Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 2

Ceasefire

Does anyone wish to integrate [1], or is it too lacking to have any relevance? Joffeloff 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Permanent

According to the Spanish minister of war and Spanish media, the "permanent" word hints of IRA ceasefires but I have not find that word in PIRA's ceasefire communiqués. --Error 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The TV images from the DVD have quality footage of ETA mise-in-scene with the three flags, the hoods and the berets. Could somebody take a big frame and upload it? I am not sure if it qualifies for Commons but it would for fair use. --Error 06:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in Basque Country, and I see that if you do not want independence and say it you could find a bomb in your car, and you can forget about getting a job in basque goverment, or living peaceful. In fact, When I finish university degree I am going to Madrid, in order to get a job as teacher, something impossible here if are not nationalist.

Taking explosives from Brittany

User:Chymicus has changed "ETA commandos have teamed with the Breton Revolutionary Army to rob explosives from magazines in Brittany." to "ETA commandos have teamed with the Breton Revolutionary Army to steal explosives from magazines in Brittany.". Is "steal" a better English word than "rob" for taking them at gunpoint? --Error 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Rob" suggests violence, "steal" suggests stealth. Grammatically, "steal armaments from a magazine"; "rob a magazine, taking armaments." "Rob armaments from a magazine" is vaguely OK, but a bit informal. - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

among others

User:Thumperward has removed the line

• Anonymous citizens, some of them children

with "You can't include "and anonymous others" in a list which starts with "amongst others". Until the qualifier is reworded, this is inappropriate".

I had previously reverted him with ""among others" includes non-anonymous citizens like foreign diplomats." How can we mention that ETA has killed passers-by or unspecific citizens without mentioning every kind of victim? --Error 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They should be listed as collateral casualties. As it is written it seems that ETA aimed specifically to kill them indiscriminately, what is not the case. --Sugaar 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • ETA son unos asesinos de mierda... Hijos de puta... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.228.153.34 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006.

Name of state

Does anyone know what the ETA want to call their proposed state? I guess it stands between Euskadi and Euskal Herria, but I have no idea. Anyone know? Joffeloff 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ETA is named after Euskadi obviously, but the preferred term now is Euskal Herria to avoid the ambiguity. --Error 23:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant. The stated aims of ETA are the same than those of other Basque nationalist groups: to create a separate Basque state through self-determination, and minimally to see that right to self-determination recongnized by Spain. The name, the hymn and the banner are less important issues.

Anyhow, Euskal Herria means Basque Country in the sense of people or nation (and it is a traditional denomination), while the neologism Euskadi refers to the Basque Country as political entity (state or autonomous community).

The relative drop of Euskadi and other "Aranisms" in daily and political talk is caused by both the polititization of the terms and also because of a strong criticism of Arana's work. S. Arana may have been a most important founder of modern Basque nationalism, but his knowledge of Basque was mediocre and he had too many weird ideas of his own. Linguistically, Euskaltzaindia (the Academy of the Basque Language) has made a full revision of Aranistic neologisms and removed most of them except some like Euskadi, ikurrina, etc. that have a wide presence in modern Basque culture. --Sugaar 09:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ETA is a terrorist organization

List of ETA attacks, is this suficient o you need more...?--Uruguayo 05:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think that ETA have practiced terrorism. It is that we have an editorial guideline against characterizing them as such in the narrative voice of the article, and need to actually cite who says so.

Perhaps the problem will become clearer if you imagine a similar list of all killings of civilians by either side in the Spanish Civil War. It would seem to make a very strong case for both the Nationalists and Republicans having been "terrorists", but, in fact, few historians would say so. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil war was a war. Both bands fought and killed. Now, only ETA kills, and creates terror (for those non-nationalist). This includes blackmailed bussinesmen, NN politics, ertzainas and specially those which need to have escort. There have been even teens needing escort for having appeared on ETA blacklists simply because they were on the youths of a non-nationalist political party. If this is not terrorism...

A prove of the terror they made is that 10% of basque people have left it due to ETA.

Platonides 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The referent of "have left it" is absolutely unclear in that last sentence. Have left what?
2. Are you saying the GAL didn't kill??
3. Again: one can accept or reject the claim of this being primarily a "war of national liberation vs. primarily terror. If I were writing in my own voice, I'd have no problem saying that ETA used terror tactics. But, in the article, I'm not. We are writing in Wikipedia's voice, and Wikipedia's narrative voice does not have opinions. This is a big part of what NPOV is about. We can mention lots of governments and institutions calling ETA "terrorist", and that belongs in the article, but our own opinions do not. Period. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 10% of population left Basque country (quite a good way of having a more precentage of people supporting them :P).
2. GAL tried to do ETA what ETA had years doing, but it was erroneus anddisastrous. And it doesn't mean there was a war.
3. I understand you. We all know and agree they are terrorists but we can't say it because some nationalist will feel bad of it (although they know that those war of liberation is called terrorism everywhere else).

Moreover, the POV are usually forced from those poor opressed terrorists :( We will need a way of communicating it to the readers without saying the t-word, let's start to think...

Platonides 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GAL, GANE, BVE, Guerrilleros de Cristo Rey, and other paramilitary gangs apart, form the viewpoint of ETA's supporters, the war exists as the Basque Country is occupied (in their opinion) by Spain and France. For them the war has a long history, going back maybe to the Middle Ages, and the only that can bring peace is the self-determination of the Basque people.

The fact that the Spanish state and their supporters use violence, either legal, semi-legal or ilegal (torture, paramilitary groups, military coups, etc.) only reinforces the perception of war and occupation by that sector of the Basque people. --Sugaar 12:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Partido Popular v. PSOE

Shouldn't there be more information about the drastically different approach taken by the current Spanish government?

Jorge Luiz Zapatero offers concessions and compromise-taking the same tack he has used with Catalan separatists-while his predecessor in office, Jose Maria Aznar-was unyielding, and refused to engage in any negotiations whatsover, only in part because of a previous attempt on his life made by ETA assassins.

Perhaps this could lead to a broader discussion of the philosophical differences between leftist politicians and parties, e.g. Romano Prodi, Zapatero, among others, and their rightest counterparts, e.g. Berlusconi, Aznar, and other center-right politicians in Europe and elsewhere. That is, whether appeasement or resistance is the best approach when confronting terrorists, either domestically or abroad.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I disagree, during the 1998 ceasefire (which was indefinite, and not permanent like now), Aznar's government did start negotiations with ETA. Furthermore (and this is a fact, can look for a link in El Pais) Aznar was making concessions, such as moving prisoners closer to the Basque Country, much earlier than Zapatero has, with ETA offering much less. For example, the 1998 ceasefire did not include the interruption of the extorsions to businesses (impuesto revolucionario) and street violence, whereas this is the case in the current ceasefire. As far as I can tell, this is fact. The fact that PP are currently not supporting Zapatero is (in my OPINION), purely political (and because of that, pretty shocking). This however is my opinion (shared by many others, mind you), and would not have a place in a wikipedia article.

So, to the suggestion about the right/left wing differences, I think that it would be too generalized a topic, and would only fuel controversy.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.213.196 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2006.

Sorry, but there's been not a stopping of the extorsions to businesses (impuesto revolucionario) and street violence. They could be interpreted as being into the ceasefire ETA announced, but they have gone on. Platonides 14:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there also be some exploration of the widespread mobilization against ETA among citizen activists, and displeasure felt among certain sectors of Spanish society with the feckless response by Zapatero to this issue? - Ruthfulbarbarity 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the many negotiations between the Spanish governments and ETA. From memory:

• Disolution of ETA (pm) with UCD.
• Table of Algiers with Felipe González.
• The negotiations with José María Aznar's government in the 1990s
• The current ones.

They should be marked with their varying degrees of confirmation.

About rightist appeasing, check the first term of Aznar and his relations with CiU and PNV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006.

