Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 5

Logo

Does anyone have information about why ETA use an asclepius staff as their logo? It'd be appreciated if anyone could add this info to the article. 144.32.196.3 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It´s not the asclepius nor the caduceus. ETA uses an axe, not a staff or a winged rod. The axe signifies the toughness and the snake sigil in words of [Felix Likiniano]http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Likiniano the designer of the simbol.

Please remember I copied:

Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA)--This is used to represent all categories of ritual abuse which would be inspired by the desire to rob, kill, or destroy something worthwhile in a person, especially their freedom of thought. Many groups carrying out SRA do not mention Satan by that name. They may make Pacts to Baphomet, and call upon Rex Mundi, or Belair, or Lucifer, or the Father of Light, God, or Kali or even "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (there are demons which call themselves "Jesus", who are not to be confused with Yeshua or Yehoshua ben Joseph who is known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth.) SRA is not a value judgement by the authors against some group, the victims themselves on some level know that he or she is being abused. That sound as the use of ETA symbol described —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.162 (talk)

Wikipedia:No original research explains that you should not abuse Wikipedia to promote your own ideas. If you can not find reputable references for your theories, Wikipedia is not the right place for them. --Error 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

displaying ETA logo in public is considered a crime in Spain and other countries you could be sentenced to more than a year in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolailando (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is extremely common to see this symbol in Spanish media when they report on ETA. Even in the public TV channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijontichy (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist?

Are they really? What is the status of the two web links cited for this statement? They don't seem at first sight to be reliable sources. Itsmejudith 08:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

They are, as far as I know, at least theoretically. In practice, though, the generalized opinion in Spain is that they resemble more a fascist group.Juanmejgom 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much sense in describing ETA as Marxist-Leninist. They may in the past have been influenced by such ideology but the basis of whatever ideology they have left is clearly nationalism. I would propose that this section be amended to to say that they were originally inspired by Marxist ideas - as with many groups emerging in the late 60's - but that this is no longer the most inportant part of their ideology. Southofwatford 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. They sign all their messages stating they are a socialist revolutionary independentist group. And in many documents they analize the economical situation in a marxist way: (for example)-Theklan (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist or Terrorist?

ETA: Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy

Al-Qaeda

Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy

Why if they are defined in the same way, in wikipedia one is defined as terrorist and the other as separatist, lets call them both the same, as they are and make wiki more consistent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiritsu (talk • contribs)

The definition of ETA as a terrorist group is how it's described by most institutions and political parties, including most of the nationalist ones in the Basque Country (such as PNV). I therefore think that it is much more correct to describe ETA as a "terrorist organisation defined by itself as a nationalist group" rather than a "nationalist group defined by 'others' as a terrorist one". Escorial82 08:22, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

I think like you. Adalme 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter what individuals think WP:POV lets deal with history of ETA first. BigDunc 08:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not the key thing in this article, although the description of what is ETA is important, like in other articles it is done of other groups, institutions, etc.

Both the nationalist paramilitary and terrorist terms need to be mentioned, nevertheless it is more fundamental how it is defined by national and international institutions than described by minoritarian political parties (with their correspondent political views, not the neutralism of international institutions). Escorial82 10:08, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist is a factual description - whether they are nationalist terrorists or nationalist freedom fighters, I don't think it is really disputed that they are nationalists; that is simply a description of their views. Terrorist and Freedom fighter, on the other hand, are highly-charged descriptions implying particular moral judgements, so Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see WP:TERRORIST) states that we should never use these terms in the "narrative voice", we should only use them as opinions attributed to particular people or groups.

On the other hand, I don't think that this means that mention of the opinion needs to be relegated to half a dozen paragraphs down the page. WP:NPOV says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" (my emphasis). If one obscure group described the ETA as terrorist, this would be something that should be left to later in the article. As it is a very widely-held view, it is proportionate to mention it early in the article. This doesn't mean that we should report it as fact; but it does mean that the view should be given prominence. TSP 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you've written it is correct, so I would leave it as it is. Escorial82 10:20, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

The version I reverted to establishes they are paramilitary. It then explains what they do, and what they hope to accomplish. It then describes that various governments class them as terrorist because of this. The version it is on now I feel is wrong because it says they are terrorist before it's even explained exactly what they have done to be classed as terrorist. It makes absolutely no sense to do it that way.BigDunc 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Paramilitary is defined as a subjective term, that is why it should not be used in the definition of what they are. TSP, your description is objective Escorial82 11:10, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

Ill agree to that point but the rest of my argument is valid is it not . BigDunc 10:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a read of Words to avoid. BigDunc 10:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Dunc's version. We need to establish why they are classed as terrorist before we say they are, Dunc's version makes far more sense. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason they are classed as terrorist is their killings, not their supposed targets. That's why such murders data and terrorist classification is the first thing to mention, followed by what they explain as reasons (they are not a political party that performs actions) escorial82 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You can't write ETA is a terrorist organization (or Al Qaeda for the case). I goes against Wikipedia policies. You can write ETA is considered a terrorist organization by... (whichever entities). That's NPOV.

If Al Qaeda is defined as terrorist by Wikipedia (some unconscious editor) that should be corrected. Repeating the error does not make it right. --Sugaar (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See how the BBC handle it, totally neutral. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why terrorist would be a POV. Terrorism is defined as coercion through violence agains civilian targets. That is something that ETA does, and that make them Terrorists. There cant be a POV about that. The same as dictators cant be a POV. If you are the only ruler and there is no elections. You are a dictator, it doesnt matter how god or bad, right or wrong you are. Being neutral is one thing. changing facts is another. Mnalle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnalle (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I agree with Mnalle... terrorism has a definition, and wikipedia has to show facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmiguel99 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) The description should emphasis what they distinguish ETA from any other group: advocay of violence, bombings, kidnappings and murder that even they acknowledge, anything else is trying to paint ETA with your personal point of viewLolailando (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)lolailando

Revolutionary?

It's not exact Eta is a revolutionary organization. It is a unacceptable moral enjudgement.

I'm refering to it as terrorist including who is who is calling it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adalme (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed "revolutionary" - that description only appeared during the modifications made by other editors responding to your repeated re-adding of "terrorist" in this context.

I think the problem that most editors are having is that starting the article with something like "ETA is a terrorist organisation, in the opinion of these groups" gives a biased view - it seems to assume that that opinion is correct; as distinct from the version you changed it from, which was on the lines of "ETA is a nationalist organisation, which is described by these groups as terrorist". By using an opinion as the primary description, even if you then go on to say whose opinion it is, you are still expressing a very strong Point Of View that that description is a correct one.

The phrasing you actually used was "in the discretion of" - I'm not totally sure what you mean by this. I'm guessing English may not be your first language? That's fine, and you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia; but you will have to expect that your contributions will be edited, for style if nothing else.

Could you let us know what other problems you have with the current form of the article? A lot of the information you are putting into the lead section is already elsewhere in the article. TSP 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I have against restored basic article structure to the lead. The "consensual version" referred to in these edits by Adalme does not exist, and never has done. It is complete folly to have the group forming after you've said they have committed murders and are classed as a terrorist group. First you have a brief history of the group and their aims, then you deal with their actions, then you deal with the consequences of those actions. It's basic common sense. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Basic article structure restored. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What's more important in a group: It's ideals or its actions? Of course both need to be explained, but there are many groups with similar objectives but that do not make murders, that's ETA's main difference, the reasons for ETA's current importance. Look at some other articles and other Wikipedia servers. The definition of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group is mentioned in the second paragraph, after a small first one, explaining that there are a merger of many organisations. Look at ETA in, for example, the Spanish or French Wikipedia or French. ETA's terrorist classification is mentioned in the first sentence. Globally Al-Qaeda or ETA in Spain and France are much more polemic than in other countries. Yet, such question as whether to mention their terrorism in the beginning or later is not constantly changed or even now a topic in the discussion, and the articles are not classified as non-neutral. escorial82) 08:35, 11 September 2007 (GMT)

Both, but you can't explain their actions until you have explained why they are doing it. The French Wiki is a poor example, the lead is only one sentence to begin with. Ignoring that the lead would need to be bigger to begin with, if this lead was once sentence I would agree it should be in that sentence. But it isn't, so it's a better place. I could see some possible benefit in moving the terrorist classification and adding it to the first paragraph as a compromise, but the details of the deaths can't come before the group is formed. Look at Adolf Hitler, World War II and the Holocaust are mentioned after his rise to power, as you would expect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Of course the details, and specific actions, don't need to be mentioned in the beginning, but adding then that they are classified as a terrorist organisation, for later mentioning the number of deaths and the details of its classification as such is a good compromise. I suggest something of this structure: "ETA is an armed Basque nationalist organisation. It is recognised internationally as terrorist due to the type of its attacks." Then the details of the ideology and objectives, and finally the number of deaths & prisoners and the institutions that classify ETA as terrorist. Is that better? escorial82 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The version you just changed to was not acceptable. There cannot be duplication, only moving and possibly rewording what is there. However I am still waiting to see what other editors think. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above deal with the history and ideology of ETA in the lead and get on with the rest as ONiH refers to the Hitler article. BigDunc 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the status the article has now, after BD edit the 11/09 @ 17:00, it's very acceptable. It is a good balance describing ETA as armed group, followed, after a small paragraph, that there are classified as terrorist. Then those two topics are detailed. Also, some subjective modifications have been cancelled. escorial82 07:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

NO I am in disagreement with you. You are not showing neutral situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La voz de su amo (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

La voz de su amo is constantly changing the lead section we had all agreed upon. Apart from changing the infobox into a war one, he changes the location of the paragraph explaining the consideration of ETA as terrorist by many authorities, for example here.La voz, I please ask you to stop making those changes, as the current structure was agreed by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escorial82 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not correct, These people and myself are not in agreement with you. You are the lone voice, you are not the masters voice. La voz de su amo 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On these two (or three) matters, I agree with Escorial. Regarding the paragraph position, whether you believe it is accurate or not, the description of the ETA as terrorist by the UN, USA, EU and others is sufficiently important to be given greater prominence than the 15th paragraph; correct or not, it is the most significant external perspective on the organisation.

Regarding the infobox, Template:Infobox War Faction is a poor fit for this organisation. It is not one of the participants in a war called 'Basque nationalism' - Basque Nationalism is a set of beliefs, not a war. Template:Infobox militant organization (which no longer has the word 'terrorist' in its title) simply has a better set of fields for depicting this group - for example, a box allowing you to specify the group's beliefs, rather than having to identify them in terms of which war they are involved in.

To address another issue: what is the justification for putting the group's dates of activity as "1959–1999, 2007 - present"? The article mentions several acts, both attributed and admitted, performed by the ETA between 1999 and 2007. What is the justification for saying the group was inactive between these dates? TSP 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to your change of infobox, but the terrorist section is too much. Some call ETA terrorist, some call the freedom fighters, there should be balance not just onesided. By all means states that some organisations say they are terrorists but not all so it should not be at the start. It is not the main piece of information about them. La voz de su amo 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Law on Political Parties

There is a paragraph describing the current law regulating political parties, with the condition required of rejecting terrorist violence; this is why HB was declared illegal. A sentence is frequently changed, by adding a parenthesis in it: ...this is a law barring political parties which may support violence (other than the state's), and don't condemn.... Adding that means assuming that there is current state violence, and that the law defends it / does not demand its rejection. This is clearly subjective, and the reference I added to the full text of the law proves it. I suggest therefore to keep that sentence without the area I marked bold. escorial82 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BigDunc 14:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The Spanish state has often acted violently in its suppression of movements that sought Basque independence. I'm not sure how "current" an example of state violence you're looking for. Allegations of torture in police custody are common, and police "broke up" (using batons) a rally for ETA prisoners' rights in Donostia just last Sunday. Spanish law defends these beatings, and does not demand their rejection from any political party. Far from it. The state's position on violence is "clearly subjective". If members of ETA beat dozens of people with sticks, I would have no problem describing such an action as violent. Would you? Lapsed Pacifist 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Violent state reactions to those movements, for their ideology, occurred more than 30 years ago, during Franco's dictatorship; not any more. Indeed street violence still occurs, but it is completely different. Please see all the information of the example you give me of last Sunday. What happened there was the anti-disturb unit of the police dismantling a violent concentration that had no authorisation to be done (any manifestation, done by anyone for any reason, without a previous convocation and without announcing to the authorities is illegal and is dismantled by the police; if violence surges the anti-disturbs need to work, but for sorting the violence that exists there, not because of the politics). Many others, asking for the same things, are done without any physical violence. In standard daily situations none of this violence exists. Escorial82 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty more violence from the state than what's seen on the streets. The reason the marches are banned is because their politics is anathema to the state. If the police let them march, what trouble would there be? Are there counter-protests? Lapsed Pacifist 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many marches of independentist societies, in many regions of Spain, this includes some that haven't been demanded but are not violent, and not dismantled (e.g. a few days ago in Gerona). The political situation in Spain, especially now-a-days, puts a lot of pressure to the national authorities to be very careful with those things. And many researches have been done by justice institutions (including non-Spanish ones) of "unseen" violence in Police Stations, prisons, etc. Escorial82 08:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist sais "Spanish law defends these beatings, and does not demand their rejection from any political party" Come on, are you serious? That's nonsense. Apart from exesses present in all police forces in the world, there is nothing happening in Spain today different from what you could expect in any other EU country. As far as Spanish laws are concerned, do you seriously mean that torture or arbitrary beatings are legal in Spain?

