As this is a judicial affair, and the report on the glue a report to the judge, we can wait to the sentence. BTW: a direct autopsy is always better than a photography. And next time, please, try to place your comments in the right place an sign them.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The bias of this article is apparent. It is based on quick references from Spanish newspapers, who in many Basque related issues can contruct a real monster out of nothing (e.g. Egunkaria case). Altogether this article is no doubt one-sided and unbalanced. Recently the investigators accused of forgery were acquitted in the count of economic fraud related to sponsoring of the works of Iruña-Veleia, the probe into the issue carries on.Iñaki LL (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment by now on you Khazar2, now maybe this is more a suitable place. Basically the issue remains the same, both formally and in content. I saw Xabier Armendaritz' fixes, but the news presented here anyway are without contrast, despite there being several documents in the academy pointing to the contrary and supporting the claims of the former research team. Specially some citations are dubious, sounding almost like a conviction. For a start, the team was cleared of wrongdoing in the lawsuit opened to judge a possible mismanagement, not reflected here. It's not my intention to take sides on one or the other, but this is an ongoing issue and the wording is unacceptable, and citations are feeble for a reader who wants to get proper and reliable information, so I will revert the NPOV tag (preferred), or I can delete the section content. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Case against Gil to be decided this May

See [5], Doug Weller talk 11:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Complete omission of any mention to expert opinions favoring the authenticity of the findings at the Iruña-Veleia archaeological site is contrary to Wikipedia’s neutrality rule

In the article, it is stated that “Eventually, all these inscriptions turned out to be a fabrication, as concluded by the 26 experts who analyzed the data for almost 10 months, and that went public on November 19, 2008. The texts were described as "crude manipulation," "incoherent," having texts and words both "incorrect and non-existent", and as being so "obviously false as to be almost comical." The case was dubbed by some as the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula" and "the product of an elaborate hoax."” However, no mention is made at all to the reports that favor the authenticity of the findings. This cannot be attributed to ignorance, since at the “external links” section, the SOS Iruña-Veleia web site is listed, where reports on both sides of the controversy can be found. Some of the pro-authenticty reports are authored by respected scholars in different fields, including archaeologist Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the archaeologists at Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today, epigraphist and professor of ancient history at the University of Santiago de Compostela Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero, French linguists Hector Iglesias and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan, German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz, palaeopathologist Joaquín Baxarías, and archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo,. Outside of the SOS Iruña-Veleia site, two videos by Edward Harris arguing in favor of the correct stratigraphic dating at the Iruña-Veleia site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be, texts of conference presentations by Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero and Ulrike Fritz and a journal article by Hector Iglesias. Therefore, it appears as if this Wikipedia article is misleading the readers by omitting any mention to the existence of a scientific controversy around the Iruña-Veleia findings and only mentioning the opinions of authors favoring their falsehood. This is contrary to the rule of neutrality that all Wikipedia articles must follow, which implies that the article needs complete rewriting in some sections which are absolutely biased.

An additional point is the omission of the link to the Ama Ata blog http://www.amaata.com that currently is by far the most active in discussing the Iruña-Veleia findigns. Four days ago, I added this link with this description “Ama Ata, blog dedicated to linguistics, history, archaeology, genetics, epigraphy ..., with a particular focus on the findings at Iruña-Veleia. Articles and comments are largely favorable to the authenticity of the findings". Yesterday, this link was removed stating that “we rarely link blogs see WP:EL”. However, the blogs “Ieshu Ioshe Marian”, “En el ángulo oscuro”, and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos VIII: Más cerca de la autoría” are still there. Why remove only the Ama Ata blog and not all of them? Obviously, this is not a neutral action. Mmthomson (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As Mmthomson indicates there are dissident opinions of well established scientists, but appart from this, one can observe that the so-called 'Comisión Científica Asesora' was composed of only experts from the local university, one of his members became eventually the new director, this 'Comisión' was presided by a politician without any scientific formation. From the external experts that were consulted , only three of these external experts delivered elaborated informs, and one of these three, Dr. Perring, insisted on the need for control excavations before making conclusions. There are no formal conclusions, neither a unified inform of the Commission that was discussed and signed by the members of the Commission, only informs of the different working groups are known (why should they have been kept secrete?). These working groups have conclusions that variate on a scale from contemporary forgeries to not being conclusive (Madariaga, the chemist).

There are Conclusions written by the Secretary of the Commission () that were offered to Mr. Gil after the last meeting of the Commission, and don't appear in the 'Actas'. These were not made public ()but were filtered, and demonstrate that the local government decided to make the local university responsible for the exploitation of Iruña Veleia, which of course heavily questions the independence of the Commission that only counted with experts from the same university:

″4. Elaborar un nuevo proyecto arqueológico para Iruña-Veleia, con la participación de la comunidad científica y en concreto de la Universidad del País Vasco. Los fines de este nuevo proyecto serán la salvaguarda, promoción, potenciación de imagen, excavación, consolidación, expropiación, investigación, musealización, puesta en valor y difusión del Patrimonio Arqueológico de Iruña-Veleia, proporcionándole todas las infraestructuras necesarias.″

So there are good reasons to be sceptical with the whole construction, and that should be reflected in the article, because these are facts that are reflected in official documents. Most of supposed forgeries have a long way with several reversals of their status while new evidence appears... Maybe it is to early to be sure of something, and scientific debate needs its time. Koen Van den Driessche (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not my intention to bring further noise to the debate, very valid points have been stated above for their inclusion in the article as regard substance. I am afraid the problem lies not so much with the the content but EN WP's policies of not accepting blogs, applying then to all blogs, you are right, but accepting, at least initially, local or other newspapers like El Correo or El Mundo for one, which have stood out for their partysan stance and 'headlining' approach on the matter; sadly in these recent cases newspapers are the main accepted sources. There are good grounds to think this is a WP:UNDUE case by which the reader cannot gather balanced data necessary to form a proper opinion on the matter. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits in the text of the article to make clear that the cited statements are only the media accounts on what the provincial government of Álava and some members of the expert committee constituted by it publicly announced on the findings of Iruña-Veleia. I have also made some changes in the introduction in order to make known that there is a scientific controversy going on on the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia findings, a fact completely omitted in the previous version, and I have added a new section on the expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings, which is basically the same information that I have provided above in this talk page, which nobody has commented on that is incorrect. Mmthomson (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A citation was added in support of the statement “The committee did not produce any formal consensual agreement”. It is difficult to add a citation to show that something did not happen. It is the same difficulty for using a citation supporting the statement “As of 2017 no peer-reviewed study has been published supporting the falsehood of the findings and no control excavations have been performed at the site”. The citation that I have included is the web page of the provincial government of Álava (“Diputación Foral de Álava”) where all official documents on the Iruña-Veleia case are put. And among the documents provided by the DFA there are individual reports, but no consensual written agreement by the expert committee’s members, which is the strongest proof that can be given to show that such formal agreement was not produced by the committee.Mmthomson (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iruña-Veleia. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375086.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375087.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006151031/http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala6.375101.php to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala6.375101.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121207044632/http://paperekoa.berria.info/plaza/2012-11-30/042/001/iruzur_bitxiena_eta_ikusgarriena.htm to http://paperekoa.berria.info/plaza/2012-11-30/042/001/iruzur_bitxiena_eta_ikusgarriena.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)