I'm not implying that the Aznar government and the PP didn't make tactical alliances with Catalans or Basques who would be described as separatists during their first term-when they didn't enjoy an absolute majority-like the informal alliance between Giles Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois and the CPC.

But to me there is a substantive difference between that, and negotiating with radicals who follow an explicit policy of coercive politics initiated through violence and terrorism, such as ETA.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eneko Lizarralde

I don´t speak very good English, so i can´t explain me vey well. Firstly i want to say that i am basque, i was born in the basque country and i live here since then. I want to say that basque independentists want peace as soon as posible, but the problem are the spanis and french goverment, they don´t let us to decide about our own future. We think that every country has the right to decide what type of relation wants whith the other countries. We want to say clearly that we are BASQUE people. we aren´t spanish or french, of course that in the basque country there are some people that they feel only spanish or french. but the main problem is that the constitution has been imposed to the basque. now a dais nobody wants the spanish constitution in the basque country, only spanish people, specialy from rights. this people hate basque culture, they never speak our lenguage, Euskera (Basque lenguage). I want to say that while our rights are crushed we are going to keep on in our fight.

Freire sobre lo que has insinuaddo sobre amnistia internacional, tienes razon, es verdad que ETA viola los derechos basicos del ser humano, pero quiero recordar que también en numerosas ocasiones A.I. ha denunciado torturas y asesinatos mas que evidentes de parte del govierno español.

y a los españoles que lean esto; dejarnos decidir nuestro futuro en paz. sabemos que no os interesa que se negocie, porque bien sabeis que hoy en dia hablando la gente se puede entender, y eso en madrid asusta. el PP esta desvancado, ellos no quieren hablar, pero parece que el PSE se esta sentando. estoy seguro que se puede conseuir un buen pacto para la paz con los socialistas, el actual govierno tripartito, batasuna y aralar. pero luego viene la burocracia española, y el congreso de los diputados no admitiría. Sois así de fachas, no admitis el derecho pleno a decidir que tenemos. Claro que ese derecho la constitución no la recoge, pero bien sabeis que a los vascos nos la sopla vuestra constitución. seguiremos luchando por nuestros derechos.

Como dijo un poeta vasco:

Gu sortu ginen enbor beretik, sortuko dira besteak burruka hortan iraungo duten zuhaitz aldaska gazteak

Del mismo tronco del que nacimos nosotros, nacerán los demás, ramas jóvenes que permanecerán en esta lucha.

-- Manuel Freire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.36.52.27 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006.

What do you mean by "Basque Independists?"

Are you referring to recognized terrorist organizations, such as ETA, and their corresponding political representatives, such as Batasuna?

Or, are you referring to peaceful, democratic civic and political organizations within Basque country, which advocate autonomy or independence from Spain?

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some basque independentist wanting peace is ok. But sadly some other basque independentists (like ETA) doesn't want peace. In fact, they're the only which are fighting! So there isn't even a war.

Los españoles tendrían menos prejuicios hacia los vascos si no fuera porque unos vascos llevan más de 40 años matando personas (independientemente de que sean españoles, vascos o chinos).

Despertaría muchas más simpatías si se intentase simplemente hablando, como dices. No quemando a la vez autobuses como ayer, curiosamente ejerciendo presión a la vez que salió el comunicado de ETA. Esa es la situcación libre de violencia. Te recuerdo que tanto PSOE como PP aceptaron inicialmente el diálogo, si bien pusieron condiciones. No es asunto de que el PP no quiera. En el fondo es un asunto de políticos. Al PSOE le vino mejor tener manga ancha mientras que el PP plantarse. ¿Quién se beneficiará? El tiempo lo dirá.

Y respecto a ser independientes y hacer las cosas a vuestra manera, lo gracioso es que no tienes(tenéis) en cuenta que el país vasco como país independiente no tiene futuro en un contexto internacional. No sería capaz de crar/mantener esa nueva economía, estaría fuera de la UE, prácticamente sin apoyos internacionales, etc. en el fondo los que os odian os están haciendo un favor.

P.D. En mi comunidad de vecinos no nos dejan tampoco ser un país independiente, no reconocen nuestro derecho a decidir! :( ¿deberíamos poner una bomba en el ayuntamiento? ¿debería hacerlo yo sin que se enteren los otros? ¿qué beneficios habría? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platonides (talk • contribs) 22 August 2006.

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Their purpose is to help making better articles. If you want to discuss Basque politics, go Usenet or elsewhere. Stay if you have something towards making a better article. --Error 03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Common meaning of ETA is "Estimated time of arrival"

By far the most common meaning of ETA is Estimated time of arrival. "ETA" should go to Estimated time of arrival with a disambiguation statement at the top for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. -DoctorW 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense if this were Wiktionary instead Wikipedia. I think the current usage has far more encyclopedic value but feel free to place a request at WP:RQM if you think otherwise. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asterion. This is a much more likely thing for someone to look up in an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Torture

"While these claims are hard to verify, it should be noted that most convictions are based on confessions obtained while prisoners are held "incommunicado" without access to a private lawyer or other advocate and that these confessions are routinely repudiated during trials as having been extracted under torture."

If I understand this para right, the article says:

• most convictions are obtained from incommunicado confessions, that seems reasonably true
• those incommunicado confessions are repudiated because the judges consider them the fruit of torture. This contradicts the earliar part. If the confessions are repudiated, they cannot be the basis of a conviction. And I doubt that judges routinely declare instances of torture.

It seems that little editions eroded the original sentences. --Error 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume it means repudiated by the person who confessed. You don't normally "repudiate" someone else's words. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the meaning of "repudiate". Thanks. Inglis díficol. --Error 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is for Asterion

Hey Asterion, I've seen your personal page and I understand you are a Spaniard yourself. Something tells me that you are not a nationalist (whether Basque, Catalonian, Galician, anywhere: I just don't care, but they are pretty active in the Spanish related stuff) therefore I thought you are the right person to address this question: why ETA shouldn't be described as a terrorist organization? If ETA is not a terrorist group, which one is? I'm asking since I once changed the description myself and it got reverted to the damn "paramilitary" by the usual nationalist. However I see now that someone else changed it and you revert it back to "paramilitary" Is there like a wikipedia list detailing which are considered terrorist organizations and which are not? where? who made it and based on what? Thanks, mate. Mountolive 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate is not enough for a first contact, sorry about that, actually I meant thank you very much in advance :). Mountolive 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you addressed Asterion on this, but since you placed it here rather than a user talk page, I'm going to respond, after a fashion. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I'm not a nationalist of any sort, but I would also revert this. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jmabel, for your clear up. Yes I posted this in the ETA's talk page rather than in Asterion's implying that I was willing for anyone to reply, as long as they are not the habitual nationalists or other people who don't like Spain, since their view is well known around here and quite biased all the same.

I have checked the page which you mention (which I didn't know: thanks again). I believe is quite mild, if not tollerant itself, with the terrorism, however I guess there are reasons for that and I won't be the one who tells wikipedia how to do their thing. Following their guidelines, what I will do is edit and put right next to the "paramilitary" thing the fact that the band is regarded as terrorist by the EU and United States, I'll do it carefully in a way that the wikipedia policy in this is observed...however I am quite pessimistic and I expect the nationalists reverting it back again: unfortunatelly looks like they have made theirs this entry. If you agreed with my version, I would appreciate it if you could "defend" it, if only for a while... Thanks again Mountolive 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on and off wikipedia for a while. Apologies if I missed this. Jmabel is spot on with his answer. Also see WP:NPOV for details on wikipedia neutral point of view policy. The word terrorist can be seen as semantically loaded, therefore not neutral. Best regards, --Asterion^talk 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Asterion. I have posted a new version which intends to be final and, to my surprise, is still there (I don't know for how much longer). I know the term terrorist can be semantically loaded but you may agree with me that the absence of the term terrorist can also be very much politically loaded and this is something which wikipedia guidelines seems to forget or just overview. As I said before, if ETA is not a terrorist group then there are no terrorist groups in the world, which unfortunatelly is not true. Anyway, I understand the wikipedia guidelines in this regard and so I have adjusted my last version to those hoping that is good enough. We'll see. Thanks. Mountolive 01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Indymedia Barcelona has pictures of the last Gudari Eguna in Aritxulegi that are labelled as Public Domain. You may want to upload them to Commons. --Error 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Government repression?

