Talk:ETA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Basque WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

There is a clear policy on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

• Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)

Wikipedia is not a forum.

If you find opinions in this talk page that you disagree with, do not discuss them, unless that is going to help to get a better Wikipedia article.

If you want to engage in discussion of non-encyclopedic matter, offer the other user a venue outside of Wikipedia.

Chronological Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3 (Nov 2006 pre-mediation)

Contents 1 Dispute resolution 1.1 Unionism and alternative terms 1.2 Alternatives for anti-represive 2 Suggest Colombia External Link Be deleted 3 grammar and stuff like that 4 Article mediation 4.1 Lead section 4.2 Mountolive's main issues 4.3 Sugaar's main issues 4.3.1 Ideology 5 Eta Aims 6 Calling People Terrorists

[edit] Dispute resolution

If we are not able to consensuate something that is NPOV and verifiable, we should start in good terms a dispute resolution process. The first steps of which would seem to request outer opinions via a request for comment and maybe start a mediation.

I believe there's suficient plurality here to reach a consensus and hence I ask more neutral editors involved to take a more active role. If this is going to be only between Mountolive and myself, I imagine that DR will be necesary, hopefully in good terms.

What I can't accept is that unverified and clearly POV claims are stated as the truth, even deleting valid sources for that. --Sugaar 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have worked out a excellent basis for working this through. I am an editor of a paper in eastern europe and have desire to see peace evrywhere. I have a very limited knowledge of your issue but a small interest. I am happy to assist if you guys want me. I like edits to be Factual, Referenced, Sourced, and NPOV and Sensitive to other ideals. If you want me I'll try to steer a middle course for you both asking for give and take on both sides. Mark us street Nov 27th

I salute your, apparently, more open mood and I hope it lasts for more than a day. If you may, in order to work it out, hopefully without having to ask for mediation, let's try to fix the smaller details before we go about the main discussion. So: are you ok if I delete "anti repressive" and "unionist"?

As profusely explained above, this a vocabulary exclusively used by ETA and Batasuna, it is not heard in either Spanish, French, nor, most important, international sources not related to the ETA scenario. Besides, "unionist" is, as mentioned above, an unfortunate and misleading due (to the Ulster reference) mix of bias+original research which really doesn't belong here.

Since taking for good the ETA/Batasuna language would be obviously biased, I'm hoping that you agree with this. Let us know. Mountolive 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in "open mood" in general. What I have clear is that truth or, in its defect, NPOV must prevail. I have referenced how Rajoy (PP leader and fromer minister of Interior) and even Garzón (antiterrorist super-judge) think that ETA's aim is self-determination and that is not (for Rajoy) acceptable. That is clearly one of the main point of difference not just between ETA and the PP but between Basque and Spanish nationalists in general. And that's where ETA itself puts the emphasis, no matter what the Spanish press silences or not.

You can't write an article based on the opinion of "tertulianos", who basically are paid to make POV claims and not NPOV research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Sugaar 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unionism and alternative terms

I still think we have to find a neutral term that fits the common ideology of Spanish nationalists/unionists. I can't agree that one side is treated differently than the other: if Basque nationalism/separatism exists and is in conflict with that other force with seat in Madrid, that other force is logically Spanish nationalism/unionism (they claim the inalienable unity of Spain). I think that giving no explanation on that issue is confuse and POV. The term unionism does fit well the English language in my opinion, else we should use Spanishist or Spaniardist, as it's done in common Basque Spanish (españolista) but that's faulty in English.

I actually think unionist is much more neutral and (against what you believe) it is seldom if ever at all used by Basque nationalist, calling someon Spanish (español(a)) is more than clear in such cricles. On the other hand, Spanish nationalists do make continuous appeals to the unity of Spain, so the use of unionist is rather justified.

Alternatively we could use constitutionalist parties... but the ancestor of the PP (Fraga's AP or CP, can't recall) actually used to be against the 1978 constitution and asked to vote against it. On the other hand some non-Basque nationalist parties do seem to favor that constitution while they don't have strong opinions against Basque self-determination or are rather favorable to it. --Sugaar 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The unionist term is too close to Ulster where the Unionists are often demonised as backward and hardline. My suggestion is use 'Spanish Nationalists'. The other suggestions may complicate matters even more.Mark us street Nov 27th

I can agree perfectly with that too. --Sugaar 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't just say that PSOE is a Spanish nationalist party. Within that party there is PSC and PSE which are obviously not Spanish nationalists. But, other than that, as Error pointed out, the PSOE in general is far from being a Spanish nationalist party and it is frequently attacked by Spanish nationalists for that. Is the Labour party in the UK a British/English nationalist party? it is basically the same situation.

If Sugaar agrees, I'd go for "constitutionalist" parties. It is not a very good label but it is the one widely accepted. As for the PP background, well, we are not discussing about those now, we are discussing about the present position and, obviously, today PP stands for the 1978 Constitution. For the same reason we overview the original racism involved with Basque nationalism, there's no use to focus in the other's past, specially in politics, where positions are understood to shift, even dramatically. We have enough trouble with the 2006 definition to bring stuff from the 70's. Mountolive 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The PSE is as Spanish nationalist as the FSM (PSOE of Madrid) or maybe even more. PSC is somewhat an exception but also the relationship between Catalonia and Spain has not the parameter of that between Euskal Herria and Spain.

I said I dislike that the PP is called constitutionalist as that's not just quite irrelevant for the Basque-Spanish conflict (that has a much greater historical depth) but also is unjust with the historical viewpoint of that party that voted against the 1978 constitution and whose members mostly come from the Francoist (fascist) ranks, being unaable to to condemn the coup of 1936 and fascist dictatorship even today. Saying that the PP is constitutionalist is giving it some sort of democratic credentials that it does not deserve.