Attacks directed at general populace

Escorial82, can you give me some more information on this edit please? The information needs to be in the article, but I'm unhappy about the wording as "that seem to have been directed" is a POV statement and requires attribution. The reference provided is in Spanish, so it's difficult for me to reword what's there. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont speak Spanish either but it seems to be the story of a girl caught up in an attack. I dont feel that she was the target of the attack so maybe a jump here from casualtys of an attack to a policy of attackin the general public. But Spanish speakers please correct me if I am wrong. BigDunc 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The attack was aimed at general people, no one in particular in them; it was made in a hypermarket, causing 21 deaths. I attach here the link to a page in English resuming it; I'll put it later in the main article as another reference, as it mentions more directly the event itself and not a particular person in it. MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base. Escorial82 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference to this terrorist attack and the BBC article to the one in Plaza Callao. Those two are only examples, as others have occurred, I personally think it is clear enough in the article. --Escorial82 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it as it's a POV statement not supported by the references. This says "demonstrated a disregard for the safety of innocent civilians" which isn't the same as targeting them, and this says it was a car bomb (with a warning issued) that exploded outside a shop, which is more inkeeping with the economic targets (as is the previous reference). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the attacks have not killed civilian people by "accident" but were clearly their target. For example, in the one in Hypercor or their last one in the airport of Madrid, there was no political / military / economic "objective" but only the people that were at the wrong place & wrong time. Similar ones in touristic locations. I would therefore suggest to change it back to how it was. Thank you for the other changes you've made. Escorial82 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's a source that says what you just said, please cite it. The previous version was unattributed POV, and needed to be changed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Why I'm not surprised the least to find Escorial82, a new user yet already meddling and edit-warrying in all possible articles of Basque theme from a marked Spanish nationalist perspective, messing around in this disruptive manner.

Escorial: please read WP:DE and WP:NOT. --Sugaar (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I regularly see how clear subjective modifications are made to basic points of the article, today by 88.15.159.145; he removed the mention to some of their mass killings and that there is street violence. It is not the first time that happens, and I shall eventually revert those changes later. For preventing this I suggest to make this article a semi-protected one. What do you think about it? Escorial82 11:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That won't protect the article againts you. I'm not sure if those anonymous edits were or no vandalism (you could post the diffs, so the rest can judge without need of searching) but sadly vandalism is a constant nuisance in Wikipedia. --Sugaar (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

I changed the Northern Basque Country to French Basque Country. I've never heard the expression NBC in Basque, Spanish, French or English, of all the names to describe the region that one is the most artificial one. Also removed the section Basque nationalism context. There is a several pages dedicated to Basque nationalism a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirihito (talk • contribs) 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NBC is straight eu:Ipar Euskal Herria. --Error (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

'Democratic Alternative' publication

I don't think this suits at the start of the page. It should be further down the page, maybe under "tactics", there could be a small section there. I also don't think the secondary tactical causes is right there too. That should just be a short introduction about ETA. I will edit this soon, because as it is the topic start just looks messy. Codu ^(t)⁄_(c) •  19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I mived this section down to under "tactics, targets and attacks. The intrdocution should only be introducing, and giving a basic knowledge on ETA. this introduction was too long. If a reader wants more information then he or she can scroll down and find it. Codu ^(t)⁄_(c) •  12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good how you've put it. Indeed the two key topics are left in the introduction and there are explained in detail after. I'm gonna see (and maybe suggest) if it would fit somewhere else than in "tactics". Escorial82 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Kent Brown

Kent vs Kenneth. Kent is confirmed by ABC, which seems more than reliable to me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ETA against the black foots?

I read in the introduction of the article:

"The organization has adopted from time to time other secondary tactical causes such as fighting against: Alleged heroin traffickers and 'black foot' punk migrants". It is not real that ETA attacks migrants (black foot? that is an unknown expression in the Basque Country), I think that the author wanted to insinuate that ETA has got a racist ideology, when many ETA members are son of migrants come to the Basque Country. And what means "a fix for a tip"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.245.46 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Piesnegros was a Basque slang term in the 1980s for punk-listening vagrants. I think that perroflauta has a similar meaning now. I don't remember though ETA targetting punks, though.

A fix for a tip is "gazte bat drogatik txanda" in the words of Kortatu. English drug slang makes the point quickly for native English speakers, but you don't learn that in ESO.

--Error (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That claim (that is not anymore in the entry anyhow) surprised me too. AFAIK ETA has never targetted immigrants of any sort for the sake of being that, nor ever targetted vagabonds as those pies negros. Furthermore, I would imagine that if such term was ever used by ETA or surroundings it would rather refer to French-Algerian (pied-noir) colonists. But, as ETA has not typically operated in the North, such activity would more likely be something of Iparretarrak or, most probably, something wrongly copied from an article on Corsican nationalist armed groups. --Sugaar (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lenght

The article is way too long as it is now, it quite exceeds wikipedia's guidelines in the matter. Ways to reduce its lenght should be implemented here (for example, I'm thinking the History section could well be compressed). Still, at this point, one of the most obvious and, in my opinion, uncontroversial, would be moving all the "attacks" section to the relative "list of ETA attacks", leaving in this section just the link to the more pertinent "list of ETA attacks". Is this ok? Mountolive | Talk 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

some weeks have passed without comment, I assume you are ok with this move. Done. Mountolive | Talk 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you've done, nevertheless I think it is necessary to have at least a brief mention to their main killings (eg Carrero Blanco (1973), Hipercor Barcelona (1987), Guardia Civil house (1987), Miguel Angel Blanco (1997)). What do you think of writing about those 4 as their biggest / more known killings? Escorial82 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with it but only...if YOU do it! ;) I hope you understand I just spent a while carefully copy pasting and accomodating info in the List of ETA attacks and I am not ready to copy paste back. Mountolive | Talk 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it indeed, probably in the coming weekend (indeed it takes time, and work puts limitations...) Escorial82 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since those events are already well past and the situation is quite other these days, looks like it is time to create a main article for the "most recent ceasefire section", moving the bulk of the info there and leaving just a sketch of it in the main article. This will help in the goal of reducing the article's length and adjuste it to the guidelines in this regard.

I will proceed with it sometime soon unless someone has concerns about this. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we should do the same with the bulk of the "History" section? I kinda think so, but I would like to hear you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! is it necessary to cry "terrorist" to get the attention of ya folks? If so, let it be ;)

Again, I would like to ask how do you see this move of creating an own article for the history section. As it is now is making this article too long, besides, since there are few images in this section (if any, I forgot) this section looks like a rolling paper which you'd better want to spare.

I did so already with another compressing, but this time I dont have the time to make an abstract of this section. Anyone would be up to the challenge if you supported this cut-paste to a more relevant article? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea to re-organise the article first. Bear in mind that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, capable of standing alone. Therefore, what comes after the lead should in theory be the actual start of the article. At the moment, the article starts "ETA is organized in different talde ("groups"), whose objective is to conduct armed operations in a specific geographic zone;" which doesn't make much sense. If you're going to fork something off, I'd try and fork the tactics and targets, while leaving a few paragraphs behind for the sake of context. I wouldn't call it ETA's tactics and targets obviously, I was thinking about a fork similar to Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uff, while not being a bad idea in itself, I'm afraid of re-organising. The article has been calmed lately, but this is brittle and I am afraid that, in the process of moving lamps and furniture somewhere else, we may well end up breaking and/or missing something. I thought that 'history' was the most safe piece to cut, but I guess I was wrong. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

"ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French[3] authorities as well as the European Union as a whole,[4] the United States, and the United Nations." I think, this means that is a terrorist organisation, but we don't find it until the third paragraph!!! These people kill innoccent people, that must be the firt and most important thing, not the information of the third paragraph.--Codorado 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In a discussion held in the past on that topic it was agreed to say that on the second paragraph after a small one-sentence first one.. I'll put it back as it was. Escorial82 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, see the discussion above. How the group is classed comes after the group is formed, it's basic article structure. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above seemed a bit inconclusive to me. I don't feel that strongly about second versus third paragraph (as long as it's not moved back to fifteenth), but on the whole I do feel that the second is a more appropriate place for it. This isn't article structure, it's lead structure, which is a bit different; WP:LEAD says 'The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.' One way to give prominence is to mention something earlier in the lead. I don't think that leads need to follow a chronological or narrative flow as articles generally should (though obviously they shouldn't be a complete jumble); they should emphasise the most important facts.

I think that the fact that the ETA is considered by the most major international bodies to be a terrorist group is substantially more important than the fact that it is Marxist-Leninist in ideology, or even that it was founded in 1959. If people come to the article, they're far more likely to be thinking, "the ETA - is that the terrorist group?" than "the ETA - is that the Marxist-Leninist group founded in 1959?" I don't think that mentioning the group's foundation intrinsically needs to come before mentioning its attributed terrorist status. The group's history (what brought it to this point) and its perception (how it is generally perceived at this point) are both facts about the group; in some cases one will be more important; in some cases, the other. TSP 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do support moving up to the second paragraph. In my opinion, the so called classification is actually essential to the group's very nature and so should go before its succint history (was formed in 1959 and evolved...) Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, terrorist is a definition of ETA, not a way to classed it. It must be at first place.--Codorado 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a wholly conclusive discussion, and facts should come before POV. Escorial82 agreed that this version was "very acceptable" and TSP said the position of the third paragraph was "more balanced" in this edit. It's only because the lead has been stripped of all sorts of information that the third paragraph is now last, when everyone previously agreed the third paragraph was fine. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ONIH is right, we have to be impartial and not take sides even when we want to, this is the sign of a good wikipedia editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of taking sides. The dominant sourced opinion we have on the ETA is that it is a terrorist organisation; that's why we have four or five excellent sources noting bodies that hold the opinion that it is a terrorist organisation, as against one rather bad source describing things like its Marxist-Leninist ideology. I just think that, when an opinion is that important and widely held, the fact of the opinion can be more important than facts about its history or ideology which have little impact on its current existence. I have always been the first to say that the article should not describe the ETA as terrorist in its own opinion; but, to balance this, an opinion so widely held should be mentioned prominently as assigned to the notable bodies who have asserted it.

Regarding 'more balanced'; yes, it was more balanced, and it was much more important at that point to establish that the information shouldn't be at the 15th paragraph than to argue about whether it should be at second or third; that's also why I haven't argued about it being left in that state for a while. Since the matter has been raised, though, I would rather it was at second than third. TSP 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph could do with expanding so it's more than just the political outlook. For example the previous version under discussion had a sentence stating "ETA has killed hundreds of people, including civilians and children, and kidnapped dozens in its actions against the Spanish state". While I'm not in favour of that specific sentence going back, common sense says we need to explain what they have done in order to be classed as a terrorist organisation. Your argument above is slghtly contradictory. That ETA is an armed group formed in 1959 is a far more widely held opinion (for want of a better word) than its classiciation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about truth; things can be undisputedly true without being particularly relevant. That the ETA are an armed basque nationalist group is covered in the first sentence, as it should be; this is the basic description of the group. That they were formed in 1959 is doubtless true; but if you went up to 1,000 people in the street and said "What are the most important things to note about the ETA?" I doubt that any would say "they were formed in 1959" or "they have a Marxist-Leninist ideology". After "Basque nationalist" and probably before "armed", you'd get "(attributed) terrorist". This absolutely doesn't mean we should state "terrorist" as fact, as it is a controversial and disputed view; however, it is such a widely-held view, and well-sourced, view that it should be given prominence. TSP 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can find you dozens of sources that they an armed group formed in 1959, which is a more widely held view than their classification. Their classification is given prominence, it's currently in the third paragraph which was a prominent place before the lead was pruned. It makes no sense to talk about their classification before explaining why they are classified. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Roughly 10% of Basque people in Spain appear certainly to support Herri Batasuna and that makes it a significant view. Our neutrality policy thus demands we take a balanced view on this one and express both sides of the argument, there is no problem having good refs reflecting the ETA standpoint. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I sense that we're having two slightly different debates here. There does indeed need to be more mention of the views of supporters of the group; nevertheless, WP:NPOV is clear that the majority view should be presented as the majority view and given most prominence. TSP 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeating my comparison from above, the lead of Adolf Hitler doesn't mention World War II and The Holocaust until the third and fourth paragraphs respectively. If the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article, it's common sense to maintain some sort of coherent order in it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

True; though that article has a rather long lead. People are a bit different; a person's life has a clear start, end and chronology. The same doesn't necessarily go for groups; compare Nazi Party, which gets pretty speedily to the party's gain of almost total power in Germany, leaving ideology for later and barely mentioning its early history at all. If the ETA was just a Marxist-Leninist group that was founded in 1959, it would be barely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. That it is a group that has had several hundred attacks attributed to it, and is considered by most international bodies as a terrorist group, is what makes it notable from the perspective of most people, and of most of our sources. TSP 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of the point I'm making, when I said the attacks attributed to it need to be included, before the classification. We don't need to include every aspect of ETA's history in the lead, just the important parts of it. The bombings and shootings are what caused the classification, so it's those that make the group notable. A group isn't simply notable because they have a classification, it's what they've done in order to be classified that's important. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest something of this structure. I just made some simple copy/paste so maybe the English can be slightly improved. It says that ETA became (so it was not in its creation) and that its objective is Basque independence, before saying that they are prescribed as terrorists. On the third paragraph the initial cultural origins and Marxist ideology are stated. I think that like this is a better structure. Escorial82 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom"; IPA: [ˈɛːta]) is an armed Basque nationalist organisation.

ETA was founded in 1959 and became an armed group using violence to demand Basque independence. ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French authorities as well as the European Union as a whole, the United States, and the United Nations.

ETA was initially a group advocating traditional Basque cultural ways and its ideology is Marxist-Leninist.

It doesn't explain what they have done to be classed as a terrorist organisation, which is what I've said at length above. You're splitting up the history in an incredibly clumsy manner to give prominence in a non-neutral manner. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It does say it, "armed group using violence", which is why they are considered terrorist according to the criteria of the institutions and countries mentioned. It's only afterwards that the terrorist classification is said. Escorial82 09:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should outine facts first before opinion. Escorial82 you show POV and I disagree with your aspect.--La voz de su amo (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me where consequences (that you describe as POV) are said before facts? As I said before, the reasons for ETA to be proscribed as terrorist is said in the sentence previous to the one saying its terrorist classification; and ETA being considered as terrorist is not a personal POV but a fact from many countries and institutions (with the suitable sources mentioned) Escorial82 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost one week ago I made a suggestion on a text that could be made stating first reasons and facts for keeping that important feature in the 2nd paragraph without it being the first thing. Apart from a couple of comments that were properly explained, is there any other suggestion for a small change? Otherwise I'll put it there at some point in the afternoon / evening. Lets hope this closes the long discussion. Escorial82 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Two issues:

It is not impartial to put all that in the entry. It belongs to a second or third explanatory paragraph actually.