Folks, I'm not really comfortable with the "repression" word. The government action in this regard is called "law enforcement", for example, the government doesn't "repress" thieves, the government just applies the existing laws to thieves. This is obviously -and tellingly- a literal translation from the Spanish word used by the ETA-friendly boys&gals. I say tellingly because it reveals what was in the menu back in the day of the guy who wrote it. The word "repression" is biased as it comes from one side of the story. Anyone out there has an idea of a likely substitute? I'd simply say "action" but I trust you guys have something just smarter than that.. Do you? Mountolive 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not tied to the word "repression". Some of this (torture, GAL death squads, for example) is pretty much what one would usually understand by "repression"; some of it is not and is simply law enforcement. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So? Mountolive 05:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Repression in the Basque Country include not just ilegal actions (GAL, torture), that are or have been widespread, but also repression of political and cultural activities. The recent "legal" trend of repression (using the judiciary to restrict liberties, closing newspapers, prosecuting and pressuring civil organizations, forbidding political acts, etc.) is also repression, even if it is law enforcement: enforcement of repressive laws in an arbitrarily repressive form. The detention and processing of ETA or street fight militants is not the main matter here but the repression against people who is not related (at least directly, and in many cases in any way at all) to them. The detention, toture and liberty without charges after two years in jail is repression. The dispersion of militant prisioners, forcing their families to spend all their weekends on the road, is repression. Some of the repression is legal (because laws have been created to allow it), some is illegal and some is just arbitrary. But "law enforcement" seems to be the simple detention and trial of people involved in criminal activities. --Sugaar 23:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AVE

There was some talk that the French change of attitude was influenced by the concession to Alsthom of the building of the first batch of AVE trains in spite of the German proposal being better or cheaper. Is it uncontroverted enough to insert in the article? --Error 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is highly speculative if not neighbouring the usual conspiracy theory, don't you think? Mountolive 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Too long?

Dont you think this article has gotten too long? I do. In my opinion, the "History" section could be heavily trimmed or just made out of the entry while all the info appearing there would go in a more specific, detached, article covering ETA's History. I mention this section as the most suitable part to be trimmed because it goes quite in depth with events happened some 20 years ago, while people may be more interested in recent events. I am not sure whether a historic part is still needed here in the ETA article (for the context and all the other sections are history) or it should go in a different, related, entry, but if you think it was still needed in the ETA entry, then I think it should be really debased for the sake of an overall better article, in my opinion. Mountolive 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean those During Franco's dictatorship, During transition and Under Democracy parts. These could be in a different, related, article thus leaving the main entry significantly reduced, much more reading friendly and still very much informative.Mountolive 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Move it if you want to History of ETA. ETA (pm), ETA (m) should be merged there. We should have something also about ETA berri. --Error 20:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mhh...believe me: it is not that I am lazy like a Spanish hidalgo, but I am not very skilled nor very familiar with major edits to do this. I am just afraid that if I do this myself I will make a mess with all the frames, etc...would you -like a good Biscayne hidalgo- move the headers I mention above for me into the History of ETA?.. Mountolive 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Other armed groups

Just changed Right wing for Spanish unionist groups. Considering that the GAL was linked to the PSOE, at least nominally a left wing party, I don't think that it can be tagged as right wing (the others are, probably).

Anyhow, I'm not sure that the section is necessary. --Sugaar 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

People may think that Basque terrorism is only about ETA. The existence of other groups is interesting and highlights differences. --Error 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean the former, past, whatever, existence of other terrorism, for nowadays it is clear that terrorism in the Basque country=ETA. Mountolive 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you want to be NPOV, you have to admit that for a wide sector of Basques, terrorism in the Basque Country means (also or basically) Guardia Civil and the likes.

Some people have aquaintances that have been attacked or extorted by ETA but many others' have been "kidnapped" by the police, tortured and (sometimes) set free without charges two or three years later.

In order to be NPOV, we have to include both viewpoints and that's not easy, specially when some are so emphatically one-sided. --Sugaar 13:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wide sector of Basques", suggested translation: "Batasuna and related to it, also a few PNVers, mostly in Gipuzkoa".

Yes, I do want to be NPOV and no, I do not have to admit that Guardia Civil and the likes are terrorism. Those "kidnappings" you mention, again, haven't happened during the last say 15 years, so, once again: nowadays, terrorism in the Basque country=ETA, but I do not say that you do have to admit that, you could, but only if you wanted to. Mountolive 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not true. Arbitrary detentions with torture are still common.

La coordinadora Gesto por la Paz de Euskadi ha reclamado de los "poderes públicos" una "condena sin reservas" de la tortura, al tiempo que ha recordado que el indulto o la condecoración de policías condenados por malos tratos va en sentido contrario a la "deslegitimación social" de esas prácticas. (El País, 29-03-2003)

Translation: Gesto Por la Paz of Euskadi has claimed tho the public powers a rejection without reserves of torture, while it has also reminded that the pardon or condecoration of policemen condemned as authors of abuses is against the social deslegitimation of such practices.

I believe that Gesto por la Paz is quite neutral, as they were the first one to demonstrate against ETA but have been lately sidelined in favor of more militant one-sided groups as the Foro de Ermua because they are just too honest and balanced to both sides.

More direct information can be found in Torturaren Aurkako Taldeak (Groups Against Torture):

(Nov 2005) Aitor Larreta denounces to have been beaten and applied "the bag" (torture consisting in putting a plastic bag around your head and cutting the air flow, making the victim feel axphisia once and again).

(Dec 2005) Two youths of Pamplona arbitrarily arrested in a police charge and leave with bruises and injuries that require staples (and no charges).

(May 2006) Sandra Barrenetxea arrested, tortured and left free without charges: «Me enrollaron en un colchón, desnuda, me pusieron de nuevo la bolsa en la cabeza y me amenazaron con los electrodos. Me echaban agua por encima y me ponían un cable en la mano, y me decían...» (They roll a mattress around me, naked, they put again the bag on my head and threatened with using the electrodes. They threw water on me and put a cbale in my hand, and they said...).

(Jul 2006) Arantxa Díaz Villar (member of PCE(r), linked to GRAPO) denounces tortures in simmilar fashion as above.

And there is a ceasefire! You are from Spain and know nothing of what happens here. Here we all know someone who has been arbitrarily arrested and (often) tortured. It's not something of 15 years ago, it's something that may well be happening now in that police station just round the corner. Even the director of Egunkaria (a media whose only criminal acivity was to publish in Basque) was tortured!

I must also remind you that the wide majority of the Basque Country (at least Western Basque Country, that has 2/3 of the population) is nationalist and votes nationalist. Batsuna alone represents 1 out of 6 or 7 voting Basques, including Navarrese. You have no right to disqualify that way the democratic choice of my nation. --Sugaar 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we have arrived sooner than I thought to the “you are from Spain and know nothing of what happens here” line…I’m afraid being called that by a die hard Basque nationalist in this context does not sound like a good start anyways…In any case, it gives me the occasion to mention here a widespread attitude I have recorded over the years amongst die hard Basque nationalists (fortunately there are also understanding Basque nationalists), which is quite note worthy:

1.- If you support their claims and you are foreign, then you are ok and understanding: a reasonable guy, a democrat who is worth listening to.