I settle for Spanish nationalist or Spanish unionist or something that clearly has the same meaning of defending the interests of Spain (Spanish state, not necesarily the Spanish people) above anything else. --Sugaar 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Constitutionalist" is not good at face value. Check the Constitution article on right to a residence and find who is actually implementing it. However, it is good as a self-identification. "Spanish nationalist" is rarely seen as a self-identification. I think I already proposed "pro-Spain" that doesn't work very well in the text. --Error 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you say about the right to residence but, well, at the end of the day, as you say, those parties (PSOE and PP, basically) are the ones which identify themselves as "constitutionalists" and there's no fundamental opposition to this usage: this fact should have some value. After all, right to residence and a some mostly minor questions aside, I think it is undisputed that they chiefly identify with the 1978 Constitution as the general frame to work with (from different interpretations, obviously), something which the Basque nationalists don't.

After all, in the Spanish context "abertzale" has gained currency from an original usage which was mostly restricted only to those who identify themselves as "abertzale"; hence, I'm guessing that the same could be done with those who identify themselves as "constitutionalists". Mountolive 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives for anti-represive

I find faulty to leave Askatasuna without any adjective, it doesn't even have a link and it's clear that their activity is anti-represive, whatever you may think:

• Assitance to POWs and their families
• Weekly protests against special measures applied to POWs and general demand for their liberation

What term do you think it should be used there? Prisioners' support group (it ignores their political dimension)? Can't think of anything better and they call themselves anti-represive organization, what can't be ignored in any case. --Sugaar 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

are they POWs or Politial Prisoners Mark us street Nov 27th

Technically they are convicted or alleged criminals (under Spanish law), while the Nationalist Left uses the term "political prisioners" (what is surely correct in some cases, in the sense that they have been arrested and sometimes convicted for political ideas rather than criminal actions). POW is my own capricious POV (not to include in the article, please).

Whatever the case, we are refering to prisioners under Spanish laws and justice system that are related with the struggle for Basque self-determination, either by non-violent or violent means. It is only in this very generic sense they are "political prisioners". But I would not use that term except when saying that the Nationalist Left or Askatasuna or ETA or whoever calls them that way. --Sugaar 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even the average Batasuna supporter call ETA's inmate "POWs". I am really afraid that there is little to be agreed with someone with such a high ideologization level that even exceeds the one of the average MLNV supporter (which is already high). I guess we must make a last try but calling convicted terrorists "Prisoners of War" is really shameful and sad and speaks loud and clear of the credentials of such an editor. Mountolive 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I just wrote. It's my POV and only for the discussion. Don't argue on what's not necessary to argue.

Anyhow, some are convicted some are not. Many are only in jail awaiting trial (and many are released after acquital or dismissal of the case). The status of "political prisioners" is variable but all share one element: being imprisioned in relation with the political and military conflict between the Basque stateless nation and the Spanish nation-state.

What I have to get ashamed of, I will decided myself, thanks. I believe I am much more disapassionate in than you in this issue. And this is not a forum anyhow: let's stay focused. --Sugaar 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How would you react before an editor who said that his "capricious POV, only for the discussion" was that Franco knew best how to deal with the situation?? Wouldn't you feel legimately extra-suspitious by such a "discussion only" statement? I bet you would (and with a good reason). Maybe you understand better what I meant above.

I am finally requesting mediation. Hopefully a mediator will help us all and the matter will be closed in a matter of days. Do you agree?. Mountolive 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See Jmabel page, please. Mountolive 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation may be a leghty process for what I know. But as long as you and I are the main interested editors (it seems frequent: people with the strongest opions are the ones more interested in a given article) it may be helpful.

Another possibilty is request for comment that asks other wikipedians in general to give their opinions and help to decide which position is best founded, if any.

This would require to present the opposing views neatly in each of their aspects.

And regarding your pro-Franco comment, I'd say that he didn't know anything: he and the ones like him created ETA with their brutal and (culturally) genocidal policies. Now it's up to us to solve the problem, if possible. It's been 40 years already: all my life. --Sugaar 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil to each other as you both can be. I take both your sides on previous points and hope we can agree. Firstly Spanish Nationalists is as good a generic term as we can come up with so I vote for that. Secondly I take the other editors side on point two. They shound NOT be refered to POWs. At best we can call them Political Prisioners Let me explain this. . The crimes may be criminal but the motive political ,. Can we agree to compromise on these issues given you both get something. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006

Sugaar, I take your above comment like you are agreeable to a mediation carried both by Jmabel and Error (if I was wrong, please correct me as soon as possible). I'm proceeding now to contact Jmabel/Error to see if they agree themselves (unless you are not ok with it). Mark us street is more than welcome to check it -if it starts, that is to say- and add his own input.Mountolive 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "support group for prisoners" ignores a political dimension. It's almost a translation of Gestoras' full name. --Error 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest Colombia External Link Be deleted

I suggest this is unproven and given this sensitive issue ought to be deleted. Best try to stick to Proven links and facts. Over to you guys Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.

Against. Allegations of ETA presence in Colombia are not unusual. A statement by the Colombian army clears things. An English article would be better though. --Error 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar and stuff like that

I was copyediting for clarity and grammar, trying not to change any meaning or content. I found this sentence-

"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace, reaching its peak after the 'Burgos Trials' of 1970, which drew international attention to the organization'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 his successor in the rule of Spain).

I don't want to change content, but this reads really poorly and makes very little sense grammatically. Does this mean-

"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace, which reached its peak after the 'Burgos Trials' of 1970. This trial drew international attention to the organization's cause and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime. In 1972 they assasasinated Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco, who was appointed by Franco do be his successor."

Or this-

"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace. The 'Burgos Trials' of 1970, and their 1973 assassination of Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco, Franco's chosen successor, drew international attention to the organization's cause, and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime."

I'm not sure which is the intended meaning, but that chunk of sentence needs to obe broken into readable pieces. back to the copyedit now. Resonanteye 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither, actually. I'll reword more appropriately in the article rather than explain here. - Jmabel | Talk 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Still nonsencsical grammar. The phrase that is out of place/badly parsed is

"and their assassination of Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco in 1973 (Carrero Blanco was appointed by Franco as his successor in the rule of Spain)"

What is the verb for this clause? Did the assassination draw attention, or did it draw public support? It must be worded more clearly. This phrase needs a sentence of its own, and cannot be tacked on to the end of the sentence, because the phrasing makes it unclear which verb it relates to. And the aside

"(Carrero Blanco was appointed by Franco as his successor in the rule of Spain)" should either be more brief, as my potential edits above, or demands its own sentence. This is three sentences strung together with commas, and is almost impossible to scan for meaining. If someone can explain simply what the assassination did that makes it necessary to this exact placement, connected to the sentence it is in, then I can edit without changing the content or meaning. It's a grammar thing- all I need to know is what the assassination did, and it will be simple to fix and make it read well.