It is not clear that the current ideology of ETA is Marxist-Leninist. We have discussed that in the past and, what is clear is that its demands are nowadays of nationalist character and nothing more: self-determination, territoriality and the issue of prisioners. I am positive that many people in ETA or its ideological neighbourhood are not Marxist at all. Nevertheless it's true that in the past KAS (not ETA, but a political platform, whose proposals were endorsed by ETA(m)) demanded at times "independence and socialism". But nowadays the KAS platform is obsolete for all actors and what is the substantial demand of ETA is the Democatic Alternative. --Sugaar (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your proposal is not really different from the current entry, just tries to give more emphasis to some parts in what seems an ideological POV effort and change the mention of Marism-Leninism, that is much more correct as it stands now. --Sugaar (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it seems that an agreement hasn't been fully reached. I had modified the article since no comments had been made on my proposal for several days. That's why I've removed all changes made yesterday (leaving the terrorist mention in the third paragraph, neither before or after). I'll try to write more in here later, but no changes should be made on the main articles soon.Escorial82 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The body count should be in the lead. That´s obvious: The lead should be about what is ETA and what ETA does, and the most significat thig E TA does is killing people. You did the right thing removing the body count because there was no source, though. Here´s the MOST OFFICIAL source for that grim number [1] Randroide (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a liar. Do ETA exist for the fun to kill people? No! Would ETA exist if Basques were free? No! This is the reason for it living. You are braindead.--La voz de su amo (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please write something rational (and sourced, if possible) and I shall debate with you. Have a good day. Randroide (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have explained myself as clear as I can Mr. POV. Do ETA exist for the fun to kill people? No! Would ETA exist if Basques were free? No! This is the reason for it living not for to be fun time terrorists - this is your label to degrade - that is not NPOV.--La voz de su amo (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I did not use the word "fun".Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the basques free? This is crazy!! They decided in 1978 to be part of Spain in a democratic referendum!!! Fifth paragraph to find that they terrorist!! This is worse than ever!--Codorado (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect: Personal opinions about the basques being free or not are useless here. I suggest to stick to what sources say and to forget about our personal opinions.Randroide (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I've rearranged the lead to what I think is both a reasonable logical flow, and gives reasonably appropriate priority to the various matters covered, as discussed in various threads on this page.

It now covers, in this order:

• (Para 1) The name of the organisation, and its aims in brief.
• (Para 1) A brief history of the organisation
• (Para 2) The crimes attributed to the organisation
• (Para 2) The organisation's proscription as a terrorist group by various national and international organisations
• (Para 3) The organisation's aims in more depth, its motto, its logo, and its Marxist-Leninist ideology

Any objections to this version? Is anything now given too much priority? Too little? TSP (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this. It does mention more clearly their key objective (Basque independence) and number of murders for them to be considered as terrorists. Maybe there needs to be a separate discussion on the mention of a Marxist-Leninist ideology, but the location in such paragraph is suitable. Escorial82 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, too: sounds like a timely order and flows well. • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The lead should include a bried description of what ETA is (armed organization, est. 1959...), what ETA does (murder, extortion, some politics), what ETA says about itself (marxist-leninist -at least in the past-, basque independentist) and what (significant) others say about ETA (terrorist organization). Brief, substantial and NPOV. Randroide (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The entry paragraph

I am starting a new section because the pevious one is too long. I'm dividing it in subsections to make discussion more clear:

Ideology and goals

ETA is not clearly "marxist-leninist", that's the typical nonsense that Spanish police launch in the media. It has a reason: it was historically so at some time in the past (in the midst of the Cold War), at least Marxist (the "Leninist" tag is highly questionable in any case).

The only modern document where ETA states its ideology/goals is the Democratic Alternative and it clearly says that their goal is self-determination for the Basque Country, territoriality, a comprehensive peace and amnesty for Basque "political" prisoners (ETA members or not).

There's nothing that is not produced by Spanish or PNV media that uses the "marxist-leninist" attribution, what is obviously a act of political propaganda. Even in its political enviroment, HASI, the self-declared Marxist party in the KAS bloc and in former coalition Herri Batasuna does not exist anymore. Herri Batasuna also included many independents (most of the coalition members surely) and it was revamped as Batasuna (a political party that does not declare itself "marxist" AFAIK). Times change and the Basque Nationalist Left does too.

According to the Juaristi ref I just added, ETA VI was Marxist-Leninist, ETA V not. I also read somewhere that there was ETA berri that was much more Communist than nationalist. This has at least an historical value. --Error (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the are strictly speaking marxist-leninist, but the entire ETA environment is strongly leftist and uses the entire jargon of the People's Liberation Movements.

Terrorist organization and other POV stuff

Surely some organizations (Spain and allies) consider ETA "terrorist", whatever that means. But there's many people in the Basque Country and elsewhere that consider them patriots, exactly a it happened with the IRA in Ireland or the PKK in Kurdistan. They definitively do not target civilians indiscrimately, as may do for instance Al Qaeda - and that's a difference that must be mentioned.

That is not true, or a lie if you preffer. 19/06/87 Hipercor bombcar for example. The only difference with Al-Qaeda are that there are no suicides and the number of victims (21 civilians). You have the list of victims here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Asesinatos_de_ETA_entre_1975_y_2007#A.C3.B1o_1986. I am sorry but they are terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.200.14 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "crimes" is also POV. Unoubtedly that's how the Spanish (and allies's) judiciary defines their actions but not how ETA memebers or their many supporters see it: they see them as military actions (guerrilla). This is important if we don't want to fall in the sin of POV-ness. We must consider both POVs.

For example, Spain (the Spanish media and politicians) describe the killing of two miltary policemen in Gascony as an "assault" ("atentado"), while for ETA it was an "armed confrontation"[2].

So, do you think that when you shoot someone in his head from behind and without warning in the parking lot of a supermarket, you can call it an "armed confrontation" rather than an assault?. That's in the best case an Eufemism, and it is also against wikipedia guidelines. Ijontichy (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Entry content

The entry should be structured as follows:

1. Brief neutral description of ETA as armed group that struggles for the self-determination of the southern Basque Country. Example:

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom"; IPA pronunciation: [ˈɛːta]), is an armed Basque nationalist separatist organization. Founded in 1959, under Franco's dictatorship, it evolved rapidly from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to an armed group demanding Basque independence through armed struggle.

I am not so sure it was a "cultural" group at its origins. A citation is needed there or a correction. --Sugaar (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be described by what they advocate and do that clearly differentiates them from other groups: advocating and exercising violence, terror and extortion to promote an independent country in a North part of Spain and South of France. ETA acknowledge what I am writing through their written and signed messages (zutabes). ETA has acknowledge almost all the violent acts they have perpetrated and clearly acknowledge their goal also in writing. Is any one arguing that a bomb on a public street killing people is not violence? or that ETA tax imposed trough violence is not extortion? that is what differentiates (defines them) from other basque separatist groups. Why avoid mentioning the only thing that differentiates them? that is POV in my opinion. ETA has acknoledge killing 821 people in wrtting. Someone here doubts that is really ETA who writes the zutabes? if even ETA agrees on what they do why can't we say it? Lolailando (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Goals. Example:

All formulations of ETA's goals have centered on sovereignty and self-determination for the Basque Country.

Some sources for the "Democratic Alternative" of ETA:

• [3] (personal site)
• [4] (Elkarri peace organization, PDF)

We must have clear that while the KAS Alternative (that had several formulations) is historical (but proposed by KAS, a political bloc, not ETA), ETA now proposes the Democratic Alternative, described as "actualization of the KAS Alternative"). --Sugaar (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3. "Terrorist organization".

Here there can go the allegations by Spain et al of ETA being a "terrorist organization" but it should be mentioned that ETA typically doesn't target civilians and gives advance notice in the cases where civilians could be injured by their attacks (there may be some exceptions though - I'm thinking in a couple of bombs in SE Spain some years ago, directed against tourists).

That's what I think. I feel that since I took a vacation from Wikipedia a year ago or so, this article has fallen in a bottomless pit of POV-ness and needs strong corrections. --Sugaar (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Answers to Sugaar

Hi, Sugaar.

• Regarding your unsourced statements: I suggest you to talk only about sourced statements. IMHO is the best policy in such a contentious issue as ETA.

• Regarding your sourced statements

• • Personal sites are NOT appropiate sources. Please read WP: Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.
  • OTOH this source [[5]] is excellent. It should be integrated into the main article, erasing that geocities text (it is self published). Good job.

• You wrote it should be mentioned that ETA typically doesn't target civilians. I count 341 dead civilian here [6].

Randroide (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I presume I'm discussing with somewhat knowledgeable people here (otherwise, what are you doing here?). We can look for sources later, as we advance on the discussion.

(2) Thanks, not difficult: just used Google.

(3) It depends on what you consider civilian: are politicians civilians? judges? Most of the rest are collateral victims (i.e. not intended). What I mean and should be clear is that, at least normally, ETA doesn't target the civilian population, as for instance Al Qaeda does, but specific targets such as military, police, politicians, prision officers and judges. They also have targetted economic objectives such as major companies and banks, tourist areas, airports, railroads and individual businessmen (the latter mostly to obtain the so-called "revolutonary tax").

Most of the civilian victims are collateral damage of other type of attacks, like families of guardia civiles living in the military installations, people who were not evaquated after a bomb threat (specially the case of Hypercor), pass-byers affected by attacks on other targets. The only case I can recall when they intentionally targetted civilians was a couple of bombs two years ago in Mediterranean Spain, that did target foreign turists directly. Naturally, this was controversial, as it breached the historical ethics of the organization. Equally the decission to target indiscriminately all unionist politicians, big or small, now abandoned, was very controversial - and arguably counter-productive for ETA itself. --Sugaar (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS debate

Sugaar wrote: It depends on what you consider civilian: are politicians civilians? judges?

Randroide´s answer:

It´s not about how you or me could "consider" the issue, Sugaar. Instead, the issue it´s the objective meaning of the words. Let´s see:

civilian...1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.[7]

...therefore politicians, journalists, judges, clerks and all "non military non police" individuals are civilians.

...therefore ETA does CERTAINLY target the civilian population. It´s not a question of thinking this or that, is a question of the meaning of the words. Randroide (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously George Bush is a "civilian" then.

I can't agree, naturally, those who are in charge or otherwise support actively the military are not civilians: they are military personnel. Civilian is the baker of the corner, who is not directly involved in the conflict, but not the Minister of Interior (police) or the Judge that gives orders to the police or the guard of a prision where members of an armed group are being kept in brutal conditions. More arguable could be wether local politicians (municipal councilors) are or not civilians but judges and prision guards and ministers of police are not civilians (i.e. neutral), they are an important part of one of the armed organizations clashing.

Attacking civilians is that: targetting the population in general, like in Hiroshima, Dresden, Gernika... That's what ETA doesn't do but rather tries to avoid. And that's importatnt to state clearly, whatever the nomenclature (use "general population" instead of "civilians" if you like). --Sugaar (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sugaar wrote: Well, obviously George Bush is a "civilian" then.

Of course he is NOT a civilian. The President of the United States is ALSO the Commander in Chief of the North American Armed forces

Please take a look at [[8]].

By the same token, the Spanish president and the (so called by their vassals, not by me) Spanish King, are NOT civilians, because theirs is the command of the Spanish Armed Forces.

Sugaar wrote: I can't agree, naturally, those who are in charge or otherwise support actively the military are not civilians

You have a right to disagree, of course. But I must point to you the fact that you are disagreeing with the dictionary, and the dictionary is cristal clear about the issue: Judges, Entrepeneurs, Municipal councilors, College professors, Journalists (even "Brunete mediática" ones) ARE CIVILIANS, and they have been routinely killed by ETA.

NPOV means we take no sides, i.e., we talk with the definitions provided by the dictionary. Using definitions as used by ETA would be as POV as saying that ETA is a "terrorist" group.

OTOH, it would be an excellent idea to add that ETA regards journalists, (no extortion paying) entrepeneurs, judges and politicians as "non civilians". If we can source that, that would be the voice of ETA, and it would be a legitimate and informative addition. The wording should be something like "ETA regards judges, judiciary and military clerks, non sympathetic journalists and non extortion paying entrepeneurs as non civilians and, thus, legitimate targets".

Sugaar wrote: "those who are in charge or otherwise support actively the military are not civilians: they are military personnel".

Could you please quote an English dictionary with that definition?. AFAIK there´s none, but I could be wrong.

Randroide (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: the chaffeur of Osama bin Laden is arrested at Guantanamo on grounds of being an "enemy combatant". There are zillion cases like that. You are in denial.

Anyhow I suggested alternative terms like "general population", "neutral people", etc. --Sugaar (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also: the same that Bush is not a civilian, judges and ministers (or equivalent at lower administrative levels) are in charge of the police as well and therefore are not civilians.

Anyhow, this is an issue that deals with the history of ETA that has been deleted on grounds of simplicity (wrongly in my opinion). ETA(m) was strictly targetting military and police, wile ETA(pm) was more variegated in its targets. This distinction, essential until the 90s has been supressed. In the late 80s and early 90s the irreductibles of ETA(pm) joined ETA(m), after the majority of ETA(pm) accepted a peace deal in Spanish terms (reinserción). After some police successes over the Artapalo cuppola, the former poli-milis took over and the new ETA started widening its targets.

Regarding scertain "journalists", the viewpoint of ETA is that they are paid propaganda agents (spies, hence not "civilians"). ETA has not targetted journalists in general but some spcific ones that have very high connections.

Other categories: (1) Judges are in charge of police and the prision system, hence they are like Bush. (2) Businessmen are targetted for the "revolutionary tax" exclussively - they are not objective normally of personal attacks but rather kidnappings or attaks on their properties, when they don't pay. (3) Municipal councilors are definitively a controversial issue but they are targetted anyhow for being members of the Spanish nationalist parties that rule Spain and hence the Southern Basque Country against the will of its people. In any case, ETA has declaed it will nt attack them anymore. It's an exceptional epysode. (4) No college professors have been targetted as such. The only one I can think of is a former important judge and he was obviously targetted as such.

So the only controversial case is that of municipal councilors. --Sugaar (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What about excouncil members, are those also non civilians like the journalists? It is very clear that ETA targets people and kills them exclusively because their political ideas are to ETA's dislike. --Neveryou —Preceding comment was added at 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide any source for your statements, Sugaar?. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One small correction to Randroide´s previous comment: a police officer is a civilian as well, and in Spain (and most of Western Europe) high political figures are also civil (including the Prime Minister and all Ministers, or, for example in France, the President of the Republic). In Spain and Italy (not sure about the UK), a priest is not a civilian. The King or the Prince are not civilians. The differentiation between those two categories is a concept that is defined and applied by individual countries. And, for example, in Spain, a militar cannot have a political role (its illegal for them to be in a political party).