2.- If you don’t support their claims, then you are a “Spanish nationalist” (if Spanish at all) or brainwashed by Spanish propaganda (if foreign). Moreover, if you not only fail to support their claims but you are even against them, then you are commonly upgraded to a “fascist”, period.

3.- If you try to keep NPOV but do not refrain to emphasize that the main problem nowadays in the Basque country is ETA (for self government covers now virtually every aspect of the public life, it has been run by Basque nationalism during the last 25 years in a row, economy and employment are good, the standards of living high) then it’s when you are likely to hear the “you are not from here and you know nothing of what happens here” line.

It does not matter in this regard whether for example you were a political scientist and you earned your Ph.D. in federalism or if you managed to read and (almost) understand say Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. No, it does not matter : you are just “not from (t)here” and, accordingly, you have nothing to say about what goes on there (unless, of course, you are within 1.- then it is fine if you are not from there).

Apparently this guideline seems inspired by the same “rationale” behind, for example, the South African apartheid social support: when they were attacked from international instances, a fair amount of the afrikaner populace replied that “you must be born here and live here to understand what’s going on here”.

For not to mention that this guideline does not match well an open encyclopaedia, does it? No, not at all.

Once this is said (sorry for the rather long intro but I thought it was needed), you may want to remember that in several “instructions manual for the ETA member” found amongst ETA’s members belongings when detained, it was clearly stated something like “in the event of detention, then claim torture by the Guardia Civil” and this has proven a usual procedure by some of the detainees.

Of course tortures can happen, but for you it seems enough that the detainee claims it, while for me I need a judicial indictment and process proving it, which I think has not happen, once again –sorry to insist- during the last approx. 15 years.

To this the typical Basque nationalist around Batasuna’s finger may “argue” that “Spanish courts are not reliable, etc, etc” paying no mind to the fact that Spain is compliant with the European standards in human rights (probably the highest), detentions, etc. But this does not matter to them. No, for them it does matter that the terrorist who was caught claimed tortures, even if (s)he and her/his lawyer couldn’t prove anything and is likely that they are following the group's instructions for the event.

As for you being partial for “Gesto por la paz” instead of “Foro de Ermua”, well, I guess your reasons (“they are too honest and thus have been sidelined” ¿?¿?) leave little-to-none space to debate (I thought you can’t possibly be “too honest”, just honest or not honest and I guessed that the “too honest” would be backed, not sidelined just because of their übermensch honesty, wouldn’t they?). In any case, even people who are “from (t)here” may agree that Gesto por la Paz is quite close to the nationalist side but…hey, I’m sorry if by mentioning this I am making you angry or something..

Last but not least, it makes me quite sad that line “You have no right to disqualify that way the democratic choice of my nation” ¿?¿? Excuse me, but, when did I “disqualify” the democratic choice of your nation? Was it when I said that those who claim that tortures are still going on are mostly people close to Batasuna and a few PNVers? ok, maybe I forgot some also within Ezker Batua but in any case I’m sorry if I touched a sensitive spot by saying that because, actually, I am all for the democratic choice of your nation, mate.

However, democratic choice and ETA do not travel well together. I won’t mix ETA with the democratic choice of your nation: if you do, that’s your own business, but please don’t tell me which are my rights and what is democracy: I know these already and, on the other side, you may not be the most proper person to do so.

Anyway, in order to close this matter -for good if possible- let me just quote someone (I forgot whom): “we say that someone else has ‘clear ideas’ when the confusion degree of his ideas is similar to our own”. I guess the relative confusion degrees of our (yours and mine) respective ideas are greatly apart, but, hey: it would be nice if you would not pontificate and try to teach what is “honest”, what is “merciful” and, specially, please-please, what is “biased” or what is “emphatically one sided” to quote some of your (increasingly self righteous sounding) vocabulary: it just won’t work with me.

So, before you type, please think twice whether you feel yourself “on a mission” here in wikipedia: if you do, then it could be best if you waited for a while, until you feel less enlightened and thus worthier for wikipedia’s purpose, which is not about trying to force the political stances of the abertzale here and made them go like The Truth: that may be good for “(t)here” but this is English wikipedia, man.

Please refrain from that, because I am not going to buy it just because you say it or because you are “from (t)here”: I want to form my own opinions with the sources I deem reasonable or most fair and people around here also should, if you may. Even if these are not yours.

If this is not convincing enough, please refrain from pontificating if only because this talk page will get even longer due to our futile correspondence.

Thanks.Mountolive 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

I removed:

However, the territories which were deemed as "loyal" during the Civil War to the Franco uprising were allowed after his victory to keep their medieval fueros and with them some degree of self government. These were Álava and Navarre where Basque nationalists mostly sided Franco, who was seen as a leader to bring order to the chaotic and violent Spanish political situation at the time, especially in terms of anticlericalism and violence against the Catholic Church, which were strongly repudiated by both Franco and the Basque nationalists. Reversely, Biscay and Guipuscoa were considered "rebellious" for having sided Republican Spain during the Civil War and therefore saw their fueros abrogated by the Francoist regime.

The position of Basque nationalists in Alava and Navarre doesn't seem very relevant to me (I have been unable to find their number or share of votes in the 1936 election, but I guess they were not many.)

Not really. PNV is an important force in Araba, specially in the countryside (Vitoria-Gasteiz is less nationalistic and weights a lot). In Navarre the main nationalist political force is Batasuna, which is the third force (or used to be before it was banned from running). --Sugaar 21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant in 1936. --Error 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The political situation in the early 20th century was more complex with different local political groups alligned as "liberal", "carlist", "nationalist" and "socialist". All were for some level of self rule but, except the nationalists. all had some sort of ties with Spain.

In 1931 the four provinces (that had still their provincial parliaments and governments, even if these had lost most of their attributions) created by wide majority a joint comission that asked to Eusko Ikaskuntza (a cultural entity) to create an statute of autonomy for the whole Southern Basque Country.

In 1932 there was a large assembly of the representatives of the four provinces in Pamplona to vote the proposal. A wide majority of the municipalities of Navarre (and the other three provinces) had supported it in preliminary local votes (only Tudela was clearly oppossed). The delegates of the municipalities of the four provinces had a mandate for the joint statute in that assembly but there was a manipulation lead by the Radical Socialist mayor of Doneztebe, Azarola, who pressured the delegates to abstain (against their mandate). The resulting distorted vote left Navarre out of the joint statute against the will of the Navarrese people.

If you are thinking in that the fact that Araba and Navarre fell on the fascist side has anything to do with the percentage of nationalist vote, you are wrong. There was no military uprising in Bilbao (the local commanders remained loyal) and if the uprising in St. Sebastian was contained this was thanks to Anarchists (see Felix Likiniano), not to Nationalists, who were not knowing what to do initially. It was CNT which stopped the uprisings in Madrid, Barcelona and St. Sebasian, and that was possible because these areas had a large working class organized. Navarre and Araba had came to become mostly agricultural territories and had no social classes that could opposse the military coup (apart of Carlists supporting it, specially in Navarre).

But anyhow, this belongs to History of the Basque Country, not to the ETA article.

It may be important in the PNV or Basque nationalism articles but not in this one. Also, the self-government was not medieval. It had been updated after the Carlist wars. --Error 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Basque nationalism is basically the latter shape of Carlism, this can be easily be noted after realizing that the traditional Carlist territories in the Basque Country and Navarre are now strongholds of the Basque nationalism while Carlism has virtually vanished in an inverse proportion to the rise of Basque nationalism.

I guess the break even point of Carlism turning into Basque nationalism may be during the Franco era, when Carlism was to some extent embraced by the Franco regime and, as a reaction movement, Marxism was brought by the early ETA members to distinguish themselves from the ruling ideology in the central government. Once this is said, I guess your last version reflects a better account of the story (even though I don't think it was a minor edit, but this is a minor question indeed).