With some more good copyedits, this article could be great. It's obviously (from the intensity of the talk page, here) a very intense subject. I am really learning something about it just from reading the page itself as I edit, and the discussions here.

Resonanteye 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving on to do some smaller copyedit, I noticed that in the "history" section this clause is repeated as its own sentence, almost word for word. Does it fit better to define it there, or here? Thanks for being patient. I'm trying to tread lightly and still do some good. Resonanteye 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Is this working better? Would re-organizing help? Talk:ETA/redundanciesmustgo Resonanteye 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article mediation

I gather that User:Sugaar and User:Mountolive are both open to trying to cool things down a bit here and accept some (very) informal mediation from me and possibly (if he's interested) from User:Error. I'll try to handle the mediation here on the talk page.

Could I ask that User:Sugaar and User:Mountolive both try to refrain from making hasty edits to the article over the next week or two and see if we can use the talk page to hammer out some consensus instead? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to start a few tracks at once, in hopes of this going more quickly; I'm making a subsection for each of these. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I made a point of not reading everything above. I'd like to start over with a relatively clean slate. In fact, if the two of you will agree to it, I suggest we archive the previous discussion and start this page relatively clean. Is that OK? - Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes

1. Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Ok. Give me a day or so. --Sugaar 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Archiving is ok.Mountolive 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No

[edit] Lead section

Sugaar and Mountolive or anyone else: do you see problems with what material is contained in the lead section of the article, or with how that material is presented?

My own take is that it covers roughly the right material, but that it does not flow well, and some wordings could be improved:

• "stated in 1995 in the Democratic Alternative is going to be unclear to anyone not already generally familiar with the topic, we should contextualize it.
• "That the Basque society is the only subject of its destiny" is very awkward English. I can only guess that it is supposed to mean "Only the Basques can determine the destiny of Basque society". Would there be anything wrong with that wording?
• "Respect of the results of the democratic process in the Basque Country" is very vague: was the ETA communique equally vague? If so, we are stuck with it, other than using the preposition "for" rather than "of"

I'd like to attempt a rewrite of the lead, and in particular to reorder the material: this really jumps around. I'd probably give their stated goals before mentioning the terrorist lists they are on: this would put the terrorism accusations right next to the number of dead. But first I want to ask if either of you believes that there is material in the lead that you feel does not belong in the lead, or if there is material you believe should be added to the lead that is not currently there. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Alternative should be put in context with the KAS Alternative, its historical predecesor. They are roughly the same, just that the DA is more emphatic on how to solve the problem. Also KAS Alternative was created by political organizations (organized then in KAS), not by ETA.

I've made minor preposition changes (its>its own, of>for) to improve the English.

I do think that the DA does not actually belong to the lead (even if I placed it there myself replacing false/manipulated attributions of goals to ETA). I just meant it to be well justified and clear and give no excuses for content criticism. But it would be better to state just "Basque self-determination" there and move the details to "Aims"/"Goals" (and "Ideology?").

For the rest, I like the lead as it is. --Sugaar 07:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to see less detail on the DA in the lead. Mountolive, would you also be agreeable to reducing "goals" in the lead to just "Basque self-determination" and put the details in a different section early in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. PNV has made "self determination" a goal in itself. Batasuna has also made a point of self determination. ETA has mentioned it here and there, but not consistently. ETA's goal is independence, self determination is regarded as a way but, in the event of a negative referendum, ETA would not disband and keep "in business" unless independence is reached.

Actually, I'd rather start, if you agree, with simpler stuff which can be decided much quicker and easier, such as de Unionist and Anti-repressive wording. If we manage with the smaller things, it means we can try the bigger. Mountolive 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we perhaps get consensus on "Basque self-determination leading to independence"? I really doubt that there is such a thing as non-independentist ETA member. - Jmabel | Talk

Ok, you've been called to conduct the discussion here, so let's focus in this one if you think is better.

I am agreeable to your proposal, but there is an issue with the self determination right. This one is aimed at the colonies. As is well known, the Basque territories in the Spanish side of the border (including Navarre if you want, for this purpose only, under the Basque label) enjoy a wide autonomy and, in the case of the Basque autonomous community, it has been ruled by Basque nationalists during the last roughly 25 years without a single break. Thus, if the self determination "right" is to be quoted there, it should be either with quotation marks or saying something like "extend self determination to the Basque territories leading to independence" or something like that.

My concern is that, if we just mimick their vocabulary, we are biasing the understanding. But, other than this remark to be included somehow, your proposal sounds reasonable to me. Mountolive 07:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

UN (in general) only recognizes the right of self-determination for overseas colonies. But that doesn't define the concept only what international law accepts of it. In any case it's what ETA (and many others) are saying it's their claim, wether you, I, Kofi Annan or the Pope agree with it or not.

We are not discussing if ETA's claims are legitimate or not, just which ones they are.

It is precisely by rejecting the descriptions given by the actors of themselves and their objectives when you are distorting the issue, specially when even Mariano Rajoy accepts that's the issue (something he's not willing to discuss, aparently).

You're trying to distort all the picture by projecting minoritary opinions as "the right definition" and negating the obvious as valid. Wether you agree or not with the right of self-determination for the Basque Country, that doesn't change a comma in ETA's main claim being that - and nothing else. --Sugaar 08:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, obviously you won't agree with one another on the politics. The issue is whether we can agree on the article.

Can we get consensus that the lead should say "Basque self-determination leading to independence" and that we will move the details down lower, where we can discuss the DA in the context of other statements made at other times? - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's twisting things: While all Basque nationalists claim to be in favor of independence, that doesn't seem to be the main point of contention with Spain but the right of self-determination itself. ETA will surely settle for that, as it has clearly stated repeatedly (and I have documented). Nowhere in the DA is independence as such mentioned: but self-determination once and again. Obviously many Basque nationalists (if not all) would call for independence in an eventual referendum but that's not the point of contention nor ETA's main goal. --Sugaar 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can settle for "Basque self-determination leading to independence" if only to make the lead section free of POV now and, then, as Jmabel says, move with my point on self determination and Sugaar's points down in the article where, if they fitted at all, they do so better.