In any case, judges or politicians are civilians. Members (agents) of the Guardia Civil are militars, but those of the Policía Nacional are civilians.

Maybe ETA considers those figures as some journalists not civilians but occupants of the Basque Country. Yet, in international terms they are civilians, so I guess that how it should be mentioned is that ETA targets some type of civilians and it doesn´t consider them as such.

Escorial82 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Escorial82. On the one hand you are right about the meaning of "civilian" in Spain (tough Guardia Civil members are NOT civilians, but a militarized police force), on the other hand, this is the Wikipedia in English, therefore we should use definitions in English of the word "civilian". I must say to you that ALL the english dictionaries I have looked at (quite a bunch) define police forces as NON civilians. If you both of you (Sugaar and Escorial82) have different references, please quote. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get deeper into this discussion because, while I have proposed alternative phrases like the general population, Randroide is clearly interested in insisting in the term civilians.

The case is clear anyhow: with some exceptions, ETA has specific targets that are considered generally part of "the enemy", and that category does not include the general population. ETA has never placed a bomb in Madrid with intention to cause a major massacre of civilians (not involved in the conflict), just for the sake of them being Spanish, like Al Qaeda/Salafists did. Some neutrals have been collateral casualties and some others have been occasionally targeted (a few tourists in Valencia Country in two related attacks, civilian workers of the Army in another case).

But it is clear that by avoiding this issue of ETA's targets we are biasing the article. Is it too long? Move 18/98 to Spanish Inquisition (sarcasm intended - but in any case it deserves a separate article) and solved.

Btw. I don't think that police forces are considered strictly civilians under war laws: they are armed and wear uniform, no matter if they have the right to join a union or not. Probably some of you know about this better than I do. --Sugaar (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I still can not see your sources, Sugaar.

We have NO definition for "General population", so it would be an endless and pointless noghtmare to discuss about judges and low tier politicians belonging to that category or not. Not a wise choice, really.

And no, policemen (and policewomen) are NOT civilians under the definition I linked anove. Randroide (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what? I guess I can find them if you ask specific, precise questions.

What it's important is to re-create the sections for the goals and targets of ETA, as well as to do a more detailed history of the organizations (several ETAs have existed in the past). Instead issues like 18/98 should be moved to their own articles and, if anything, only get a mention here, as they deal more with the Spanish judicial peculiarities and irregularities than with ETA itself.

Good that we agree that police are not civilians. Now guess we can agree that their bosses (judges) and minions (prision guards, confidents) are not civilians either, ok?

General population is proposed as a compromise term. You can't be maximalist if you want to reach a consensus, can you? Of course it might be that you don't want to reach any consensus but just impose your POV, what is disruptive editing, what is not precisely what Wikipedia nor this article need at all. --Sugaar (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sugaar wrote: "Sources for what?"

For your statements at this talk page, Sugaar. You write lenghty texts with not a single source. Sorry but user´s mere opinions are pointless here. Only sources count.

Sugaar wrote: Now guess we can agree that their bosses (judges) and minions (prision guards, confidents) are not civilians either, ok?

Our "agreement" would be totally irrelevant. Only sourced definitions count. And sourced definitions definitely stablish that Judges, clerks, politicians and journalists are indeed civilians. Please see these sources: [9][10][11][12].

Sugaar wrote: General population is proposed as a compromise term. You can't be maximalist if you want to reach a consensus, can you?

Can you find a sourced definition of "general population"?. Please, let me know.

Thank you. Randroide (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for a claim that ETA target civilians? Is there a reliable source for ETA claiming they don't? Everything else is irrelevant... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My purpose here is NOT to add the line "ETA attacks civilians", sir, BUT to avoid the addition of the extremely misleading line "ETA does NOT attack civilians". An editor (Sugaar) suggested the addition of that line, and that was the spark that initiated this protracted discussion. Randroide (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming there is a statement from ETA saying "we don't attack civilians", I would support its addition as a rebuttal after the details of any attacks that have injured or killed civilians. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, One Night In Hackney. Of course that a proper source is required, and the "ETA said..." format should be used. Randroide (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fugitives and refugees

Among its members, ETA distinguishes between legales/legalak ("legal ones"), those members who do not have police records; liberados ("liberated"), exiled to France and on ETA's payroll ; prisoners, serving time scattered across Spain and France; quemados ("burned out"), freed after having been imprisoned; and deportees, expelled by the French government to remote countries where they live free.

ETA also talks about iheslariak ("fugitives") and errefuxiatuak ("refugees"). Are the same people? Are they already included in this member classification? --Error (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Basque political refugees" can refer to ETA members, active or inactive, or to other people that for whichever reason believes that would be pesecuted in Spain. Equally "Basque political prisioners" can refer to imprisioned ETA members or to any other people jailed on political or armed struggle grounds, including anarchists or GRAPO members of Basque origin, youths jailed for kale borroka (street war), people jailed for their ideology or political stand, like those involved in the infamous 18/98 trial, etc. This of course refers to the language of the Basque Nationalist Left. Amnesty International would surely use a much more restrictive language, for instance, while Spain would always reject that there are such things as "political prisioners" or "political refugees" in this context. But they also deny that torture and arbitrary detention happens, no matter what AI dennounces year after year. --Sugaar (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

18/98

18/98 has already been sentenced. Can somebody summarize it? --Error (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

I have removed the addition of National Socialism made in these edits pending discussion. Firstly, AFAIK, the ideology section is for what the organisation describe themselves as, or possibly a consensus of scholarly opinion. Secondly "many analysts" have not made the assumption at all, there is one person's opinion being cited. This may belong in the article, but not in the manner it's being presented and probably not in the lead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

agree Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrasco

There is as yet no proof that ETA killed him, only speculation and the opinion of a government minister. See here for example, even the BBC don't state who did it. Therefore it cannot be stated as fact, and opinions cannot be drawn from it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the necessary "proof"? The police both on a national level and in Euskadi have attributed the attack to ETA. ANV, ETA's political arm, has not condemned the attack. The Lehendakari, the prime minister of Spain, and other authorities have acussed ETA. I guess for some people only after ETA talks we can modify this page Younever 8:20,10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only after ETA talks about the issue we can modify the page. Currently the text is factually A-OK:

• On March 7, 2008 ETA is blamed for killing Isaías Carrasco

Please be patient. ETA will probably vindicate the killing in the next weeks. After all this is an encyclopedia, not the news.Randroide (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to remember ETA were blamed for other things that they weren't responsible for... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, the opinion of the Spanish government was being presented as fact. To the best of my knowledge ETA have not claimed responsiblity for the death of Carrasco, so the information cannot be presented in that way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ONIH. Well, in this case of the victims, we disagree. You may agree with me that presenting the killing of Isaías Carrasco as "the opinion of the Spanish government" is a quite minoritary view, since everyone else (all the media and all the political parties) have the same stances. Even the party which is "understanding" with ETA, to put it mildly, implicitly agrees with this view, since it has refused to condemn this killing, like they do with the other politically motivated.

Besides, on the face of this unanimous response, ETA has not denied their responsability, like they did, for example, with the Madrid bombings.

Anyway, all it takes is to wait a few days more to get this vindicated. They typically vindicate their "actions" between one and three months after they are committed. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a minority view, it's in the lead after all. And look at who updated the total from 821 to 822 in the first place - me! However I was concerned in doing so that I was presenting opinion as fact. Have a look at the NYT article on it, it's quite telling. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged the current version as dubious - what ETA's enemies say is being presented as fact. Given Carrasco has been added to the list on that site, there's no guarantee the other 821 are as accurate therefore it should be attributed not presented as fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop presenting opinion re Carrasco as fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, to say the least, a dubious fact. By the way, I would be happy to keep the 821 figure and December 07 until this one killing is vindicated. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't do either per WP:NPOV. What ETA's enemies claim isn't being presented as fact, it's that simple. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reuters [13], Pravda [14] and the Turkish Press [15] (none of which are explicitly linked to the Spanish government) all support the 821 figure. Other independent sources [16] [17] state, quite correctly, that ETA admits responsibility for attacks that it commits. Multiple other sources state that ETA has killed "more than 800 people since 1968" so there's nothing remotely dubious about the 821 figure. Unless a reliable source can be found calling into question the figure the dubious tag should be removed and 821 given in the article. Valenciano (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the dispute. The 821 figure has been updated to 822 based on the opinion of the Spanish government (which has been called into question in regard to this), which calls into question the reliability of the exact figure. Nobody is suggesting ETA haven't killed 800+ people, it's a case of how reliable ETA's enemies are and whether their opinion should be stated as fact. I tried removing the tag, and it was added back! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely about the Carrasco one and the 821 figure doesn't include that, but the sources above aren't connected to the Spanish government and are hardly reknowned for being 'ETA enemies'. There is no source that I've seen that gives a remotely different figure, even one representing ETA themselves, who conversely, haven't denied the killing of Carrasco, as they did in 2004. Are there any sources calling the figures into question that you've seen? Valenciano (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to the 822 figure. If you look at the current article I've tried to do what I've done before "822 people according to the Spanish government". The overwhelming majority of people will agree that the Spanish government are 99.99% correct about this, it isn't phrased in a way that makes it sound wrong (well I don't think so) or POV, it's just correctly attributing the information to where it came from. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And you might want to take a closer look at the lead of the article and compare it to the Pravda article. Version at the time (just to cover all the bases) said "Since 1968 to date ETA has killed 821 people and committed dozens of kidnappings. ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French authorities as well as the European Union as a whole, the United States, and the United Nations". Pravda say "Since 1968 to date ETA has killed 821 people and committed dozens of kidnappings. ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French authorities as well as the European Union as a whole, the United States, and the United Nations". Spot the difference? And Turkishpress said 819 in February! I've no objection to "over 800" or anything like that, I just think we should be careful stating an exact figure as fact without attribution. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of verifiability not truth and obviously its a difficult area, we aren't interested in how many objectively died at the hands of ETA, nor should our readers expect us to but what the sources say. As encyclopedia writers it certainly isn't for us to judge who killed Carrasco so lets go with a sourced 822. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SB I've no objection to 822, 800+ or anything similar, just let's attribute it? If you state 822 as fact, it's an NPOV violation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my point is the same as yours really, ie we dont know the facts, nobody does in this murky area,, so lets absolutely stick with reliable sources and if they give different figures we can even state that es gov says one thing, Gara another etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do, I'm just running into claims that "killed 822 people according to the Spanish government" is a biased statement, when I see it as a perfectly attributed statement that doesn't take sides. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not biased IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pravda you're probably right, but Turkish press says "819 killed in Spain" the 821 figure = 819 killed in Spain plus two in France. But gov't attributed figure is absolutely fine, if another figure emerges it should go in. By the way, on the topic, maybe I'm blind but a glaring omission is that the 2004 Madrid bombings were originally blamed on ETA [18] Valenciano (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll add it then, unquestionably both true and notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact I've even got no objection to the wording being made into something like "according to official Spanish government figures", just to make it as clear as possible. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Paramilitary

I agree not to use the term "terrorist" as it used for example in the Red Brigades page, but the armed group description is ridiculous; what's then the difference between ETA and the Bloods or the Mara Salvatrucha, you could even argue that Blackwater is an armed group. The term paramilitary is quite clearly applicable because ETA views themselves as the army of liberation of the Basque speaking territories, and it has no POV. It is also the term used in the disambiguation and the term used to define similar groups as the INLA.Neveryou 8:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Paramilitary is ambiguous, "armed" is not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "Armed" is the NPOV way to go. "Armed" is undisputable. "Paramilitary" is NOT. Randroide (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who owns arm is armed.Armed does not define anything. Paramilitary means that the group is armed following or aspiring to some military organization. ETA has claimed the,selves that category. AS I said before INLAand other groups similar to ETA are defined as paramilitary in Wikipedia articles.Which one is exactly the POV in paramilitary?Neveryou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neveryou (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not attempting to define anything, as that's adequately dealt with in the following sentences. "Armed" is purely factual, whereas "paramilitary" is vague and ambiguous. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not trying to define anything? My bad I this was an encyclopedia and not someones little power tripping mechanism. You do not answer to any of my arguments-A) Paramilitary is used in other Wikipedia articles for organization very similar to ETA.B) Armed is applied to anyone that has guns, indeed ETA has them but the are illegal. Should we put illegally armed, because that a fact too.C)ETA and those who support ETA name it frequently as a liberation army. This is Wikipedia's definition of paramilitary:"Paramilitary designates forces whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status". I don't see what is ambiguous or vague in it.D)Paramilitary is used already in ETA the disambiguation pageNeveryou (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're deliberately trying to quote me out of context, but my exact words were "We're not attempting to define anything, as that's adequately dealt with in the following sentences". That means that the exact type of armed group is covered in the following sentences (note that's pretty much straight after, not much further down the article), and doesn't need to be covered in that particular sentence.

Your quoting of paramilitary seems very subjective. For example:

The term paramilitary is subjective, depending on what is considered similar to a military force, and what status a force is considered to have. The nature of paramilitary forces therefore varies greatly according to the speaker and the context....etc etc etc

Depending on context, paramilitaries can include....Armed Forces outside the Military, e.g. gendarmeries and forces such as the Chinese People's Armed Police...Some units of National Intelligence Services that are composed of civilian agents tasked with covert action in areas that are difficult or sometimes illegal for Military Forces to operate, such as the Special Activities Division of the US Central Intelligence Agency....Some Internal Security, Border Protection and Law Enforcement organizations that are not considered part of the regular Military but are similar in training, equipment and/or organization, such the Internal Troops of the Russian Interior Ministry (MVD), or the Egyptian Central Security Forces....etc etc etc

Or perhaps you'd like some dictionary definitons of paramilitary?

noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force: a paramilitary police unit.

Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.

of or relating to a group of civilians organized to function like or to assist a military unit

Last time I checked ETA don't function in military units per se, and neither do they assist regular army troops. So as before paramilitary is a very ambiguous and subjective term, so "armed" is more appropriate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to show how this isn't some made-up description that secondary sources don't use - BBC "armed separatist group", The Guardian "armed Basque separatist group", New York Times "armed separatist group", The Independent "armed separatist organisation" etc etc etc. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources that used both paramilitary and armed indistinctly BBC "Police blamed the attack on the separatist paramilitary group ETA." , The New York Times" Police in France detain three suspected members of Basque paramilitary group ETA" , PBS "The paramilitary group ETA, in its fight for autonomy" etc, etc. Meanwhile in Wikipedia, not some unknown dictionaries, the definiton for paramilitary is clearly applicable to an organization that has a military cupula, is divided in taldes, and express it self constantly as a military organization waging war.--Neveryou (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood why I presented those sources, it was to show that "armed group" is a perfectly acceptable term used by secondary sources to describe ETA. It is a wholly factual term with only one possible meaning, unlike paramilitary. As what particular type of armed group ETA are is dealt with in the very next paragraph, the vage term paramilitary is redundant in addition to vague. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't need your patronizing attitude. You put up some secondary sources I used other ones to show that "paramilitary" is also a perfectly acceptable term used by the same sources you used. Further more paramilitary is used in Wikipedia's disambiguation, in other Wikipidea pages for other nationalist groups arguably similar to ETA as INLA and others, and even ETA describes its confrontation with the countries of Spain and France as a war. ETA also divides the political wing from the military wing (that is the term by the way they use). It seems that you need to convince ETA that they should restrain of using military terminology in the publications because is way too POV and reiteratively "vague".--Neveryou (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As shown above, paramilitary is vague. Armed is not. You've not provided a single cogent argument as to why we should be vague. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are again my arguments, that you have chosen to ignore repeatedly, I have yet to see yours other than: "I say is vaguely vague": 1) "Paramilitary" is used indistinctly by the same sources you used to justify "armed"2) Similar groups in Wikipedia, and other sources, are named paramilitary groups 3)ETA describes it self as an organization with a military wing,and uses military terminology and even the noun war to describe the confrontation its pursuing against the countries of France and Spain 4)ETA fits perfectly Wikipedia's description of paramilitary.--Neveryou (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored them, they aren't cogent. For example "ETA fits perfectly Wikipedia's description of paramilitary" - Wikipedia doesn't have a description of paramilitary, it has about eight different variants. Therefore it's vague, as the reader doesn't know which definition is being used. "Armed" only has one meaning - the group is armed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough with your arrogance. You can rebate my arguments, or least you should try before imposing your will, but stop belittling then. Of my four arguments your nit-picking chooses the one about Wikipedia's multiple definitions of paramilitary. Your reductionist reasoning goes following this narrative: Wikipedia has several descriptions for military, hence the term is vague, and that makes is unusable in ETA's page. Let me ask you how many definition of nationalist are there in Wikipedia or any other place? and what about separatist? Your base argument, your only argument, is a sophism. That is my answer to your rebate of one of my 4 arguments, what about the other 3?.--Neveryou (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I could easily have rebutted your other non-arguments at the same time, hence my use of "for example". As you insist on me doing so.... 1) "Paramilitary" is used indistinctly by the same sources you used to justify "armed". That still doesn't make the term any less vague, which is the main bone of contention. 2) Similar groups in Wikipedia, and other sources, are named paramilitary groups. So what happens if those get changed to armed? Your argument disappears doesn't it? What makes those right in the fist place? 3)ETA describes it self as an organization with a military wing,and uses military terminology and even the noun war to describe the confrontation its pursuing against the countries of France and Spain. Great, we'll call them an army then ok? Clearly not. An organisation with a military wing, using military terminology and even the noun war sounds very much like an "armed group" to me! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about redundancy?:"is an armed Basque nationalist separatist organization. Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to an armed group demanding Basque independence". If you believed all you been saying here, you should implement your idea that of expurging "paramilitary" from all Wikipedia pages to be consistent and not show POV. Paramilitary will be a vague term if it was in doubt that is applicable to ETA, I don't see exactly what's the argument against using it with ETA other than vaguely stating "it's vague". ETA describes it self as an army but lacking sovereignty they can only be an irregular army, or paramilitary indeed. For the shake of consensus, although you arrongant and petty ways don't lead easily to it, if we can agree in using for example "illegaly armed", I will be fine with the term "armed" instead of military. --Neveryou (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to paramilitary, mainly so it will match the description of the disambiguation page. I think neither version has a inherent POV attached to it, although armed seems too vague. --MrLafitte (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The DAB page has nothing to do with it, apart from it's impossible to go into detail there so "paramilitary" may be a better option. How is "armed" vague? It's exact with one meaning - ETA have arms. As shown above - paramiliary could mean anything. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Paramilitary" is a "nightmare adjective". Vague, charged, and open to challenges anytime in the future. Please stick to the strictly descriptive and undisputable "armed". Randroide (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The opinions of ETA's enemies cannot be presented as fact, gross breach of NPOV especially when it isn't backed up by neutral sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no attempt to justify the biased version, I have restored a policy compliant version. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still can't see the bias. As I said, ETA routinarily vindicates their killings and bombings and then the Interior Ministry is basically adding up in the count. To say that the figure is "according to the Spanish government" is, to me, the biased version, because it implies that, according to ETA the figure is a different one, something which is not the case.

If the problem is with the Isaías Carrasco killing, as I said back in the day also, we can keep the consolidated figure of 821 until this one killing is vindicated or 822 with the dubious tag if you may. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 17:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of their enemies can't be presented as fact. As they have chosen to update to 822 based on virtually no evidence other than opinion (per secondary sources), that calls into question the reliability of the rest of the figures. I've no objection to presenting the figure, just it needs to be attributed properly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would understand the question if ETA was claiming a different figure, then the "enemies opinion" would make sense to me, but ETA is not disputing this figure, is it?

Since ETA assumes this figure at ease, then I just fail to see the NPOV question. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and explain this in full. ETA claim responsbility for attacks that they make. The Spanish government also attribute attacks to ETA. The total figure claimed by ETA may be different to the total figure claimed by the Spanish government, or it may be the same. As the Spanish government updated the total from 821 to 822 without waiting for confirmation from ETA, this brings into question how the 821 total was arrived at. If the total was the number of deaths ETA have admitted responsibility for, why update the total to 822 before ETA have admitted responsibility? Therefore the Spanish government don't wait for confirmation from ETA before updating the total, they just update it based on their opinion. Which is all well and good, but that means we can't state the total as a fact. What do you think of the new wording anyway? "according to official Spanish government figures" is ok surely? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ONIH. The byzantine 821/822 rationale looks basically like water mudding to me, or being in denial of a reality you are not that comfortable with. You scared me, mate: I thought it wasnt possible for me to work with you either.

Fortunatelly for me, yes, I find the new wording much more agreeable and so I still love you. Hope you dont chastise me for the -I know, totally unrequested and uncalled for- Freudian analysis. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check who updated the total from 821 to 822 to match the official site to begin with, I have no dog in this fight other than neutrality. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet again removed original research per policy. "Thus, the..." is conjecture on the part of an editor. All the sources state is that ETA are designated, they make no mention of why they are designated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All the sources state that ETA is designated make no mention of 'why'? ONIH, are you from Palailogos ancestry? That would be pretty cool, by the way.

ETA is not classed as terrorist because it shares acronym with Estimated Time Arrival, or because it has a somewhat creepy logo or because their members like to use nicknames. It is classed as terrorist because it commits politically driven killings, bombings and kidnappings, and that matches the criminal laws of the countries designating it as terrorist. So there is a self-evident cause-effect relationship there, therefore, it is not speculative -let alone OR...oh my!- adding "thus", it is just informative and neutral. Actually I was thinking of "therefore", but I just thought that "thus" would be maybe better for more touchy souls.

Damn, there is no originality in wikipedia: we all think we are neutral.

Damn (bis) you could have at least waited for my reasons here in the talk page, couldnt you? It only took 5 mins... Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is that different governments classify groups for wholly different reasons. In fact one of the key reasons for a group being classed as an FTO by the US government is The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States. So providing a group doesn't do that, they can kill, bomb, maim and murder as many people as they want and they won't be classed as an FTO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Political support

In the Basque Autonomous Community Batasuna always has recived more than %10, Batasuna's ( Herri Batasuna, Euskal Herritarrok, EHAK, ANV) worst result was %10.5 (2001 year), and best %19.8 ( 1998 year). In the municipal ellections of 2007, ANV ( socialist and indepentist party) received %17 of the vote in the Basque Autonomous Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.26.93 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ETA/FARC

I erased this Lihaas entry because is a clear POV.--Neveryou (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to link Colombia's struggle with FARC and Spain's struggle with ETA, Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos made the claim that FARC have attempted to lodge ties with ETA for an attack in Spain.

The FARC's contacts with ETA and drug traffickers exporting cocaine to Europe are not new, and when they are secure in Colombia, they try to do harm overseas,
In any case, the police and defense ministry continue to do intelligence analysis on the FARC's relationship with ETA but that (foreign operations) is one of the risks you have to take.

This was later denied by the Anncol news agency which said the government mistook a city by the name of Madrid (Colombia) in northern Colombia for the Spanish capital.

I think he has a point in general and we should look into modifying the international links section, in way that introduces FARC's negation of contacts with ETA, or the nature of such contacts. Although the reality of some type of contacts between the bands is nothing new [19]--Neveryou (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it POV? It's a quote in regards to what was said. The recent link ups between the two bear great relevance. And the last was sources. I can see some dodgy bits in the pre-quoted part, but all that needs is a little rephrasing. Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Organisations that designate as terrorist

I'd like to put ETA in a [Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments], as this is clearly true. Right now, ETA is in four separate terrorist designation categories: UK, Canada, Europe and US. This I find both unwieldy and arbitrary. Canada? What does ETA get up to in Canada, and is this important enough to justify its inclusion here? Do the governments of Spain and France not consider ETA terrorist? If they do, why aren't they listed? Why is the UK down if ETA is already designated in Europe? Does Europe refer to just the EU, or the whole of Europe?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the problem: we are only using existing categories in which ETA fits. Besides, these are one of the most aseptic and NPOV categories you may find around here in wikipedia, as they are purely descriptive.

If, for whatever reason, you dont like those categories in the first place, then you could try to get them removed at all, but, in the meantime, that discussion should be taken care in those categories talk page, not here. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mountolive, far better to list in relevant categories rather than a vague catch all category. Valenciano (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to use an existing category in which ETA fits. Thanks.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, the category you use doesn't exist (only ETA is there), and is more ambigous than those other you remove. Several people disagree with that change you make, you are the only one that makes it, and it removes information (several governments is less precise than giving some specific states). Please stop making that change, lets rather finish the discussion here. Escorial82 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the parent category for cats like UK designated terrorist orgs is Category:Organizations designated as terrorist so there is really no need to have a seperate, duplicate Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by several governments which I've accordingly proposed for deletion. Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

None of you have addressed the issues I raised above. Please do so.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed by several people. 1) The parent category for "orgs designated as terrorist by country x" is "orgs designated as terrorist" which is identical to the duplicate orphan category which you want to put it into, which incidentally you set up. 2)The reason they aren't listed in orgs designated as terrorist in Spain/France is that those categories, as far as I can see, currently don't exist. That's easily fixed. Valenciano (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. What about the Europe category?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The EU cat has already been dealt with. Apart from that, two things. Firstly could you stop reverting the page while the discussion is ongoing? This especially applies when you have absolutely no support for your position. Secondly could you stop creating categories which merely duplicate existing categories? Both these actions are just wasting everyones time purely, it seems, so you can make a point. Valenciano (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the Europe category has not been dealt with. Secondly, I'm not reverting the page, I'm adapting the categorisation in order to deal with your many concerns as you raise them. Thirdly, I'm not creating categories which duplicate existing ones, I'm creating categories that supersede them. I'd be interested to learn what point you believe I'm trying to make.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No you're not dealing with our concerns, you're doing the opposite and completely ignoring them in order to continue to do your own thing or replacing perfectly satisfactory cats with your own unsatisfactory creations. Four editors myself, mountolive, escorial and neveryou have already made clear our view that the existing category structure is fine and that they don't need to be merged or superseded as you put it. What we have said is that it's best to have specific categories for seperate nations and supranational bodies as those are NPOV and make it clear to the reader exactly which country has categorised them as such. Those requests have fallen on deaf ears as you have persisted in creating ever more ridiculous omnibus categories, the latest of which is orgs designated as terrorist by the EU, USA, UK and Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that it isn't logical to link four such random states/superstates together, the lack of logic in it is highlighted in the fact that a parent cat for it is orgs designated as terrorists by the EU. When did Canada and the USA join the EU? As far as I can see, all that needs to be done is the creation of new country specific cats for Spain and France. If you disagree then please discuss it here before making any further changes or creating any more categories. Your point about Europe has already been addressed by escorial. Valenciano (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano, I fully agree with you. I think there might be some misunderstanding in what's the use of categories. Their main function is to LINK articles on similar topics, e.g. that if someone is looking at an US-designated terrorist group he sees as well that ETA is also considered one by the US government. As we've discussed in several sections, different countries / international bodies are different, as it happens often that what one country considers terrorist another one doesn't (for example ETA wasn't considered terrorist by many at the time of Franco's dictatorship). Lapsed Pacifist, making those categories changes removes that utility, as the link between different articles is lost. Escorial82 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are making much sense to me. I don't see the problem.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed, if you have time and being reported sounds like a nice weekend prospect, just ask for it straight instead of keeping disrupting the article with your refusal to agree with the rest of editors. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to make logical arguments, you can hardly expect me to agree with you. None of what either of you have written about the latest category I created in an attempt to deal with your concerns makes sense. The page still details the organisations that designate ETA as terrorist. The new category is a subcategory of the four designating bodies. Why you insist on including the superfluous "Europe" (no, not EU) category is beyond me.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll make it real simple for you then.

Q1 What do the UK, USA, Canada and the EU have in common which justifies their merger into a single category?

Q2 Since when did the EU expand to cover the whole of Europe (which would justify the removal of the Europe category) ?

Q3 When did the USA and Canada join the EU (which would justify their inclusion in your omnibus cat whose parent is orgs designated by the EU)?

Q4 Which part of "leave the existing country specific categories alone" don't you understand?

Valenciano (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your simplifications.