However, I may come back and make some reference to the fueros, since Basque nationalism has relied on this as the cornerstone to their ideology. The fact that present day self government is based in the medieval fueros is not either good nor bad, is just a fact which Basque nationalists state often.

What do you think of reducing the lenght of the article by puting most of the "history" section elsewhere? I think it would make the article much more easy to read and more compliant with wikipedia guidelines. Mountolive 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In the civil war, PNVers and Carlists were shooting at each other, although after 1937 some gudaris were pressed into Carlist Tercios. I don't think that Carlism or Fueros are very relevant to ETA. That is more a PNV thing. ETA was more about self-determination and working class. --Error 20:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, ETA, as a Basque nationalist organization is not alien to the Fueros question at all since these have been sanctified by Basque nationalism as one of their cornerstones. However, since I am all for reducing the size of this article I have only made an "internal linking" or whatever this is called in wikipedian to the word "fueros" for those who want to know more about the less beautiful picture (for PNV) of some Basque nationalists preferring, as the lesser evil, Franco to the Spanish Republic.

As for Carlists and PNVers shooting at each other, well, you know that quarrels between brothers are the worse, aren't they? and this kind of incidents weren't common anyway.

Do you think ETA is over? because you say it was about self determination? I think, along with Lenny Kravitz, that It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfmEk5vCWvw ...as for its supposed commitment to the working class...well, it is pretty rhetorical coming from an organization most present in the rural countryside...

The Goiherri, if you mean that, is not just rural countryside: it is a rural-industrial area. But anyhow, ETA members and supporters come from all the country and even there have been some foreigners. --Sugaar 09:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. Mountolive 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I meant is that ETA's stronghold is not in San Sebastian, Bilbao or Vitoria but out of the major cities. I guess we can find some middle ground between you and I by saying that their presence is most felt in small to medium cities (not exactly rural environment) which, not surprisingly, is where the particular alienation feeling which triggers nationalism can be felt the most. I mean the clash between a supposedly idilic past vs. Modern Life Is Rubbish Mountolive 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't really know. I'd say there's no specific "stronghold". I mentioned the Goiherri because it was mentioned in old articles in Basque press as one of the areas where ETA recruited more. If you measure by sympathies, maybe reflected in votes to Batasuna, they are very balanced across the country. Of course, the primary Basque-speaking areas tend to be more nationalist overall, and these are rural. Cities are more plural and have more immigrantion too. --Sugaar 21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you mean "you can't really know" ¿? Mountolive 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant both. I meant that you don't seem to know nor have the means to find out (neither do I). --Sugaar 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

so is this that inextricable? I thought, for example, that simply by looking at where exactly the ETA members come from it would be possible to get a good idea where its support is larger..looking at where historically Batasuna has obtained its best results would also give some reference in the matter, but I guess I am pretty much an ignorant anyway.. Mountolive 19:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You could do that. Maybe even it has been done by someone at some point. But I don't know of such studies. All I can say is that Batasuna's votes have been quite homogenously divided through the four provinces (maybe somehow less in Araba and more in Gipuzkoa, probably in relation with the proportion of native Basque-speakers).

There are a number of towns where Batasuna used to be majoritary quite regularly (before being banned from running) but these go from widely Basque-speaking fishing towns of Lekeitio and Ondarroa to the mainly Spanish-speaking industrial town of Laudio (Llodio) in Araba. There's much of local sociology and local political history in all that. In Navarre, for instance, Batasuna was (is but can't run) the main nationalist party with quite a difference, with former majorities in towns and villages of the Basque-speaking area but also in Cortes, in the Spanish-speaking Erribera (if I don't recall badly).

It had representation in nearly every municipality, what can't be said of Spanish-unionist parties (PP and PSOE, that here compete for about the same electorate), very much restricted to urban areas and Navarre.

After all this is a very small country, where near everybody knows each other somehow. What happens in Bergara or Altsasu is not alien to what happens in Bilbao or Tudela.

Maybe you would find more native Basque-speakers among ETA members, just because of the obvious connection between love for Basque language/identity and nationalism. But this is very fluid. I know "purebreed" Basques that have unionist feelings and a lot of integrated descendants of immigrants that are strongly nationalist, maybe partly because of the more radical leftist component that is in that bloc (their labor union, LAB, has been rising a lot and gaining fame as one of the few unions that deserves respect for their combativity and seriousness).

It's complex and ethnic/linguistic background is just part of the equation. After all each one choses for his/her own reasons.

I must remind here that before the massacre of Hypercor, the Basque Nationalist Left had some support through all Spain: Txema Montero (HB) got elected for the European parlament with many votes from outside the Basque Country, the strikers in Cartagena waved ikurriñas to provoke the Guardia Civil, etc. --Sugaar 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who becomes an ETA member?

If you are interested in what kind of people joins ETA, Miren Alcedo "Profesora de Antropología Social en la Universidad del País Vasco" published Militar en ETA ISBN 84-88947-49-6 , a book based on interviews with ETA members until the end of the 1980s. I have not read it, though. I found an article Experiencias de vida de los militantes de ETA with the disappointing sentence: Es imposible lo que tal vez gustaría a algunos: elaborar un retrato-robot del etarra.; and another, Mujeres de ETA: la cuestión del género en la clandestinidad. I guess that the modern ETA "soldier" is in some aspects different from the elders: they come from the street violence and are less educated both militarily and politically. But I may be parroting prejudices. --Error 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Culture

"The Basques consider their culture distinct from those of their neighbours" was recently edited to "ETA consider their culture distinct from those of their neighbours". This seems weird to me: it is not ETA's culture that is claimed to be distinct from that of their neighbours (who would presumably mostly be other Basques); it is Basque culture. At the very least, this should be "ETA consider Basque culture distinct from those of their neighbours", but I would suggest "Basque nationalists consider Basque culture distinct from those of their neighbours." - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add that this view is hardly confined to Basqu nationalists. Franco would never have made such an assault on Basque culture if he considered it fundamentally Spanish. - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Some people (Spanish nationalists) seem to like to identify all Basque cultural and sociological concepts as ETA's ideas. A simple look at history shows that ETA has some 40 years, while the Basque People has been here for milennia.

These Spanish naionalists without mercy nor self-criticism are of little use to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia.

Did you revert? Else, I will. --Sugaar 21:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to the first proposal by Jmabel. --Error 23:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ETA's aims

I've changed:

That an independent socialist government be created in the Basque-inhabited areas of Spain and France.

by this:

That the southern Basque Country (under Spanish adminastritaion) achieves the right to self-determination

Maybe in the first period they publicily claimed a socialist government (in line with the Cold War European "red urban guerrillas"), but it's not the case anymore (since long ago). --Sugaar 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When did they change? Certainly in the 1970s they specifically advocated socialism, and we should mention that, as well as mention when things changed, if that can be documented. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This was already (kind of) there; I've tried to clarify a little. - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little uncertain but while I remember in the early 80s to have read stuff about the "K.A.S. alternative" promoting a Basque Socialist government. Soon such emphasis vanished and self-determination was the main claim. This would be consolidated with the Democratic alternative, but it actually was done by Batasuna (or Herri Batasuna), not by ETA itself (the same that the KAS alternative was something of the KAS bloc to which, at least nominally, ETA did not belong to). The KAS alternative anyhow was more complex than just two points.

Following, the Basque Wikipedia article [2], the KAS alternative claimed the following:

• Democratic freedoms
• Freedom for political prisioners (including ETA members, obviously)
• Dissolution of the (Spanish) state opressive police forces
• Legalization of all political parties (notice that HASI, ETA's political counterpart, was ilegal, acting electorally inside Herri Batasuna, then a coalition, not a single party)
• Improvement of the living conditions of the working class
• Acceptance of Basque Country's sovereignity (this is simmilar to self-determination)
• Change of regime towards a wider autonomy for the Southern Basque Country

As noted in the article, these points were often rewritten in panphlets or political writings to simplified forms. While ETA and KAS (the Patriotic Socialist Coordinator) did (and still do) consider themselves socialist and claimed at times a Socialist government for the Basque Country, it doesn't seem this was their central claim ever.