I would like to remember that DA is just one document issued by ETA, it's not some sort of ETA's Main Declaration of Goals (such a thing doesn't exist), also, DA is dated in 1995.

As an example of other ETA's statements there is the Aritxulegi communiqué, dated on Sept. 19th 2006 (i.e. 2 months ago). It did not mention self determination whatsoever, but just Independence and Socialism.

Since there's no way to know what ETA thinks (I don't know how someone could have the certainty that "ETA will surely settle for that" ¿?) as they have been there for decades already and, obviously, adapting to whatever is the situation, I guess we will have to find some "comprehensive" solution including the main things they have mentioned over the time. Mountolive 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Basque self-determination, including a referendum on the question of independence"? - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better but still it's not what ETA claims: ETA claims in the DA that in the negotiation between ETA and the State (Spain) it should be agreed those points I metioned comma up, comma down. And there's no specific mention of a referendum as such but of a process involving only Basque society/actors without Spanish interference. The referendum is somewhat implicit surely but the when and how would depend on the agreement by the social and political actors of the Basque society.

So in the end "the right of self determination" alone is a lot simpler much more more objective and we can always extend on the commas and small type in the "Aims" section. --Sugaar 08:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But clearly, that has not been acceptable to Mountolive, at least so far.

Folks, if neither one of you is willing to give on this point—if, effectively, we cannot even agree on one sentence in the lead of the article—I'm ready to give up. I'm open to other suggestions on this wording, either from one of you or from anyone else, but I don't normally do mediation, I came in because I was asked, and frankly have things to do that interest me a lot more than watch two people both be hardline about choosing between wordings none of which strike me as misleading. - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong but, as far as I know, self determination = referendum on the question of independence; and, well, if it wasn't exactly the same, well, it is basically the same or so is percieved. Hence, I find confusing and redundant stating both things one next to the other.

I don't think that ETA stresses self independence to the point Sugaar thinks (self determination is mentioned in DA (one statement in 1995 which is not ETA's "Bible" whatsoever, it is only one statement amongst many others). Self determination is not mentioned in many other ETA's statements, not even the most recent. The stress on self determination is probably more a Batasuna's thing and, at least as per Sugaar, Batasuna and ETA are not the same thing (even though Rajoy -one of the buddies he likes to quote- thinks they are the same, but this quoting à la carte is a different story).

Probably "Basque self determination leading to independence" as first suggested or a fundamentally identical statement in a different wording could be one possible valid approach to the question. Besides, it is short and simple, just the way the lead should be.

I honestly can't see what could be wrong with this leading: it mentions what is ETA's goal (independence) in a way that should be acceptable by Sugaar (by self determination).

Even though I don't think the stress on the self determination is that factual, still, for the sake of consensus I am ok with the latter statement.

Jmabel, if you think I am not being flexible enough, I'd appreciate if you let me know why and how I could improve, because I called you to mediate and I generally trust your criteria. Mountolive 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, what is wrong with something along "ETA seeks the sovereignty of the Basques, sometimes expressed as self-determination (reference of the video communique of truce) sometimes as independence (ref of the Aritxulegi speech)."? --Error 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very confuse: the reader doesn't come to know which ETA's once and again declared demands (under negotiation now or eventually to be negotiated whenever) are. ETA won't discuss independence but sovereignity/self-determination. Independence may or not come by that way but that would be something for the Basque people/society to decide, not for ETA and the Spanish government to agree upon.

It is just ridiculous to mix a propaganda speech with official press releases, it is just ridiculous to say that Rajoy and the Cuppola of ETA are both wrong when they say that self-determination is the central issue just because you want to muddy the waters and make things less clear for the eventual reader of the article and against all relevant documentation.

It's not just a matter of mediation/negotiantion... it's a matter of verifiability and NPOV.

As Jmabel says, it's clear that mediation won't achieve anything if people only attempts to push their particular POVs, hence I suggest that an RfC could be more useful maybe. --Sugaar 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to consider that the Aritxulegi speech is not meant seriously, but declarations by Rajoy are. I guess you could dig up declarations by Rajoy about independence, he does not distinguish the concepts, at least in "propaganda speeches". For verifiability, we have references to the speech and the communiqué, don't we? --Error 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A non-"propaganda speech" source from ETA: Communiqué de l'ETA à l'opinion publique de France:

Le Gouvernement Français doit à tout prix respecter les droits fondamentaux du Pays Basque. En ce sens, la recconnaissance du Peuple Basque en tant qu'entité différenciée est incontournable.

[...]Les institutions de l'Etat Français doivent à tout prix cesser de mépriser le peuple basque. Ils doivent surtout accepter une fois pour toute, les revendications portées par la société basque. En ce sens, ils doivent reconnaître les Droits des peuples et des langues.

[...]Les buts de cette négociation doivent être d'accorder une solution démocratique, et les modalités d'application de cet accord.

It ends with (my bolding):

Gora Euskal Herria askatuta! Gora Euskal Herria sozialista! Jo eta ke independentzia eta sozialismoa lortu arte! - Juin 2006, Pays Basque. Euskadi Ta Askatasuna .

"Long live the Basque Country/People freed! Long live the Basque Country/People socialist! Keep it up until achieving independence and socialism!

(I am not sure on how to translate the apositional adjectives)

--Error 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: Again you're giving more importance to the classical slogan than to the text itself. (Btw, jo ta ke means literally "strike and smoke", something like "strike and vanish", not "keep it up"). --Sugaar 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiztegia 3000 gives "jo eta behera, jo eta tira, jo eta ke, jo eta su: dale que le das, dale y dale ( afanosamente)". --Error 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong in that. I am not a fluent Basque speaker, thanks to Franco. --Sugaar 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with something like "ETA seeks a sovereign Basque Country, some times expressed as self determination, some others as independence". I am really surprised -and I mean really- to have learnt here that there is people who may have a problem in mentioning as ETA's primary goal the independence of the Basque country...I thought this was pretty clear and that ETA's supporters would be perfectly fine with it...but apparently it is not so much...it's like if someone came now and tell us in wikipedia that IRA's goal is not the union of the Ulster with Eire...¿?. Is this starting to get surreal or I'm just not having a good day today?. Anyway.