A1 They all designate ETA as a terrorist organisation

A2 The Europe category might survive as a parent category in some from or other. Right now, its superfluity is blinding, as the EU is part of Europe

A3 This question makes no sense. Your simplification was going so well up to now

A4 I understand it. Agreeing with it is a different matter entirely

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

R1 An org may be designated as terrorist in one but not the others so this tells the reader nothing.

R2 Ceuta, Melilla, French Guyana etc are part of the EU, but not in Europe so the two aren't the same.

R4 You're fully entitled to disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the consensus against your position in order to edit war. Seek consensus first. Valenciano (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A1 The first part of your reply is true, but irrelevant in this particular instance. The second part is nonsensical

A2 I don't believe there are any organisation designated as terrorist in Ceuta, Melilla, French Guyana etc. that are not so designated in their parent countries. If you know of any, please enlighten us

A4 I am constantly seeking

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the comment I made before and afterwards mentioned: not all organisations are mentioned as terrorist in those countries. During Cold War and Franco's dictatorship ETA wasn't considered terrorist by many countries, including in Europe. Even today it is still not considered such in some (only after September 11 their classification changed on a global scale). The same occurs with other organisations, for example the FARC are currently not considered as such in some American countries. The point of the categories is to relate articles, not to make a table/sentence of countries. Their objective is that when someone is looking at terrorism in a specific country he can find other organisations considered terrorist by that country, without needing to browse different subcategories. Lapsed, don't you think that this function is deteriorated by the category you want to create? Applied to other articles it would destroy the categories function.

Concerning the EU/Europe difference, it is important to know what it refers to: the EU category refers to the EU institutions, which is different that the countries themselves (there is collaboration in that topic, but not equality, its what's considered the "third pillar" of the Union). A different thing applies to the Western European Union; more countries are involved in it (again not all of Europe), but there is no strong political compromise or any independent legislative and juridical powers. Europe and EU are therefore very different, and cannot be considered the same thing.Escorial82 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Escorial, you're making very little sense, and seem not to have grasped the thrust of my argument at all.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Escorial, Valenciano and Mountolive. I don't see the need to create an artificial all in one category titled Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments. It sounds like Jeopardy.--Neveryou (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We've moved on.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

The consensus above was that the alleged total of ETA victims would be described as "according to official Spanish government figures", and despite the single purpose account claiming "The offitial figures are not only provided by the Spanish government but also the EU, the Brittish government and other institutions", it is sourced to only a Spanish website. This source does not source the text in question, so I have removed it and the text that was added. This source does not source that ETA target university professors, as it makes far more of him being a former minister, as do other sources such as this. Attempting to portray ETA as attacking university employees as opposed to former ministers is not neutral editing. This source does not source that the United Nations have designated ETA a terrorist organisation. BigDunc^Talk 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

as side note, not really going about the rest of your post above, I dont think there was any consensus about the alleged (¿?) total of ETA victims in the first place. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea why my recent edit was reverted on the basis that the refs don't support the claims. Claim #1: that ETA targets uni professors, well reference #1 [20] states "Documents seized by security forces in recent raids against Eta include university professors on hitlists of potential targets." Claim #2 that more than half a million people protested against the killing of Tomás y Valiente, well reference#2 [21] says that "In February 1996 more than half a million people protested in Madrid after the shooting of a university professor." The edit summary advises me to see talk, well in the lack of an explanation here explaining the removal of referenced material, I'm readding. Valenciano (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

proper use of reliable sources

We have a recent contributor editing with slightly inflammatory edit summaries such as

"Your edit is treading the line of downright vandalism, totally reliable references provides, read elaborate argumentation, I ddn't delete thoug Publico's reference (Govt newspper), extremely feeble)"

The more I read over-the-top wording such as "downright vandalism", "totally reliable", "extremely feeble" the more I can't help to think that this user has little to argue for his case and so the recourse for big words.

This said, I would like to welcome you, Iñaki, in this article. Second, it would be nice if you tone down your summary edits, otherwise it looks like if you have something personal with people, which is not the idea. The idea is that we all contribute together, respectfully. Assuming good faith from fellow wikipedians is basic.

Other excerpts used by this user are more worrysome in terms of quality than the previous one, like this one:

"Record of tortures is ambiguous, the Gestapo thing is a widely accepted and historical fact (see web), not going to add a reference for each word I write)"

In this regard, I think it is important, as a reminder, to copy here the banner we have on the top of this talk page:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Everybody has to be compliant with this policy and you are no exception in this regard. So, for good or bad, you will have to add valid references, no matter how right you think you are, because this article is potentially troublesome and we must tread carefully over here. That is why 'poorly sourced material must be removed immediately' (..) if such material is repeatedly inserted, report it'.

Being 'widely accepted' is no valid rationale whatsoever, Iñaki. There are things widely accepted, like ETA being a terrorist group, but, for this or that reason, we have to work with some premises better than 'widely accepted' and that is why we dont qualify it as such.

On to more concrete things, the web you are advising us to look at, does not say anything about Gestapo, World War II and else. You can not force a source to say what it is not saying. That is basic stuff. Don't worry about your case, though, because, if it is 'widely accepted', then you should be able to find a valid source easily, like the AI one.

As for Gara or other MLNV related sources, those are obviously not proper references. These voices mimmick day after day whatever ETA is saying: they are partial from beginning to end. They can't be used other than for quoting ETA's stances. I am not saying that you dont have a case, but, again, you must work harder and provide good references.

Thanks.

Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you are someone specially appointed for the ETA page, given your ubiquitous presence in the page. Please Mountolive don't try to justify your edits with methodological reasons, since it is obvious your edits are ideologically driven and eventually you erase what you don't like and the sources you personally endorse. I must point out that your reference for one to the government's Público newspaper is really unfortunate (just based as one can notice on separate sentences put together to justify the statement that ETA members always claim tortures). The reference is really poor and it doesn't belong to a proper article. In contrast, the article in Gara I provided offers an elaborate argument and article.

'Widely accepted': I've provided a reference but as it's obvious I haven't provided all the references in the web, just look up and you'll find them. I must admit I didn't find the Gestapo and WWII stuff, just "colaboration with the nazis", so I inferred from the period (1936 Franco's occupation of Irun-1945 end of WWII), but this a minor issue. I didn't think anybody was going to call into question whether he really collaborated with the Gestapo or was it really the SS, but you may be right, maybe I should only say "with the nazis". By the way, Manzanas, is dead and we are dealing with a historic event that took place 40 years ago (I live in the area where he "worked" and nobody even in politics doubts what he was and did, you may be very well informed).

The references you furnish only echo the government's stance against ETA, which as you know, are a taboo and a dogma in Spain, unquestionable, and only tough and tougher messages flow to public from the media, they cannot possibly held as impartial or unbiased, it's like a Turkish newspaper talking about the Kurdish PKK, you can imagine what and how they are going to talk about. So I put forward that if you provide a reference please don't quote references like that of Público, but elaborate ones backed at least with a proper argumentation related to specific facts, like the excellent one developed by Iñaki Iriondo in Gara. To end with, please don't rephrase my sentences or try to make the clear statements more ambiguous, I've thought carefully about them and they don't need to. I didn't see anywhere in the article that GAL was a terrorist group, only that it was an antiterrorist group (sic), so I let it clear, someone may be misled to think that they were another thing and not a terrorist group of mercenaries led by Spanish officials.

Let's draw up an encyclopaedic article of varied information, the real goal of the wikipedia, and not a pamphlet against ETA or the Basque leftist nationalists. Thanks for your attention Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you dont like what you define as my "ubiquitous presence" in this article, but, since you dont own the article yourself, you'll have to learn about how to live with it.

It is good that you start posting on the talk page as a means to explain yourself. It is not so good that you keep disregarding the all-important "assume good faith" guideline; do you realize that you are making this sound personal? certainly not the best approach to improve the article.

At this point, before elaborating my own rationale on your edits, I think that, in the first place, it is very important that you understand that your sentences will be rephrased, or will be debased in their meaning if necessary, even if you "thought carefully about them", because you are not heaven sent to fix this article. It is in the very nature of wikipedia that anyone's "thoughts" can (and often must) be rephrased.

When I have some more time, I'll deal with your edits.

Thanks. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 02:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing and references

Let's try to be fair, if Gara or the anti-torture agency TAT, which has provided the grounds for the briefing issued by the Special Rapporteur on Torture Theo van Boven (based on thorough torture testimonies) cannot be cited, it is not serious to mention Público's article with detached sentences on ETA's alleged instructions about torture. This cannot be accepted as a neutral source of information, nor any Spanish press source on the Basque issue, as anything against ETA is accepted for propaganda and sensationalism purposes. As I told before, it is like citing a Chechenian related issue on a Moscow newspaper or PKK related one in the Turkish press. Reliability and neutrality is 0 regarding this issue, informations are repeatedly and illegaly leaked to the press straight from the police and not contrasted.

Público's article on the torture issue would be a laughing matter were it not for the gravity of the problem and the reference cannot be accepted in a self respecting encyclopedia. I believe in the free spirit of the wikipedia, and that it doesn't mimick mainstream Spanish media's vicious attitudes concerning the Basque issue (tougher and better). Either Público's reference is deleted as not worthy of trust or Gara's articles are equally accepted (may I say, much more reliable, down-to-earth and close to reality than the likes of Público as to the ETA human rights issue in the Basque Country). Thanks for your attention Iñaki LL (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have here again a conflict going about the neutrality of the article and multi edits. ETA in their comuniquees confirms the killing each time they killed, but some want ignore that info. Also the offitial figures are not just of the Spanish GOv. but the French, the EU and others. I cleared the edits and restored According to official figures and ETA communiqués, since 1968 ETA has killed 823 people. Let's find a consensus about this or call a third party.

On the second issue: we are back to the "paramilitary", "terrorist", "armed" eternal discussion. I just don't see what's the problem to include that ETA is illegal In Spain, FRance and the EU as a whole. Again we have to erase reality from description to accomodate a "neutral" POV.--Neveryou (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ETA are not an illegal organisation, they are an organisation which are illegal in some countries, which is why I removed it as it's already covered further in the lead. The source provided (the Spanish government website) does not support your wording, as the discussion further up the page shows. The site is updated independently of ETA's confirmation, so it does not support the wording you added. BigDunc^Talk 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a series of issues, as for the "illegal", I will restore the term unless a reference is brought showing that the "organisation" is legally registered anywhere. Fact is that the "organisation" is illegal wherever it is present, directly or indirectly. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, it is up to you to prove that they are illegal globally, which is a ludicrous assertion as there are many countries that could not care less about ETA so are extremely unlikely to have made the organisation illegal there. BigDunc^Talk 23:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence is already in the text of ETA being illegal in Spain, France, the EU as a whole and even in unrelated countries like the United States. I guess it is now up to whoever claims that is not illegal to prove it is legal elsewhere. It wouldnt be fair that I had to prove that it is illegal absolutely everywhere whereas no one is able to prove that, reversely, is legally registered in at least one single country.

Anyway, I think you are reasonable enough to accept this one. I understand (but I dont agree) with people out there (including WP guidelines) who do not want to have it called as terrorist instead of the "paramilitary/armed/anyotherwankery". That's ok, if the rule is like that, then we'll have to bow to it. However, illegal, it certainly is. If someone struggled to get the "illegal" fact out of the text, that would be simply a reverse POV pushing compared to those who argue is "terrorist".

Cheers. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

About the illegal claim here is a reference to Conventions on Terrorism, http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp, that are signed on a UN level, several of them pertaining the actions of ETA. Also specifically to Europe there is the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, concluded at Strasbourg on 27 January 1977.

On the claim that the numbers of victims is just a Spanish Government creation I can bring hundreds of references like the one inserted were ETA claims several killings. The figure is also recognized by other governments like the USA (http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/crs/29722.pdf and http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2002/html/).--Neveryou (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc, if, as you said, ETA communiques confirmed the killings, then why did you remove the part of the text that says "According to official figures and ETA communiqués." Accordingly, both sources said so.

Anyway, on this field Mountolive is right. Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes ETA's goals, the fact remains it is an illegal organization. It function in spain (and france), and thus the EU. If it is illegal in it's own domain, what can it qualify as? The arguement that they are not illegal in the whole world holds no bearing because the likes of al-qaeda and hordes of others are not illegal everywhere. Likewise, states are recognised and not recognized by others. Does that make them all illegal? International institutional sanction has recognized this so. Accordingly, is everything illegal? Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, the burden of evidence is on you to prove that ETA is illegal worldwide see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the editor removing it. Therefore you provide a cite that ETA is illegal in every country, or it does not get added back. I made clear I was removed local classification that was being presented as a global one, and yet you blindly reverted me. The legal classification in certain countries is already in the lead, without your unsourced and untrue claim. BigDunc^Talk 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

removed info

I just saw this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ETA&diff=230234832&oldid=230230989). It was a quite a big revamp. Just thought something like this should have a discussion first. Where was the removed info moved to? Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at it carefully, you'll see it looks more drastic than it actually was. This article has got way too loong (prior in this talk page I am noting that concern, the history section should probably be compressed and detached to another article). The whole article does need further compressing and/or detaching. Basically most of the supposedly removed material (Gal and torture concerns) has not removed, but merged. It was basically the same information written in different words in two different sections. Now it is merged and under their own subsections. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The article is too long. If you see the other articles like the various IRA's they are kept quite neat. Lihaas (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

maimings

I think it is worth noting the hundreds of severely maimed. So would it be ok with you guys if we add a note for the maimed, something like "killed 823, maimed hundreds..." Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

With sources by all means go ahead. Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources handily. This one [22] is talking of "nearly 900 killed and many more maimed". This other [23] cites "killed some 800 people and maimed hundreds more".

Either is ok, but there are more. I'm proceeding now with this addition. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tactics

The bBC source says "seven shots to the back that felled a Basque newspaper executive on Thursday" with a one-off connotation. CNN says "Two shots were fired at the attorney, one hitting him in the back of the head, she said." Once again one-off.