Maybe it's interesting to state the seven points of the KAS alternative in the article or in a separate article linked from this one (and that on the Basque National Liberation Movement). --Sugaar 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Victims of violence

• "Random civilians, including children (collateral casualties)." Can we really say that random civilians have been only "collateral" victims? What about the Hipercor bombing? - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hypercor bombing was announced with plenty of time. Police made a search and apparently found nothing (some think, specially in the Basque Country, that they allowed it to happen intentionately, precisely because many Catalans had sympathies for ETA). They decided not to evaquate the center and there was a massacre. It's clear that ETA didn't intend to cause a massacre but to blow an empty Hypercor: it was an economic objective.

More arguable can be the attack on several civilian workers for the Spanish Army that took place in the periphery of Madrid in the 90s (I think). Or the indiscriminate attacks against foreign turists that took place in some coastal locations of the Valencian Country some years ago. These have been directed against civilians, though, in the ETA discourse, it can be argued that they are somehow a military and an economic objective. In any case, I believe they are the only cases, so they should be treated with some exception. --Sugaar 01:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A-ha! so after all has been said and done actually it could be that the Spanish police (those evil people) "allowed (the massacre) to happen"....I see....and "some think, specially in the Basque Country, that they allowed it to happen intentionately, precisely because many Catalans had sympathies for ETA" I guess you meant "some think -mostly within the ETA supporters-", didn't you?, and.....those "many" supporters in Catalonia... well...how much is many? 200, 2,000 or 2,000,000?.

The saddest part is that "it is clear that ETA didn't intend a massacre"...so....did they tell you or something? if they did, next time you could please tell them that the best way to set clear that you do not intend a massacre is not to place a huge bomb in a mall and explode it, no matter how much "plenty of time" you may use to "announce" it...

By the way, please don't forget the bombings in the residential buildings of the Guardia Civil, where these live along with their families (you know, children, spouses, grand parents...) ETA's explosive devices can't tell a Guardia Civil from his/her daughter or grandfather and so they seem to be ready to accept as many civilians dead as it takes, right? Actually one of their latest bombings (the one in the Guardia Civil premises+residential in Santa Pola) killed a little girl living there and an elderly who was walking in the streets, correct me if I am wrong.

But, wait a minute...is it really you the same guy who was writing in this talk page just three days ago about those "Spanish naionalists without mercy nor self-criticism are of little use to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia"?? or is it someone that took your nick in order to make you sound like a Basque nationalist without mercy nor self-criticism of little use to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia??

You may want to check this one. Thanks. Mountolive 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that Basque and Catalan nationalisms are sympathetic of each other. As discussed in other sections of this discussion page, HB Europarlamentary Txema Montero got many votes outside the Basque Country, specially in Catalonia. This was before Hypercor bombing, of course.

ETA releases regular communicaions, particularly after attacks, and they said so. Check the press of those dates.

The police relatives are mentioned in their corresponding line. Anyhow this is the old argument on why police headquarters are also their residences and why Guardia Civiles are not allowed to unionize and therefore ask for improvements in their living conditions.

From the viewpoint of ETA (and many others) only the Spanish government and the command line of the Guardia Civil (a branch of the Army) is resposible of putting the policemen's families as human shields against attacks. If they lived out of military quarters, they would not be afefcted directly by these war actions that are explictly intended against military targets. --

What I mean is that it's tiresome that Spaniards are always mingling in Basque affairs, from their strongly biased viewpoint, of course. My comparison with Turks and the Armenian or Kurdish issues is not far fetched. --Sugaar 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

International links

There have been some recent changes in this section. These were significant, so I figured they should not pass without remark (as they have until now).

The following was removed: "Because of its allegiance to Marxist ideas, ETA has in the past been sponsored by communist regimes such as Cuba, as well as by Libya and Lebanon." It was uncited. Referring to "sponsorship" of a violent organization like this should certainly require citation, so I agree with the removal, pending citation.

The following was added: "Several ex-militants were sent from France through Panama to reside in Cuba after an agreement of the government of Felipe González with the Cuban one. The US Department of State has no information on their possible terrorist activities on Cuban territory." That is a bit clumsily worded and I will copy edit. The citations seem solid; I'm not sure why we are bothering to state that the U.S. "has no information on their possible terrorist activities on Cuban territory." What makes the absence of this news? And "their possible terrorist activities on Cuban territory" suggests that there is a likelihood of such activities but that the U.S. lacks documentation. Is there any reason not to say "does not report any evidence of any ETA terrorist activities on Cuban territory." - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's been some comments, see above in Foreign contacts section.

I was the one who removed the paragraph you mention because it was unsourced, unclear and sounded to one-sided propaganda. Calling the Lebanese government "communist" was totally out of place, in any case.

It was someone else who added the lines you mention but they seem enough NPOV and sourced to me. So I did not intervene.

I think the comment on Cuba is justified in the sense of clarifying that the ETA members that are exiled there are not engaged in militant activities but they are there in virtue of agreements including Spain (as there have been ETA militants in the Dominican Republic, Cape Verde or Algeria with the agreement of Spain - guess they serve as communication channel). Also, considering that all these issues are used to throw accusations on this or that group or government, the remark is not really out of place, I beleive. --Sugaar 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "no news is news" part comes from the fact that I found allegations about "secret services" informing about ETA activities in Cuba. The US DoS has no evidence but may suspect as shown by the explicit comment possible activities. It is left up to the reder to ascertain what the real activities of ETA members in Cuba are. If we say that there is nothing we are going beyond the DoS, if we say there is something we are also going beyond.

However, if anyone can get a reference from an official source like CNI or British Secret Service, it should be included.

One of the issues in the pages I googled was that while there are ETA members in Cuba officially, some commenters say that there are other clandestine ones either living or passing by. I even read somewhere that the "locals" made the "visitors"' Cuban experience difficult for some reason. Since I found no serious references, I have left only the official Cuban version.

--Error 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revamping of Tactics and Government Response sections

I've been editing these two sections.

In the case of tactics I have separated targets and means (tactics properly sepaking), going into more detail when needed. I've also retouched some POV statements in the victims subsection.

In the case of Government Response, I've edited only the last paragraph that was heavily POV and ill-documented. I have added the whole list of judicial procedures associated to the 18/98 case (closing of Egin newspaper) with corresponding links (sadly in Spanish). --Sugaar 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is redundancy between Targets and victims. --Error 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes those redundancies Error mentions are particularly blatant. And I keep thinking that this article does need to be shortened instead of enlarged, also as per wikipedia guidelines. In this regard, the parts which have proved more stable and consolidated should not be significantly changed, leaving the changes/additions -if there still had to be- for the more controversial or ongoing sections.

Thus I stand for reverting to the older, consolidated, version; however Sugaar used a fair amount of work here and Error fine tuned it for good in his usual fashion: still, in my humble opinion the older, consolidated, version should be put back in place.

In the meantime, Sugaar maybe could work on an as much reduced as possible edit, if he still finds it strictly necessary, but working on the existing as draft instead of adding a whole new lot which, on the other side, is at times a duplication of existing information and does not really add much.

Does this make any sense? Mountolive 04:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I know that they are redundant but I didn't dare to erase the victims sub-section, as it may hurt sensibilities. Yet, it may be a good idea to do it. Still some victims are targets and some are colateral victims (relatives of Guardia Civiles living in police stations, random civilians caught in a car-bomb explosion, local policemen killed when persecuting an ETA cell...).