I don't know what is RfC (luckily for me, so far I had only met the brighter side of wikipedia where people team up to make a good article), I will find out about that anyway. Still, I don't think that Jmabel has given up, at least not yet. Also, if Error also helped, that could concede mediation a further try. Mountolive 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given up, but I have to say: on this matter, I think Sugaar is the one who should budge. As I said above, I've never heard of a supporter of ETA who didn't want an independent Basque country. I personally wouldn't care if we put that off to later in the article, but at this rate we aren't going to get to later in the article, and I don't see why saying so in the lead (either my proposed wording or Error's) should be sticking point. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not what's the ultimate ideals of Basque nationalists but what's the objective of ETA with its armed struggle. ETA can't "liberate" the country manu militari and they are very aware of that since the very beginnings: they aim to push the situation into a negotiation where the right of self-determination (aka "democratic solution") is admitted by the State.

Otegi himself said something simmilar yesterday [1]: that there are attempts of intoxication (creating confussion):

Otegi incidió en que lo que plantea la izquierda abertzale «es algo mucho más democrático», y que consiste en dar salida al problema construyendo un marco institucional para todos los vascos «sólo si éstos están de acuerdo». En otras palabras, indicó a Rubalcaba que «nuestra fórmula no es la anexión ni la integración, pero tampoco la partición». «¿Preguntar a la gente qué marco quiere es imponer?», requirió también Otegi.

ETA's or Nationalist Left's discourse may be more ambiguous regarding territoriality (i.e. Navarre and Trebiño) but regarding what is causing the military conflict (aka "terrorism") they are very clear: if the Basque people can decide, there's no reason for this conflict. So the goal is not independence but recognition of sovereignity/self-determination. Independence would come only if the Basque people wants it once that basic right is recognized.

Or in other words: as long as the subject of the destiny of the Basque Country is someone else than Basques ourselves (Spain as whole, where Basques are only about 5% of the population), there's no solution. As soon as Basques can decide, there is no problem. Some will campaign for independence, others for federal solutions and others finaly for keeping the status quo. It would be the democratic choice of the Basque people and hence not just ETA has declared it would accept it but also any move against it would be clearly unlegitimate (who would support someone who acts against the will of the nation?).

Whatever: it's clear that adding independence to the goal of ETA is distorting things, as ETA has repeatedly declared it will settle for self-determination - nothing less but nothing more.

That is the problem with your redaction: by giving undue weight to what doesn't deserve, you distort the facts. Remember that NPOV is not just about consensus and including all relevant opinions but also about giving the right weight to each one. Placing a half-truth (that is a half-lie) in the entry paragraph is distorting heavily the actual declared aims of ETA. --Sugaar 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does Otegi has to do with ETA? Isn't your point that ETA and Batasuna are different things? If so, why should we bow to his opinion?

If you had by your side all of ETA's statements you would see quite more often "independent" and "independence" (and "socialism" by the way) than "self determination". If it wasn't because of you this would just say "independence", which is the closest to the facts; however, trying to add upp whatever good contribution you may have, editors seem ready to make some space to your "self determination" quirk. I think it is fair to expect that you will show also some flexibility in return...if the case is that you want to contribute to this article like we are all supposed in wikipedia, that is to say. Mountolive 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a point on which is the possible connection between Batasuna and ETA. We all agree that they belong to the same "ideological community". That's surely enough, specially since Batasuna declared its support for ETA's Democratic Alternative at Anoeta, Batasuna is acting as political speaker for that ideological sector most of the time and Otegi seems to have been trying to explain what ETA's claims are, without mentioning it by name.

The "KAS case" is still under trial and the last I read was that the chief of police "experts" admitted there was nothing solid - that the actual connection between KAS and ETA was unknown to them (if it exists at all). But that's not my opinion, just what seems to be the evidence in a trial. Personally I believe that such connection may well exist in one form or another - but I have no idea if my supposition is true or how can this connection be made (if it's formal or informal, etc.).

Anyhow, I have an alternative proposal for the sake of consensus: "sovereignity" (is that correct spelling?) instead of "self-determination" or whatever as main goal of ETA in the lead section. I think this term is not just valid for both but also fits well with the language used by ETA. This term has both the meaning of right to self-determination and it implies somehow the ultimate *political* goal of independence of all or most Basque nationalists (including ETA).

Do you agree? --Sugaar 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, your latest proposal would be "Basque sovereignty", skirting the issue of "self-determination" vs. "independence"? I personally don't have a problem with that, but given Wikipedia's process, it is going to be hard over time to prevent a deliberately vague statement in the lead of an article from being "clarified" one way or another by a future contributor. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that will be the case with whatever solution we adopt. It's Wikipedia's nature. As interested user, I have this page watchlisted and will likely detect POV changes. If there's a consensus it's easier to retake the discussion then from an already estabilished something. It may even happen that people that now are arguing get together in defense of that consensus.

What I'm a bit disappointed is about Moutolive's attitude: he's just vanished after making all that noise. And not just that he was unable to express his concerns in a clear manner, rather focusing on my person and my supposed ideology. In the end it's you and I discussing, with some notes form Mark. And Moutolive? Nowhere.