But the guardian does say "violent separatists' methods have included car bombings, kidnapping and shooting politicians in the back of the head in their quest for a state carved out of France and Spain." This is the only source to show as a regular tactics and it only mentions politicians. By all means if there is a source to make the generalization then go ahead, but the current sources don't limit this. Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Admitedly, I have not read the sources other than for what you are quoting here above. This said, your position is way too zealous regarding the use of sources. "A Basque nespaper executive" is neither an attorney nor a politician, I am not sure what you mean by a one-off connotation. The two policemen assassinated recently in France were also shot, I think in the back. ETA has shot lots of policemen in the back and what the BBC source is doing is only underlining the fact that they kill politicians at all, not that they kill them with a shot in the back or whatever.

The thing is that nowhere in the source it is written that they only use this "tactic" with politicians and judges, while that was what the previous wording was suggesting.

Let's focus on more important stuff, please. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The bbc source says "seven shots to the back that felled a Basque newspaper executive" has 2 problems with it. 1. No mention of the back of the head, the back-bone, or the Gluteus maximus, 2. it says felled 'a' executive and thus no reference to a general tactic.

The CNN source says "Two shots were fired at the attorney, one hitting him in the back of the head, she said." This also says "the" attorney and not mention of this as a tactic commonly used.

The observer says "violent separatists' methods have included car bombings, kidnapping and shooting politicians in the back of the head in their quest for a state carved out of France and Spain." This it talk about tactics in general and mentions "shooting XXX in the back." Once again the back in the head tactic here is specifically preceded by politicians, and we know all ETA's victims have not been politicians.

Now with the the text on this page it says "Direct attacks: killing, e.g. by shooting the victim in the back of the head." The problem here is that the section mentions ETA's tactics in general then it quotes and example and says "the victim." One is then led to believe, based on sources that apparently back this assertion that the victim in general, ie- any victim, has been killed this way. Its fine to say so, if backed by such sources.

Perhaps this would be better: "Direct attacks: killing, sometime in the back of the head, or otherwise an outright assassination." Or something along these lines. Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. So your problem was just with the "back of the head" thing? If that was it, no worries with me (but for the next time, remember that no one can read your thoughts better than yourself unless you speak them out clearly).

Something along the wording you are suggesting is pretty much fine with me, the only thing is that the text must read that one of their "tactics" is placing themselves at arm reach of someone and shooting them in the head, back, side, top, I dont mind (no source for gluteus maximus). Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is with the 'victim.' My bad, otherwise, but ETA's victims go beyond those listed in the sources. The source only mentions politicians and 'an' attorney. As for the gluts, I was just throwing it out there as an option, ie- it could have been anywhere in the back. And of course, gluts was more polite in order to say...;) Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"as in an assassination" doesn't deny that this is an assassination. If anything it confirms this. It just says that killing is the same way as in an assassination. But yeah, the wording is not that great. But the phrase "killing by shooting the victim in the head at arm's reach distance" is not the best grammatically. I've put a more neutral term that we can all, perhaps obviously agree to. After some consensus and discussion we can come up with a term. (we use this method on the Talk:Roma page) Lihaas (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For a long time, this part read "killing, e.g. by shooting" and then someone changed it for the "shooting in the back" thing and that's when this rather irrelevant question has seen some minor edits. I have restored the classic "killing, e.g. by shooting" which never caused a problem with anyone, I have added "the head" because that is what they typically do (is the best way to kill someone, I guess) and removed any references to back, front, side part of it, which, apparently, were the cause of your edits.

Hopefully this should be it. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you about shooting to the head be the most likely, the SOURCES don't cite it as a regular tactic. the attorney got it in the head not doubt, but that seems one-off (doesn't mean it is, it just seems). the second shooting in the head is more detail specific. Im all game for this, but the sources are vague on it. (The bbc site is also now irrelevant). Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article split

getting too long as it is i think. How about splitting the article. For one an article on the response from the government and internationally would be fitting. Much like the List of ETA attacks. Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with lenght concern. To me, the most obvious candidate to be detached from this article is the History section and so I have been suggesting already for a while detaching History of ETA. Keeping only a minimal abstract of that part here and moving the block History information to an article on its own right would do much good to both articles. So far we are only lacking a user willing to make the summary of what would stay here....I did that already myself with the 2006 "ceasefire" (creating its article and summarizing what is left here) and now I would like someone else to do this one with ETA's history. Mountolive _{please, behave} 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense. I suppose its up to anyone to be Bold. We can wait a few days for response and then do it. Lihaas (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Corona de Aragón fire as an ETA attack

Regarding this edit [24], I have to say that 823 victims plus AT LEAST 80 from the Corona de Aragón fire would make AT LEAST 903, whis is NOT covered by the current "more than 800" wording.

Please suggest alternative wordings or presentations. Randroide (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Randroide.

Well, I'd rather move this info to any section other than in the lead. The lead is referring to victims caused directly by ETA, while the Aragon fire is not one of those (for it could certainly have been the FRAP and the 'modus operandi' of that fire does not seem the usual ETA one?.

As such, this notice may fit in any other section like "under democracy" or "targets", for example; always in conditional tense, since it is not proved that ETA is responsible nor they vindicated this attack. At least, that's how I see it. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the cited source is relevant [25] "Las mismas fuentes indicaron que un dictamen del Consejo de Estado del pasado mes de marzo, encargado por el propio Ministerio, concluye que las víctimas de ese incendio, en el que murieron 78 personas y resultaron heridas otras 113, pueden recibir las ayudas previstas en la citada ley, aunque en el informe no se reconoce que el suceso fuera un acto terrorista." In other words the council of state doesn't recognise it as an act of terrorism so we can't include it and certainly not in the lead. There are more sources out there saying that ETA was responsible for 11m but as that's controversial and disputed, that doesn't go in the lead either. Valenciano (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am improving the Spanish version of the article with new sources and pieces of information. I shall transfer the improvements to the English version and then I think will be th proper time to see what could be the better treatment of this subject at ETA.

I strongly suggest a "Some sources say that ETA was responsible of the Hotel Corona de Aragón fire" approach, wherever section you consider appropriate. IMHO a very brief note at the lead (as a note to the number of victims) would be a very good idea, but I am not the only one to decide about this issue.

There are more sources out there saying that ETA was responsible for 11m

Only sources from 2004. And there was no ETA claim of the attack. A ETA claim for the fire has been reported profusely. It´s a totally different issue. But I shall present to your consideration the facts in a few weeks.

CU! Randroide (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Almirante?

What does "Almirante" mean in the following sentence (taken from 2nd paragraph of ETA#Social support:

"During the Franco era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace[citation needed], reaching its peak after the 'Burgos Trials' of 1970—which drew international attention to the organisation's cause and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime—and their assassination of Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco in 1973 (Carrero Blanco was appointed by Franco as Prime Minister and "strong-man" to rule Spain after his death)"

I think it would be better worded as "Prime Minister Luis Carrero Blanco", then mention something about how he would be Franco's successor. However, I'm no expert on the matter.... -M.Nelson (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Spanish for "Admiral". Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Length (again)

It's been for a while that I am calling to reduce length of this article, which by far larger than wikipedia's conventions on the matter.

Instead of reducing it, we keep having new additions which are on the brink of breaching WP:NOTNEWS, like this one [26]

I dont want to revert systematically other user's work in good faith, but someone should really work in reducing the article's length. To me, the most obvious candidate section to be detached to a separate article, greatly reducing length here and giving right focus to both articles (this one and would be detached one) is the History section.

It should be removed to an article of its own, while leaving here a short, sketchy summary. If you ask me why I dont do it myself, well, I already did so with the ETA attacks and a similar thing with ETA's 2006 ceasefire, but I would like someone else helping, too. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be my edit, and it was. I was skeptical to add it, but then somewhere (either here or elsewhere) some crackdown was listed so I added it in. But yes, it can certainly be cut down. History is one, but recent events (not limited to attacks) can be somewhere. i expect a coming clash pretty soon (as 2008 has shown), so there will be stuff to add. There's a crackdown as wel as greate spate of attacks.

Should we wait awhile to remove that edit you listes?

We seem to work well together to get edits sorted out, eh? first on that political chief's article and then here ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

I have protected the article due to edit warring over the term "terrorist". There is clearly a dispute over the wording of this article; while it may be that Wikipedia policies and guidelines make it clear which formula should be used, I hope that editors will engage in discussion on the talk page rather than continuing the edit warring. While the issue has been discussed in the past, it doesn't appear to have had any recent discussion. Warofdreams talk 23:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisit terrorist discussion

Hi I just saw this article a couple days back, I think a small group came to their own consensus about "terrorist" and is not listening to other people and practicing WP:OWN on the article and edit warring about it. That is not what you should do at Wikipedia. Lets talk about it!!

WP:WTA and WP:TERRORIST in it are style guidelines they are not policy laws like some editors are saying they are. You can say terrorist when it is well sourced. Spain, France, UK, USA, Canada, EU, they all say ETA is terrorist. It is terrorist in news sources. So WP:TERRORIST I say it is not applying here. You think it is, well ok, but pls do not use it like it is a law and mis-represent and bite newcomers with it.

What is wrong with saying armed organization is, lots of people are armed.

Theres armed people, then in that group

theres people with arms that use them, then in that group

there's people with arms that use them to kill people, then in that group

there's people with arms that use them to kill people that aren't related to the struggle that is "innocent."

See, ETA is in that last category and that category is called terrorist. So when you say just "armed" it is mis-leading.

You can still give the ETA side of it that is OK! But it should get called terrorist right in the first bc that is what the sources say. RetroS1mone talk 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly many people regard the ETA as terrorists. Others, including the ETA themselves, don't; which is why Wikipedia (and others) have tended to avoid the term - see the BBC's explanation of why they don't refer to the ETA as 'terrorists', for example.

True, WTA isn't a policy; but WP:NPOV is; and that says that when a matter is disputed, Wikipedia does not take sides in it; we explain who holds each side, leaving no doubt how widely-held one side of the argument is, but not taking a side ourselves.

Absolutely, the view that the ETA are terrorist should be given a huge amount of prominence, as it is held by the majority of major organisations and groups; but a neutral point of view isn't acheived by taking one side and then giving the other side as well. It's achieved by, where there is a dispute, only giving each side as an attributed view, and declining to take either side ourselves. TSP (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then not terrorist but it needs better describing then "armed organization" they are not just armed they kill civilians to get attention on their struggle. That is what they do, they do not just keep a gun in their pocket, that is what armed means. You can call them terrorist with the main sources or you can call them heroic resistence, but in the article there needs better wording than "armed" in the first paragraph. RetroS1mone talk 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative descriptions provided they're NPOV - what do you suggest? For example would "violent separatist" cover it as they use violence to achieve political ends? Valenciano (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA is not really a true terrorist group because it does not attack public transport such as planes, underground, buses, trains etc. Other groups such as Al Qaeda make huge massacres of civilians, childeren and other people in such places! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.83.202 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that isn't true, ETA planned to blow up a train in late 2003 and massacred civilians in the hipercor attack in Barcelona in 1987. As above there's no problem with "terrorist" being used in the article provided it is attributed. It is interesting to see that in the case of Al Q, a much more violent group, the lead doesn't say that they are terrorist, it's suitably dealt with in the article though in an NPOV way. Valenciano (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed with this politically correct ban of the T word. ETA is by and large a terrorist group. Probably this policy (which only now I learn is only style one...I always thought it was compulsory) is referred to developping/third world countries where the distinction between terrorist group and militia/rebels is more blurring. However, ETA is acknowledged by all the relevant official sources in Europe as terrorist. I guess that wikipedia is not ready for this (nor, sadly, will ever be) but, if this section is opening a window for serious discussion of this topic, I'd plainly go stating that is a terrorist group and provide the sources, rather than using the politically correct periphrasis ("it is listed as a terrorist group by...") which is quite awkward, especially on the face of the glaring evidence of the group being, both in essence and perceived, a terrorist group.

ETA does not consider itself terrorist...so what? The fact that they dont consider themselves terrorist does not add anything. Al Qaeda does not consider themselves terrorist. Le Pen does not consider his movement racist. Stalin's followers (if any left) do not consider their leader as a ruthless bloody one. But there is something called thir party reliable sources. We have to stick to them, and third party reliable sources, both official and media (the US or Canada are definitely third party, like most European governments besides Spain and France) overwhelmingly quote ETA as being terrorist. BBC is rather the exception than the rule. I'd go and google for a bunch of media (non Spanish and non French, if preferred) quoting ETA as terrorist. I'd do so if if I knew it was going to be worth it, but if we are not going to listen to that evidence in the end and we are going to follow BBC's own criteria, then we'd better start to change the name of the site for wikibbc and shelve any hopes of real objectivity here Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think terrorist is the word to use, I also see why some people object. Valenciano that is a good suggestion, "violent separatist" I do not object. "separatist group that uses violence against civilian targets" is another suggestion but it is all just a pc way, to say terrorist. RetroS1mone talk 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but being "pc" on here is the only way to avoid endless edit wars. I agree with Mountolive's analysis of ETA but I also believe that NPOV is a policy which underpins all of Wikipedia and that without that, we're all wasting our time here. Now as for the lead, I'd also suggest bumping up the sourced terrorist mentions. "ETA is a violent Basque nationalist and separatist organisation which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French[5] authorities as well as the European Union as a whole,[6] and the United States.[7]" That lead I believe would be in accordance with policies, particularly NPOV and RS and would also hopefully stop edit warring. Valenciano (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good!! I support it. RetroS1mone talk 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good, I completely disagree - POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What specific do you disagree on? RetroS1mone talk 15:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Valenciano´s proposed text. If the BBC avoids calling ETA "terrorist", at Wikipedia we should do the same. Randroide (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess that Valenciano's proposal is as good as it gets in terms of compromising. It is not my preferred option but I understand what he means and, therefore, it is alright as far as I am concerned. Mountolive _{le déluge} 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole second paragraph is inappropriate to be in the lead section of this article.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph is sourced and indisputible. Spain, France, EU and USA do categorise ETA as a terrorist group and that belongs in the lead - I fail to see the problem so please suggest alternatives if you disagree. For arguments why we should change from armed to violent - retrosimone has explained it adequately. Numerous groups are armed but do not use violence. Rightly or wrongly, ETA is charactised by its use of violence and that belongs in the lead sentence. Valenciano (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with a change from armed to violent - what the fuck is that about - pure POV again in an attempt to add a negative connotation.--Vintagekits (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Violent = a group that uses violence which ETA does - can easily be sourced. Valenciano (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The F-Word is not used by encyclopedists on work, Vintagekits. Stating that ETA is "violent" is simply to state a fact.Randroide (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll use whatever type language I feel necessary to get my point across. All "armed" groups are by definition "violent" - when we describe the Spanish Army as one of the "one of oldest active violent armies in the world" then we can start talking about this POV nonsense. I cant believe some experienced editors are involved in this farce, shame on you.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo many of the views outlined by Sugaar here.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you to read WP:CIVIL, Vintagekits. There are rules here, and trusting our "feelings" is not a good enough guidance to acceptable behaviour. Just the Swiss army case as an illustration: They are armed, but they are not violent. They have not used their weapons in anger as an army in decades. ETA is different: They must use their weapons in anger to achieve their aims, therefore they are violent. Got the difference between "armed" and "violent"? Randroide (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you understand the contents of WP:CIVIL - who exactly was I being uncivil towards? Your Swiss Army analogy is absolutely ridiculous. Talk about clutching at straws to try and shoehorn your right wing agenda into the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being uncivil towards anyone offended by harsh language reading this page. You failed to explain why my example is "ridiculous". Your words about my (alleged) "right wing agenda" fail WP:FAITH Randroide (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I might be offending their sensibilities but I am not being uncivil - there is a difference. Now either dealing with the issues or dont because you are beginning to bore me.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Every one but Vintagekits is saying, go ahead and put the sourced "terrorist" in first sentence, that is consensus i think, so when the page is unprotected i think the edit should get made. I will do it or another person can. A hidden comment like the one before is good also like "the lead language is the product of consensus, please discuss changes on the talk page" RetroS1mone talk 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If the terrorist label is added to ETA we might as well add it to the United States Armed Forces, because according to groups like Al-Qaeda (and many other people worldwide), the US Army is a terroristic organization (indeed, many of their actions fit the loose definition in the terrorism Wikipedia article). To non-supporters of ETA they are terrorists, but to many Basque people they are considered patriots. The fact that the BBC does not refer to them as terrorists is evidence that this is far from a fringe belief. Copana2002 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to the consensus version Valenciano proposed. It does not label ETA a terrorist organization, it lists the countries that call it a terrorist organization with sources. Reliable sources like these that call the US Army a terrorist organization can also be added to that article when you have consensus for it. You can suggest it on the talk for United States Armed Forces. RetroS1mone talk 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead is perfect for me as it is now Randroide (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