In any case, the old format wasn't consolidated: it was a true mess (check history). This at least gives some structure to the section. Maybe the victims section should say something like: "apart of the explicit targets (see above), there have been colateral victims", followed by most representative examples/types.

I'll wait for some discussion to make further edits to that section (hope Mountolive does too). --Sugaar 12:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some copy edits, but there is, indeed, a lot of redundancy within the tactics section. We should move the listed victims into the more general discussion of targets, as examples.

Also, the way this is written suggests a continuing division of ETA (m) and ETA (pm). I thought that split was rather brief: a couple of years around 1980, with ETA (pm) eventually mostly going into aboveground nationalist politics and the remnant of it rejoining ETA (m), and again simply being known as ETA. - Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Imprisoning or processing", etc.

1. "at times, imprisoning or processing some of its leaders": "processing" here makes no sense; I'd guess that it is a false cognate for the Spanish proceso, "trial". So does this mean "at times, imprisoning some of its leaders or placing them on trial"? Or does it mean something else? - Jmabel | Talk

Right. Wording error: isn't there an English shorter term than "putting them on trial"? --Sugaar 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In this context, not really. In some contexts "trying" will do, but "at times, imprisoning or trying some of its leaders" doesn't work well ("trying" has too many other senses). - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2. The following was cut; what was wrong with it?

closing Herri Batasuna's party pubs that served as a social locus for the Basque left and whose income were proven to be partially diverted to ETA related activities, closing the newspaper Egin for the same reason and imprisoning the editor of its "investigative unit" for similar reasons. The Spanish Supreme Court and the tribunals in Europe have validated the actions of the government against ETA's support net. The pubs that were closed collected money for ETA and were in some cases used to store weapons. Many imprisoned members of HB or Jarrai had dual membership in ETA and its political branches, sentenced for assisting in ETA attacks or collecting ETA's blackmail.

- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It was redudant with other edits. Also:

the tribunals in Europe have validated the actions of the government against ETA's support net is POV, unsourced and/or imprecise

The pubs that were closed collected money for ETA and were in some cases used to store weapons is POV and based in no judicial sentence (there have actually been no guilty sentences in all that series of trials), just assuming "guilty before proven innocent", as Spanish press and Spanish unionists usually do. Also only two or three unlucky "pubs" (we call them "taverns": taberna or, in these cases associated to organizations, generically "social centers" - clubs?) were closed. The rest remain open so far.

Many imprisoned members of HB or Jarrai had dual membership in ETA and its political branches, sentenced for assisting in ETA attacks or collecting ETA's blackmail. The same: it's based only in accusations, not sentences (nor any serious evidence). Additionally it's vague, unsourced and defamatory. --Sugaar 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Incomprehensible sentence "A related developement is the judicial process 18/98, initiated by the polemic judge Baltasar Garzon, that pretends to expand enormously the scope of what is membership or association with ETA". Other that the misspelling of "development" (easily fixed):

1. "judicial process"? Again, I'm sure, proceso = "trial", but I still don't understand, and the number doesn't help any with no clear context.
2. "polemic judge" makes no sense at all.
3. "that pretends to expand enormously" Again I'd guess pretende = "attempts", but I still don't see what is being said. "Pretends" is certainly wrong. But who or what, exactly, is making this attempt?

The whole portion of the article following this is almost equally incomprehensible. And I say this as a person who knows both the Spanish language (relevant because of the use of false cognates) and Spanish politics far better than most English speakers. So I doubt there are many people who are going to be able to work through this and get much from it. - Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the "process" thing. I will correct it.

Polemic judge may be POV. But Garzón is defintively polemic because:

1- He was politician for a short period, elected as PSOE "independent" but soon detached as he was sidelined when naming the new goverment (he wanted to be Minister of Justice). He resigned as MP and retook his judicial career, initiating a the GAL trial against many PSOE politicians, among others.

2- He initiated several "innovative" international trials against Latin American former dictators (including Pinochet) that had little direct consequences.

3- He was the one that started all this witch-hunt against Basque political and cultural organizations.

He's not just another judge... he has earned a name for himself with quite curious (to say the least) and politically oriented judicial procedures (is "procedure" good English? - guess so).

Who's making this attempt? (the judicial procedure (the judicial machinery, if you wish) "intends", rather than "attempts"), again sorry about confusing words. --Sugaar 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Polemic" in English is a noun. It is the opposite of "apologia". That is, a polemic is a tract or speech against something. So whatever you want to say here, "polemic" is not the word. And "polemical" (the adjective) still does not carry the meaning of what you have above. In any case, he retains his position as a judge, and the fact that you personally appear to have a low opinion of him has no place in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial" is the correct term. If you think it's too POV and adds no useful information for the reader, just edit it. But he is controversial, anyhow. --Sugaar 11:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

4. "robs some 300 short weapons": what is a "short weapon"? A pistol? or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Pistols and revolvers (they stole both). In this case I think the term is correct, as "gun" may mean so many things. "Short guns" maybe better? Please feel free to correct my English errors, that I hope are not always as many as in this specific edit. --Sugaar 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Handgun. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Sugaar 11:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This basically works. One further thing: "A trial against…" is a bit awkward in English. Were the charges criminal? If so, perhaps "The prosecution of…" Another possibility is "The trial of…" - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about the 18/98 procedure and derived ones, I guess. The charges are criminal, of course: belonging to or collaboration with armed band (or "terrorist organization", not sure which is the legal term now). No one has been convicted so far but the consequences are far from small: companies ruined, people arrested and sometimes tortured, political or socio-cultural organizations dismantled, newspapers closed, preventive prision in some cases too, unrepresentative elections, etc. All the procedures are followed in the special political court Audiencia Nacional, that is in Madrid, some 400-500 km away where these people live and work (if they still have a job). The trials go on for years and years...

I think the term "against" describes well what are these trials: they are not prosecuting individual people anymore for their presumed crimes but using trials as political weapons against a very extense and diffuse sector of Basque society that some judge decided in a voluminous but empty summary that were connected to ETA.

If we use the preposition "of" it seems that is a civil procedure or something where one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. This is not the case: the activities of these organizations (be them newspapers, cultural NGOs or political organizations) are totally supressed until proven innocent.

For example ORAIN S.A., the owner of Egin was recently restored in their ability to manage itself.. but could only plea bankrupticy obviously, after so many years of clausure. No judge ruled to protect the rights of the workers, creditors or the right of free press... only reason of state is considered here.

Meanwhile the trials continue year after year... with very few resolutions, all "not guilty" (so far - but if they could not convict Jarrai, a-legal organization typically associated with the kale borroka, I doubt they can in any of the other cases). Many people are accussed of promoting civil disobedience... in connivence with ETA - you can imagine. It's a witch-hunt.

Also consider the context in which those procedures are listed: a secion dealing with the reaction of the Spanish government (and associated bodies) against ETA.

So I do think that the term "against" is very appropiate. They are bringing charges against these people and organisms and forcing them to go through very difficult times. The term "of" sounds too soft like if it was a civil litige of the sort of a divorce. Like if nothing was affected until sentence is issued. That's not the case at all. --Sugaar 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may think the preposition "against" appropriate, but the fact remains that in English, "prosecution" and "trial" normally take "of", not "against". It's not absolute, but the Google test on "trial of" vs. "trial against" shows it to be about 30 times more common, and the Google test on "prosecution of" vs. "prosecution against" shows it to be about 8 times more common. "Trial of" and "prosecution of" carry no connotation of a specifically civil matter. Looking at the Google results will make that instantly clear. Understand, I am not arguing about the substance of what you are saying about a guilt-by-association witch hunt, just about English-language usage. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Political support

I find this section quite POV and somewhat faulty:

The political party Batasuna, formerly known as Euskal Herritarrok and "Herri Batasuna", now banned as a terrorist organization, pursues the same political goals as ETA. It has generally received between 10 and 20% of the vote in the Basque areas of Spain. Obviously not just Batasuna pursues the same political goals as ETA, all nationalist parties do (PNV, EA, Aralar, etc.). The difference is that, while other parties openly and routinely reject ETA's violence, Batasuna considers that ETA is a symptom and not the root problem and rejects to fulfill the (now legal) imposition of formally "condemning" their violence (nobody is obligued to condemn torture, GAL, Franco's dictatorship, etc. Franco's statues are still visible in many Spanish cities and towns, 31 years after his death). They claim that their aim is to solve the problem by political means but that, while Spanish legal frame (constitution) does not provide for the right to self-determination of peoples like the Basque one, the problem will be there one way or another - what is quite realistic, actually.