I'm not going to edit right now. But if nobody else does, I will in one or few days. I'll try to be as careful as possible not to step in anyone's toes but I also think the article needs some improvements and that I can do some of that from an NPOV viewpoint. Of course I welcome al kind of good willed collaborations. And if someone else does it instead in that same NPOV sensible manner, even better. --Sugaar 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try following up on this now. - Jmabel | Talk 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out for a few days and I missed some of the recent edits and discussion. I will be catching up shortly. In the meantime I have made an edit which I guess arises no problem, I have cut the watchlist part and put it in the very lead: this should spare us many edits of people who passes by and replaces "paramilitary" by "terrorist": if they see the watchlist part right away, this kind of edits may be prevented and, in any case, it belongs better there anyways. I have also cut the "troubled only by minor incidents" because it is quite wishful thinking at the sight of the handguns robbery which caused quite a stir in both parties. Mountolive 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that dropping "troubled only by minor incidents" suggests even less trouble. FWIW, living myself in a city of a half a million that routinely experiences 50-100 homicides per year, and where robberies involving handguns are a several-times-daily occurrence, I'd put those in the category of "minor incidents", but I suppose that by Western European standards they loom larger. - Jmabel | Talk

You're so nitty-picky. Considering that the government has not made a single move in a whole year but rather kept the repression at all levels, an arms robbery (in France) that was (among other things) a warning (or at least so was interpreted) is obviously a minor inccident. Specially if we also consider that there have been no killings by ETA in several years.

I also suspect that your move of the "considered terrorist" to the first paragraph, allegedly adressing a non-existent problem, has another intent: to subtly POV-push the term terrorism to the first paragraph (it seems the third one was not enough for you).

For these reasons and also because you ahve been absent one or two weeks while Jmabel, Mark us street and I discussed your problems, I am reverting cautionarily.

You yell much at my supposed ideology but I also think you have one and a very clear one. Don't try to impose your POV with subterfuges, much less in the lead section thanks. --Sugaar 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountolive's main issues

Mountolive, could you list the five largest problems you have with the article as it stands: this can be material you think should be added but where there has been resistance, material currently in the article that you think should be removed, or material that you think should be presented in a significantly different manner. Please, for the moment, only Mountolive and the mediators comment in this section. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have only one issue, but a broad one: Sugaar irrupted in the article by October and has been editing at will ever since, introducing what I deem is a massive and extremely obvious POV to the article. His policy has been "first I edit, then we can discuss for as long as you wish in the talk page, but my edits are good anyway and they'll stay". I can't see why these recent edits should remain there and become the standard, just because he thinks he knows better or his sources are better. It is ok if he thinks that the article is biased, but he should prove it here in the talk page, reach consensus if he can and, only if he does, then edit. Working with such a procedure, we wouldn't be discussin this now.

Otherwise, there's no reason why his version is better than the previous version (to which I contributed to a very limited extent, by the way). Mountolive 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss people's conduct. If you want to work on the content of the article, I'm glad to mediate. If you want to complain about each other's past conduct, I'm outta here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really frustrated with the overall tone of this article during the past weeks and I guess that was the shortest way to express my main points, but I understand what you say. I'm thankful for your mediation and I will proceed from now on based only in the facts in order to facilitate everything. Mountolive 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one like Mountolives approach of discussing his changes first here and giving others a chance to discuss his proposals, and I think it is a good basis for all edits on sensitive pages such as this. Mark us street Dec 1 2006.

Fine. But, as I said, I'm not willing to slog through the lengthy discussion that preceded mediation. If he just wants to reiterate some of the same issues raised above as his main issues, that's fine, but what I'm trying to do right now is to get high-priority issues from each side onto the table so that we can focus the conversation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugaar's main issues

Sugaar, could you list the five largest problems you have with the article as it stands: this can be material you think should be added but where there has been resistance, material currently in the article that you think should be removed, or material that you think should be presented in a significantly different manner. Please, for the moment, only Sugaar and the mediators comment in this section. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before the article is roughly ok. Not excellent but just ok as for now. I haven't looked much at the history section actually, so I'll skip that part by the moment. Issues:

1. There should be a broader section of Goals and Ideology where the DA could be explained better than in the lead section. The lead section should refer only to Basque self-determination, as it is clearly the leit-motiv of all ETA's political declarations. The Goals and Ideology section (or just Goals) should deal with the DA a little more in depth, mention some historical references (KAS alternative, action-reaction urban guerrilla theory, etc.) before 1995.
2. Tactics: publicity tactics such as comunications should not be excluded. For the rest (with some generalistic reserves) the section is rather ok. Though the paragraph on announcement calls should be reorganized for stylistic reasons.
3. Government response section should start in a deeper past: Franco's regime (death penalty) and transition (GCE, BVA). The widespread problem of torture should be mentioned more clearly, as well as legal measures such as "dispersion" of prisioners and what is called "practical life penalty". Aditionally it should be mentioned the most important role played by the Ertzaintza in improving state repression (law enforcement). The section could be subdivided in 4 temporal periods surely: fascism, transition (UCD), PSOE's government, PP's government (plus now with Mr. Rodríguez). The procedures linked to case 18/98 probably deserve a separate article but well...
4. Political support section is poor: it should be expanded beyond parties. After all parlamentary participation has always been a minor issue for the BNLM (even if they give it more importance nowadays).
5. Minor linguistic issues that nevertheless raise arms. Like the equitative use of "Basque nationalist" and "Spanish nationalist" for each side. In this sense I think that the benevolent terms "constitutionalist" and "pro-Spanish" are unequal and ambiguous. PP is not historically more "constitutional" than PNV/EA. PP and Batasuna (their ancestors) both asked to vote against 1978 constitution, while PNV (of which EA is a breakaway party) asked for abstention. "Pro-Spanish" opposite is "pro-Basque", they can be used coloquially... but they make poor encyclopedic terms and don't make justice to either side. Trying to avoid "Spanish nationalist" I introduced what seemed more neutral: "unionist" but this has been fiercely disputed too.

I think these can be the 5 big issues maybe. --Sugaar 07:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 and 2 I fully agree with, With Points 3,4 I see his viewpoint and this needs to be fleshed out. His final point (5) has been an ongoing issue here and one hard to reach agreement on. Mark us street Dec 1st 2006.

[edit] Ideology

I assume that "goals" would be the "aims" section, which we are already discussing in another section of the talk page, and which several of us have been working on, so far without objections. I suspect that if we want to get into ideology beyond explicitly stated goals, that should go in a separate section, because it is going to be more difficult to cite for. Sugaar, do you have material that you either want to add to such a section or reorganize from elsewhere in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Goals", "aims", "objectives", they all look simmilar terms to me. "Goals" might be more precise, specially as "aim" and "objective" can also have a "target" meaning and therefore may sound confuse dealing with a urban guerrilla or "terrorist" organization.