VERY premature and you are risking an edit war - not wise. Dont try and shoehorn your opinions into articles please.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your threat of an edit war is not constructive. "Terrorist" is not an opinion, it is from multiple sources. I did not have opinion on this subject until I came to the article last week, Valenciano and others convinced me it is not good to call ETA "terrorist" out right, we discussed and came to consensus to put the reliable sources in first sentence. You will need giving better reasons then vague accusings of "POV nonsense" and incivil comments like you did up there. RetroS1mone talk 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming tedious and tiresome. I did not threaten an edit war, although your attempt to shoehorn very controvertial edits into an article WITHOUT concensus and on the back of a 4 day old ongoing discussion is enough to provoke even the most mild mannered of editors. There may be multiple references which claim that ETA are terrorists - there are multiple references to claim that Elvis is alive and well and living on the moon - that doesnt not mean it is correct to put it into this article and also it does not mean that its trumps WP:NPOV - thats kind of a big policy around here!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point Vintagekits the article does not call ETA a terrorist organization it says Spain France EU and US call it a terrorist organization. Very notable, also ETA is called terrorist organization by most news sources, BBC is a exception. This article is supposed to be balanced and fair and NPOV means go with the sources, NPOV does not mean, ETA view of itself gets the same weight from every one's outside view of ETA in English wikipedia. I do not see alot of POV in the discussion except from IP editors that were putting in terrorist before I came here, and you. Why do you think reliable sources that call ETA terrorist should not be in first sentence?

BTW there are no reliable sources say Elvis is alive and living on the moon, there are lots of reliable sources that call ETA terrorist. RetroS1mone talk 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits you have reverted again w/o explanation on talk page. I do not have interest in edit war but i want an explanation for why you revert. There is no new information shoehorned into article! The change was re-order the sentence, suggested by Valenciano who did alot of work on this page, supported by Mountolive who did alot of work on this page and also Randroide who edits this page. And say "violent" that is also agreed. The other editors convinced me ETA does not have to be called "terrorist" out right. I agree with them. That is a consensus, you can't just say POV nonsense and revert it. Now you can try and change consensus but you need to talk about it and not using incivil language pls. Why do you object calling ETA a violent organization and why is it wrong, moving terrorist references to top? RetroS1mone talk 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I have reverted it! Yes you have done some great work with other editors who are also anti-ETA - do you want congratulations for that? There is no concensus to support your attempt at POV editing. Your opinions do not trump wikipedia policies. kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits is of course right consensus dose no overide policy, ever. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, concensus can change - but there isnt concensus here to make changes such as this which are contrary to wikipedia policy.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion: On articles about paramilitary separatist groups, or groups the engage in extra-legal direct action, there tends to be a pattern to the lead. That pattern usually describes the group as neutrally as possible in the opening sentence, followed by how the group sees itself (its aims, its goals) followed by how they are described by legal, civic, state, national or establishment bodies.

To that end, the current version best follows that established pattern. Leading with "violent" is a peacock adjective that is entirely redundant, and launching straight into the terror group designation before even describing who they are is lacking neutrality by undue weight.

Perhaps the only suggestion I would offer is to replace one of the two uses of the term "armed" with "paramilitary" in the opening two sentences. Not only would that read better, but it again follows the established pattern of how we describe so-called "terrorist" groups. Rockpocket 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree paramilitary is better then armed, "armed" was discussed above.

Using good sources at top is not "lacking neutrality by undue weight." Undue weight is when a small faction's opinions get priority over how the rest of the world, as in most sources sees the faction. WP is for following sources, not being extra careful to acomodate fringe groups, opinions, individuals.

That is just my opinion i see it is not shared by other editors. I am also seeing, the pro-ETA sentiment versus anti-ETA sentiment is too strong on article for unopinioned editors like me to make much difference in the slow edit war that is going on for along time. I was hoping some discussion would help, may be it will but i am obviously not helping, i am also disturbed by environment here and editors like Vintagekits behavior and i will not edit this article and talk any more. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you to please stay and contribute. Disagreements and differences of opinion can easily be resolved with a little good faith and patience from everyone. Vintagekits has been counseled that a more moderate tone will result in a more constructive dialog, and I expect he will embrace that going forward. The last thing articles like this need is the withdrawal of editors with no vested opinion, and just because we disagree does not mean you are not helping. Far from it: discussion is good (so long as its in good faith).

Regarding undue weight. I don't think anyone disputes that ETA is widely described as a "terror group" by many reliable sources. Its important then, that we note exactly that in the lead. I don't think anyone is disputing that either. However, the goal of the lead is to introduce the subject of the article. And we should do that as neutrally as possible, and be especially careful with labels that have pejorative connotations. By pushing the "terrorist" info to the opening sentence, we give the label more weight than the description. In other words, we consider it more important to report condemnation of the group before even explaining what they do! Thats what I mean by undue weight. I find the BBC justification quite insightful on this issue:

As part of the BBC's duty to be impartial, independent and accurate, it tries to use neutral and factual language wherever possible. The words terrorist and terrorism when applied to a specific group are subjective and can carry a sense of condemnation. "Basque separatist" is a factual explanation of the group and its goals.

I would say it would be prudent of us to follow their example with our lead, and stick with something along the lines of a "Basque separatist paramilitary group" as the primary descriptor. Once we have explained who they are and what their purpose is, then we can describe how they are labeled by others. Again, this is standard style for the lead sections of other similar groups, see Provisional Irish Republican Army, Animal Liberation Front or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty for example. Rockpocket 02:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rock that's both reasoned and reasonable and dose clarify how and why our agreed guidlines and policies are important. As Vintagekits correctly points out, consensus can change and often will, however till such a time we work with what we have and not try to work around it. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo's meaning

Hello to all. I prefer to discuss it not to change it directly. The meaning of the logo is not exactly that and the text cited are one a opinion text and the other two are personal opinions of the journalists. The meaning in basque is cited ad "Sugea bezain zuhurra, aizkora bezain zorrotza". The translatino is "As clever as the snake, as sharp as an axe". Is to say, it's not refering one to the politics and the ohter one to the armed action. -Theklan (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

A user is removing the logo on the grounds that "it is a crime to display it in some countries" citing a court ruling. But the court ruling doesn't say that - it says that it's a crime to display a banner supporting ETA or other 'terrorist' groups at a sporting event. That court ruling could certainly be mentioned in its proper place but not in the lead and not used as a justification for removal of the image. Valenciano (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. I was about to look into that reasoning.    SIS  21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish speakers?

If anyone speak spanish it would be great if they could check out the spanish wiki of ETA. The into lang. goes into calling it a "terrorist" group (as far as I can read). I just removed Txeroki's tag that mentioned him as being the "bando terrorismo" Lihaas (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried that only to be told that there is no such policy as wp:terrorist on es.wikipedia. Here it does say that it's only a style proposal and with the last discussion message about it in March it doesn't look likely to become official style policy. After the problems I had there with the Isaura Navarro article and others, I generally view es.wikipedia to be a bit of a lost cause in terms of NPOV/PVN. I know a couple of other editors who left there feeling the same way which is probably why it's performing quite poorly in terms of number of articles compared to the number of available speakers. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist organization, according to Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia Category: Terrorist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorists ETA must be denominated as terrorist, I'll include it in the description of the group. It fullfills all the reasons given:

   * Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
   * Targeting civilians.
   * Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.
   * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
   * Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

--Infinauta (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Those criteria are for inclusion in that category, they do mean that ETA must be denominated as terrorist by us. We already note in the lead that they are proscribed as a terrorist organisation by various countries, that is perfectly sufficient. Rockpocket 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We note that others consider them terrorists, including Category:Terrorists is digusting Spanish point of view pushing. 86.153.109.194 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Disgusting Spanish point of view"? That's very unfair on your side, and violates the neutrality of Wikipedia. If an article fulfills the requirements of the Wikipedia for being included in one category, I don't see any reason for not being included. If you don't consider them as terrorist (you said "others consider them terrorist"), it's ok, but this is not the place for your campaign. Neutrality is a must in wikipedia, and this article fulfills the requirements. If you don't like I'm sorry. And, please try to sign with your name. --Infinauta (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I did sign my name, do you have problems reading? Obviously you do, as Category:Terrorists says "This category is for individuals only". Therefore not only is the category not neutral, it does not belong on an article about an organisation. So stop adding it! 86.153.109.194 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

True, Category:Terrorists is for individuals, that's why I put in the Category:Terrorism, where most organisations are. What should go in "Terrorists" is ETA members. Escorial82 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. And it does not go in that category either, as it is in more than one appropriate subcategory. Can nothing be done about this Spanish cabal? 86.153.109.194 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish cabal? You're obviously not neutral. And you don't sign with your name, just your IP. Show your face.--Infinauta (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IPs have every right to edit. 86.153.109.194 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone has been convicted of a terror-related offense by a court, then they can very probably be put in the Category:Terrorists. If ETA fulfills the criterion that is currently mandated for Category:Terrorism, then it can be categorized as such also. If there is a more appropriate sub-category we could put it in, even better.

Then put them in the correct sub-categories, I note the only people in the main category were ETA members added recently. 86.153.109.194 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be most helpful if you both remain focused on the content matter at hand, rather than make reference to each other. WP:NPA, remember. Rockpocket 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ETA funding

I strongly suggest that a new section be created to address the issue of ETA's funding, including, for instance, the passage on extortion currently -and wrongly- under its 'tactics'. This fresh section could be completed with other alleged funding activities, such as illegal drug and weapons trade from and into the Basque Country carried out by this paramilitary group.--Laocoont (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication

Many members of the ETA have been apparently excommunicated, the article should maybe mention this, and it should better explain their controversial relationships with the Church. [27] 69.157.229.153 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

right infobox

The right infobox does not say what the status of ETA is in Spain and France, where it operates. Maybe this got lost in the low-level edit wars on this page? Also, maybe better to say "Legal status" instead of just "Status", which can mean anything? I don´t want to change it without discussion. Compromiso (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both points made. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 13:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm, the "status" seems to be a wikipedia category and if i try to change it to "legal status" the whole thing disappears. sorry, i´m not a wiki expert. also - i have not found a reference (not even on the spanish page) for the illegality in spain (!), so i have not changed anything. Compromiso (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a book ------- SHORTEN IT.

I support <Mountolive> 100% -- this article is ridiculously long.

Who wrote this 'tome'??

I'm serious when I complain that "this is a book". Here's the stats:

  81,696 characters
  25 pages
  12,747 words

The only other article that seems parallel (I don't care what you think of my comparison, it is only for illustrative purposes) is the article on the Irish Republican Army.

It is only 13 pages in length (and hey, that's too long too). Here are its stats:

  38,174 characters
  13 pages
  6,302 words

Surely this one on the ETA should be no longer than that.

The article opens with the following statement: "This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate."

No kidding.

The references and external links are fabulous, but the article is far longer than what is the benchmark in an Encyclopedia; do something about it.

yes, probably everybody agrees that the article is too long. but it does not help to shout at other people (using capital letters) that "something must be done". it is true that the incremental additions continue to make it longer. i guess noboby wants to reorganise and rewrite the page because it will cause an edit war and just be a lot of work without aknowledgement. if you read the talkpage you will see that the discussion has not been very polite nor very stimulating. i think there are maybe three motivations for people to contribute to wikipedia - a commitment to the subject, a desire to collaborate and a wish to learn. unfortunately, collaboration and learning don´t really work on this page, and the commitment to the subject is very polarised here. also, there is much editing without contribution to the talk page. so it´s maybe best to leave the page as it is for now and wait? Compromiso (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the History section could well be cut and copied in its own article "History of ETA", then replaced here by a 10-15 lines ultra compressed sumary. I think this would do good to both this article and to the hypothetical "History of Eta" one (which would provide specific room for more detailed insight on the history of the group). On the face of it, this move should not involve any real edit-warring (just block-moving to another article). As I said in the past a few times already, I already did a similar thing with both "List of ETA attacks" and a with the "permanent ceasefire" section. I feel like someone else should help in this regard now.MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)