In practice this means that most people who support ETA do vote to Batasuna (though I know of many that prefer less radical options) and that some of its members may have some links to ETA (speculatively, only proven in very few cases). But the current wording is very POV.

Also the more precise figures of electoral support are 12-18%, quite homogeneously in all four provinces, being Batasuna the main nationalist party of Navarre and the third major electoral choice in this province, where "soft" nationalism is rather weak.

Also the rest of the text is redundant with the Government Response section. It focus uniquely in Batasuna and related political parties, ignoring all the ETA-KAS hypothesis of judge Garzon and, with it, all other related organizations that are not part of Batasuna like: KAS suppossed member organizations: HASI (defunct political party that merged into Batasuna but was separate in HB), Jarrai (and successor orgaziations: youth's patriotic movement), labor-union LAB (not put to trial but suppossedly also a KAS organization), etc. Also it ignores other historical supporters like Euskadiko Ezkerra (that eventually merged with PSOE), ANV (the oldest left Basque-nationalist party, steady member of HB-EH-Batasuna, but a separate organization), etc. It ignores as well other entities that have been accussed by the Spanish anti-terror tribunals of being linked to ETA, often very polemically, like the closed media, the Herriko Tabernak (that are each one ruled by a separate "cultural" organization, and often do not even bear that name, present in nearly every town and neighbourhood through the southern Basque Country), etc.

It also ignores the, most important, prohibition for a number of local canddatures (judicially linked to Batasuna) to run in the municipal and provincial elections of 2003, what has left some towns ruled by parties that otherwise would have been a tiny minority and distorted completely popular representation in nearly all municipalities (a few candidatures seem to have skipped this judicial attack against democracy).

It needs a throughout review. --Sugaar 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. PNV, at least, is not an explicitly independentist party. And if ETA wants a socialist state, PNV and EA don't. --Error 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd had to check Euskobarómetro but I think that there was an important lot of Batasuna voters who did not support ETA or violence. That makes you think how they perceive the rest of parties. --Error 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-placed your replies at the bottom of the section (in chronological order). Hope you don't mind. I've been scolded for doing as you did and don't anymore.

PNV is independentist, at least in the sense of claiming self-determination, and nationalist. It's moderate enough (and corrupt enough, I'd add) to play the political game as circustances allow. It's bases are probably more independentist that the leadership but PNV has always managed to have some figurehead that would look as sufficiently "radical" as to keep their voters satisfied with their discourse. EA is self-defined as Social-Democrat, and is more markedly independentist than PNV. The question of socialism is rather trivial nowadays, don't you think? What's "socialism": the right wing "socialdemocrats" of Portugal? the welfare state promoted by Christian-Democrats like PNV? It's mostly discursive: of where in the left-right political scale one stands. Nobody is claiming to Euskal Herria a new Soviet Union (though Chávez, Morales or the Zapatistas may be more in the line of the kind of "socialism" that can be in the imaginary of the Nationalist Left). Whatever the case it's pretty irrelevant as the main divide of Basque politics is unionism-nationalism.

On the Eurskobarometro, first of all, I must say that I don't know how can you reply to a telephone poll saying that you do support ETA. It is a crime and you can be persecuted and jailed for years for that reason, at least in theory.

Second, the last phase of ETA's activity has been very divisive with a jump towards civilian targets (local politicians specially) and of course the Spanish and Basque-unionist media (that dominate the Basque mediatic scene) have made a lot of "noise" on all that. Maybe some support historically ETA and not the current line. But, while there was a pacifist/liquidacionist break-up in Batasuna (Aralar), they gathered rather few votes.

I really don't know how can you not support ETA (one way or another, with all the shades you want) and vote for Batasuna. I know instead of people that do support ETA and would never vote to Batasuna out of pragmatism and conservatism. Their discourse is something like "ETA is right (because there's no democratic way to achieve independence) but these people of Batasuna are too radical/leftist". I don't understand it but I know it does exist.

On the other hand, Batasuna does not explictly support ETA either. They just reject to fall in the arguably hypocrital discourse of condemning violence without looking at what causes it (Spanish historical invasion of the Basque Country and the systematic denial of self-determination, plus some specially dark periods like the fascist dictatorship that marked up to four generations). Batasuna claims that the conflict must be solved by asking the Basque people and accepting what it decides, what is basically what a clear majority (at least in the BAC) says (all but PSOE and PP). --Sugaar 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On PNV, AFAIK, post-Transition PNV has never run on a program of independentism nor it is part of its bylaws. Self-determination is not necessarily independentism, Ezker Batua supports self-det but is for federalism. Even so, in a quick glance of their site I don't find a clear reference for self-det as an ideological basis.

I have updated the Euskobarómetro article. It is personal interviews (There is a warning: Las especiales dificultades del trabajo de campo, por el rechazo creciente a las entrevistas por parte de un sector de ciudadanos, han podido producir un ligero sesgo (de, al menos, 5 puntos) a favor de las opciones de la mayoría nacionalista en el País Vasco. ) Apparently, either the questions are subtle or some questionees are not afraid. In last one:

Las opiniones de apoyo remoto, sea de los que piensan que antes estaba justificada la violencia de ETA pero ahora ya no (17%), sea de los que comparten los fines pero no los métodos violentos (13%), se mantienen estables, destacando entre los que se sienten nacionalistas (42%) y la mayoría gubernamental.

Sin embargo, a pesar de su menor significación estadística, lo más llamativo sigue siendo la práctica desaparición del apoyo explícito y total (0,9%) ---- localizado casi en exclusiva en Guipúzcoa ----, incluido en el electorado de EHAK (7%), así como la reducción a solo dos puntos de la justificación crítica de los que apoyan a ETA reconociendo sus errores, que solo es mantenida por algo más de uno de cada diez (12%) de los votantes de EHAK. Hoy el grueso de la izquierda abertzale se sitúa en el apoyo a sus fines, rechazando sus métodos violentos (50%), o en el apoyo remoto (19%),

The current minimum means that it was greater before.

--Error 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ceasefire section

I've rewritten the terms in which the inccident of Sep. 23 following the letter of the referenced article in the Independent Online, it was somewhat POV-twisted, so I've put all declarations literally as reported by this paper.

I've also added and referenced the last news on ETA pondering (in Zutabe) a possible end to the ceasefire if no steps are taken by the government. --Sugaar 03:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Movies

Does somebody know if these movies are related to ETA?:

• La ETA, 1974
• Perseguidos, 2004

--Error 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The former: almost certainly not, I'm sure it is the same as Escuela tecnologica agropecuária (same director, same year, same acronym). Looks like an oversight on IMDB's part to list them as two separate films. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny :) --Error 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The latter: apparently so. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Added, thanks. --Error 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Some movies related to ETA are 'La Pelota Vasca', 'Yoyes' or 'Dias contados'. The first one being a documentary including interviews with people like the ex-president Felipe Gonzalez, Otegi or Arzallus; and 'Yoyes' is about the true history of an ETA member, who quit off the organization and was killed for that reason in front of her daugther. -Al