I agree that ideology is a more complex issue because there are all kind of opinions surely. I think it's fairly clear that the BNLM (and therefore its armed wing, ETA) are nationalist and socialist, but socialist in Europe has many meanings from social-democratic (moderate liberal in US terminology) to hardcore Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. Sometimes is also used in a generalistic sense including anarchism and other left-wing libertarian trends. The term socialism was in the past also used by some far-right groups, most notably the Nazis, though this usage is less common it's sometimes used to caricaturize the BNLM as "nazi" (normally by far-right people of Spanish nationalist ideology).

I am dealing with many other articles at the same time, as you know, Jmabel. What specifically are you asking me to clarify? So far I've been quite specific and organized exposing my criticisms and wouldn't like to go again all over it. --Sugaar 11:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Aims" doesn't have this problem in English (though "objectives" does). In some ways "aims" is better than "goals", because "goals" suggests ultimate ends, and "aims" includes (at the risk of using military-derived terminology) tactical objectives along the way. Thus, a company's "goals" might be to dominate its market and make lots of money, but an "aim" might also be merely to achieve feature parity with a competitor's product. But I don't think the choice between these words is a big deal. If you feel strongly about this, I doubt anyone would object to renaming this a "goals".

I see no problem with an "ideology" section, but it should be separate from aims/goals section, it should be based on citable sources, and it should not be limited to ETA's own explicit statements of their ideology: unlike the aims/goals, I believe that such a section should include outside analysis of their ideology.

The issue of clarification at this point is about article content not about what has been said on this talk page; my specific questions are below, starting where I wrote "We now say that "ETA's goal, stated in 1995…" - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eta Aims

The first section of Eta's aims is fine , but the second section seems more like 'secondary areas of operation' rather than aims. I suggest these be moved further down to a different section. Mark us street Dec1st

Mark, since you weren't one of the people who requested mediation, nor one of the people who was asked to mediate, I'm not sure of the basis of your participation. Are you here trying also to mediate, or as another participant in the mediation? - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He was around when you weren't. He's been trying to help in the dispute before you arrived. I think his opinion is as valid as anyone's. --Sugaar 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not asked to mediate so I cannot do this role, I have an interest in the subject and I make same changes and suggestions to improve the article, My changes are minor and both Sugaar and mountolive seem happy to let me make them because I don't try to steer things politically. Sugaar says he wants me and I hope you and the other mediators and most importantly MountOlive agree that I have something to contribute. Mark us street Dec 5th

"Respect of the results of the democratic process in the Basque Country" I really don't get that point. It reads like there is not a respect for the democratic process right nowin the Vasque Autonomous Region or Spain in general. Elections have been conducted and won by nationalist parties since the end of Francoism in the Vasque Autonomous Region, all international organizations recognaice SPain as a functioning democracy. Actually it's very clear that is ETA who doesn't have any respect for the democratic process, or acts in any democratic fashion. I think that should be removed, or at least be substituted for a clear reference to a referedum for independence if that is what the author meant.4 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.16.125.104 (talk • contribs).

And the resolutions adopted by the Basque Parliament are put down in Madrid.

The question for many here (not just ETA) is that we Basques can't actually decide our own future or even present as a nation - we are always subject to the will of the elects by other nation: Spain, inside which we aren't but a tiny minority (and even then under-represented in the Spanish parliament due to the heavily distorted electoral system).

Anyhow, whatever the terms used, it's about the right of self-determination: if we Basques want more self-rule or even independence there's nothing but the Spanish army/police that can stop us. Some think that such military imposition (re-stated along the centuries once and again: 1199, 1512, 1833, 1936, among other dates) requires a military response. These are called radicals, others (called moderates) say that it is better to negotiate and wait. The ones that say what you do are called: Spaniards or Spanish nationalists.

For these the subject of "democracy" is not the Basque people but the Spanish people, to which the Basque people (as a minority annexed to Spain) must submit. It is a problem about where does sovereignity reside: in the Spanish people or the Basque people: it is a problem of sovereignity, of self-determination.

In Ulster they have solved the problem: not with more autonomy but by recognizing the right of this province to self-determine. In the Basque Country it seems that we won't be so fortunate. --Sugaar 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not true to say its the Spainish Police and Army that holds the Basque region. Even if the Basques managed to fight the Spainish military out and then declared an independent state , it is unlikely the rest of the world would recognise this de-facto freedom. Transnistria has fought and won its freedom and is de-facto independent with its oen borders army, parliment, and currency,. However, Moldova still has de-jure claim on Transnistria and this claim is endorsed by most other countries. Basically what I am saying is international law is as important has de-facto independence. However it is true to say 'de-facto' independence is better than a de-jure claim. Mark us street Dec5th

International recognition is a secondary problem as you may realize. Many people are simply interested in self-rule and let the rest think what they want. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that EU (and even Spain and France themselves) can't ignore such a strategical crossroads as the Basque Country, connecting Spain to the rest of the world in many senses (it's not Transnistria or Northern Cyprus: it's more like Alsace, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium or Provence).

Anyhow (this is not a forum), a military solution is surely out of reach for either side anyhow. But a military problem does exist from both sides. And, for many (Basque nationalists) self-determination (sovereignity) is the only solution. For others (Spanish nationalists) the only solution is keeping the status quo by any means at reach and dismissing the will of the Basque people as irrelevant. --Sugaar 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will keep in touch to see how we can improve the article to make it easier to understand Mark us street 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward: Jmabel has already proceded with rewritting the disputed aspects of the lead section and I moving the DA to Aims section. I have further improved (I believe it) by eliminating redundancies and adding a paragraph on the KAS Alternative (documented). --Sugaar 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We now say that "ETA's goal, stated in 1995 in the Democratic Alternative, is to force a negotiation with Spain…" I have a few issues with that one myself and in the following I am stepping entirely out of my mediator role:

1. I see no mention of "negotiation" or anything like that in the linked English-language version of the DA. Am I missing something?
2. I assume that "Spain" here must mean the Spanish government, but is there any explicit statement of with whom they are expected to negotiate? Specifically ETA itself, or is it vaguer than that? - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the last two of three citations for the KAS Alternative give partial URLs, but don't seem to link to anything. I don't see how these are supposed to be useful as citations. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have anything about pre-1976 statements of aims? - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing something (though it may be my fault) other versions (and definitively the original Basque language declaration) do mention two separate frames:

The "Democratic Alternative for the Basque Country" has two different frameworks for negotiations: one between E.T.A. and the Spanish State; and another among all Basque citizens. TO BE AGREED UPON BY E.T.A. AND THE SPANISH STATE Upon the Spanish State accepting the proposed plan to initiate a democratic process in the Basque Country, E.T.A. will announce a cease fire. The recognition of the Basque Country. The recognition of the right to self-determination and territorial unity. The right to self-determination is not a political position, but a democratic right that belongs to us as a people. Although, the decision of when, how and to what purpose that right is to be developed belongs to Basque citizens, the recognition of that right must be secured. It is essential that the Basque Country can decide its future with total freedom. The recognition of the Basque Country requires eliminating actual territorial division, accepting its unity, and lifting the institutional borders. How this unity will be defined and structured, is the supreme decision of the Basque Country. Respect of the results of the democratic process in the Basque Country. Limitations cannot be imposed upon the decisions voiced by the people. Therefore, the Spanish State must agree that it will respect the development of the democratic process and its results, whatever those results may be. The minimun condition to develop such a democratic process, is to allow all citizens to participate in it without any pressures. Therefore, it is essential to grant a general amnesty that makes possible the release of all prisoners, and the return of all refugees. Equally essential is reaching an agreement on measures which would prevent the Spanish Armed Forces from influencing this process. TO BE DEBATED AMONG AND AGREED UPON BY BASQUE CITIZENS The democratic process towards Basque self-determination must have the participation of labor unions, associations, social movements, political parties, institutions, that is, all society, to define options, discussion frameworks, and suitable agreements. Throughout this process, at least the following points will have to be solidified: the development of the right to self-determination (formulation, methodology, options, timetables...); the formulation and process of territorial unity; the relations among all Basque territories; the competencies of the new institutional organization that is going to be agreed upon, without any kind of limitations; plans for the teaching of the Basque language; the socio-economic model and plans; the demilitarization of the Basque Country (including the role of the Army and its withdrawal); and the composition and character of the police force; rights to education; democratic rights, etc. [2]

(Quoting the English part word by word because the format of the site is extremely painful to the eyes).

It seems I forgot to link those sources. It's fixed now. Sorry.

• The above is very helpful, why isn't this page cited in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In the "old times" (pre-1982) ETA(m) always said that they would only negotiate with the Spanish army. Later negotiations with the government were admited as valid and, since then, ETA has held formal or informal negotiations in several occasions with the diferent governments of Spain. Anyhow, somehow the Spanish government seems to be held responsible for all other Spanish institutions, like Parliament, judiciary, police and army.

It would maybe be possible to find something pre-1976. But I don't know where, really. Notice that in the 70s, ETA went through several divisions: MCE-EMK and LCR-LKI (see Zutik) both were break away factions of ETA that went political, ETA(pm) vs ETA(m) was another division associated with the differences between Euskadiko Ezkerra and HASI. At that time there were many other small parties like LAIA (split between LAIA-"yes" and LAIA-"no", I know it sounds like a joke but it was real), EIA, etc. some of which ended in Herri Batasuna and that eventually vanished. It's pretty confuse at times and worth a whole historical book if not several.

The most important division though was that between ETA(pm) and ETA(m), something Moutolive deleted ("because it was confusing"). ETA(pm) was involved in attacks to politicians like Carrero Blanco and eventually became divided between ETA-VI and ETA-VII (the figures refer to the last Assembly they considered legitimate). ETA-VII demovilized by pact with the government (mediated by EE) and ETA-VI eventually merged with ETA(m), allegedly climbing to the general command after some Spanish and French police attacks of the former cuppolas. This (as is popularly understood) caused ETA(m) to drift towards increased violence against politicians and other civilians associated with Spanish forces (example: workers for the army were targeted once). --Sugaar 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was certainly aware that intra-Basque negotiations are considered distinct from negotiations with Madrid. As I said, though, the previous citation was to a poorly written English-language page that made reference only to the former. (By the way, I'm fine in Spanish, but, unsurprisingly, have barely a hundred words of Basque.)

Yes, I'm moderately familiar with the splits in ETA in the early post-Franco years, though a couple of these are new to me.

I didn't notice that the division between ETA(pm) and ETA(m) was removed, and it certainly should be restored. At one time we had separate small articles on these; they were merged into this article supposedly because it was "confusing" to keep them separate. But it would be really confusing for someone to start from those terms and get a redirect to an article that doesn't even talk about them. This should be restored. I don't think one can readily understand ETA in the period '74-'82 without this, and that is when the bulk of killings by ETA occurred.

As for pre-KAS alternative: we may not find earlier materials online, but they certainly exist. There were already numerous books about ETA at that time. This should not be that hard to research in a good library. - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling People Terrorists

We all dislike violence, at least I trust we do, however I feel uncomfotable discribing Eta as this because it is in breach of wikipedia guidlines. I would like to point out that at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words with controversial or multiple meanings we do have a whole section on "Terrorist/Terrorism". Now this is just a guideline and not a policy, but a few quotes from it that suggest we should avoid terrorism here include: It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..." So we don't even call Al-Qaeda terroists, All considered I suggest we call them an 'Armed Paramilitary organization'. Mark us street Dec 5th 2006.

I have a bad network day, so I didn't check the current text, but the idea is that the Wikipedia narrator can't use POV terms, but referenced sources and quotations can. Hence we say that ETA is terrorist according to this and that list. --Error 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Error is somehow right: to say that Spain or (say) Tonga consider ETA a "terrorist organization" is perfectly valid (specially if it's documented, something I'm not sure about right now). Still we (i.e. Wikipedia) must avoid that use of such "power-words" in the rest of the text for the sake of objectivity and NPOV. --Sugaar 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you both Mark us street 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)