Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 3

This archive covers a flurry of discussion that preceded a move toward an attempt at dispute resolution via mediation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Political violence?

Mountolive has been making some minor changes, one of which I didn't like (POV):

• The original text read:

A new party called Aukera Guztiak (All the Options) was formed for the elections to the Basque Parliament of April 2005. Its supporters claimed no heritage from Batasuna, asserting that their aim was to allow Basque citizens to freely express their political ideas, even those of independence, and their rights not to condemn some kind of violence more than other if they did not see it fit.

• He changed the bold text for: political violence.

I undid that. He reverted. I re-reverted and opened this section for discussion.

My point is that political violence is a very generic term. For instance the Spanish conservatives have never condemned or rejected the military coup of Franco nor the 40 years of fascist dictatorship, and that's also political violence. Political violence can also be that exterted by the police or paramilitary groups in favor of some political structures/ideas, wether legal or ilegal.

We have a policy of NPOV and avoiding emotionally charged words, so I think the original text is more clear and also probably more approximate to what Aukera Guztiak stated.

Please discuss. --Sugaar 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, very sadly for this article, by now I have already realized that, unfortunately, you are not open to discuss anything at all. Mountolive 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page, I brought the change to the discussion page, and you are not even able to defend it?

Who is the one who is not open to discussion? --Sugaar 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountolive, If this change is important be explain why Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006.

Mark, this is roughly the recent context of this article/talk page: user Sugaar proceeded with a series of edits (some 4 edits or so) during the month of October. Some of them were noted here in the talk page as poor, specially the revamping of the aims/tactics section, which has produced quite poorer results than the previous version.

I let these edits -which I mostly strongly dispute- in place waiting for some discussion/consensus here in the talk page. After a few weeks, since the discussion never really started, I finally went with my review/edit of these recent edits, trying to explain quite extensively all the motives in the below "edit as of 13th Nov". Provided that Sugaar's recent edits were basically based on a mere "POV" claim, usually without further explanation, I detailed quite exhaustively my reasons in the below post so that we could have some reasoning here where to start the discussion from.

Instead what we got was basically an automatic revert of these controversial edits (which are still in place and, apparently, will continue to, for Sugaar is apparently determined not to step back a single cm.)

Anyway, for my detailed reasoning, please check the post below and for my version, please go -if you may- through to the article's history and you should find my edit which got reverted on Nov. 13th (or 14th, I am not sure due to the time difference with Europe). Mountolive 18:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As you said somewhere else very correctly, this is not a matter of bargaining but a matter of NPOV and verifiability. So far you have put no arguments that back your edit just personalized complaints against my person, trying to "demonize" me. Furthermore that phrase wasn't originally my edit but someone else's: I just undid your POV change and argued why (i.e. "political violence" is ambiguous and surely not what Aukera Guztiak said anyhow). --Sugaar 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit as of Nov 13th

It’s been for a few weeks now that a few edits have been made in this article under the recurrent flag of

“this is POV, that was POV, sounds like POV, possible POV...”

In other words, some sort of POV festival or something. Under the POV flag, deletions and additions have been made, often without further explanation other than, well… “POV”, like if its sole mention acted as some kind of editing abracadabra; sometimes, even “I didn’t like (it)” is “argued” to justify these edits.

Then the editor either leaves that part he claims is POV blank or goes replacing it with his own POV. For, curiously enough, apparently he is not aware that he is often bringing a quite obvious POV himself (as a matter of fact, some people develop an X-ray vision to detect other’s POVs, whether real or just “possible”, while their own POV apparently goes largely undetected for them). Actually, what has been brought recently is not only a POV but often the bottom line of these recent edits resembles more a mere uncritical mimicking of Batasuna’s lines/politically loaded vocabulary.

I have proceeded with an edit which mostly goes about those recent additions/deletions.

Please find hereunder are my reasons:

AIMS

Eta’s aim is not self determination, but independence. Self determination just one way considered to achieve the former. There’s a difference. Self determination is regarded as a means (tellingly, this term is relatively recent in the history of ETA), not a goal. For instance, in the Aritxulegi communiqué, there is no mention of self-determination whatsoever, only “independence” and “socialism”. In the event of a self determination referendum that did not endorse independence, then ETA, far from disbanding, would most likely keep “in business” until independence is reached (in this regard some may say that, reversely, the PNV has made self determination a goal in itself, trusting that the result will be favourable to their wishes, but, in the event of a referendum rejecting independence, they would most probably respect the results; but this is just a guessing and it doesn’t have anything to do with the article anyway).

Thus, I have put back in place the former version which makes reference both to independence and socialism.

I have deleted the line “Basque nationalists consider Basque culture distinct from those of their neighbours; the Basque language is unlike any other in Europe”. Ok, I understand this one may be misunderstood, but no need to panic here, don’t shoot the “you’re a fascist and POV” bullet just yet but please let me explain: I did so just because I can’t see what was the use of this line in here ¿? I mean, it is not only Basque nationalists: anyone, Basque nationalist or not, considers that “Basque culture is distinct from those of their neighbours and the Basque language is unlike any other in Europe”: actually, its distinctiveness is an undisputed fact, unrelated to whatever ideas Basque nationalists (or Basque anti-nationalists) may have in this regard... so… what? What does this objective fact have to do with ETA aims? If someone believes that the fact that the Basque culture is distinct from the one of its neighbours and the fact that the Basque language is unlike any other in Europe, if someone believes that these may justify terrorism (or “armed struggle” if the euphemistic way makes someone feel better), then he or she should put it back but doing so under a different formulation, since, in my opinion, the previous formulation appeared awkward and forced into this context. I would dispute edits in the fashion “ETA wants to protect Basque culture” or the like, because they have no factuality anymore in an scenario where the Basque Autonomous Community and a plurality of local councils are and have been ruled by Basque nationalism during the last 25 years without a single break. Obviously, during all this time, lots of actions have been taken to favour Basque culture and language, including “affirmative action”. After this sustained nationalist rule, the Basque traditional culture appears to be in good shape and the language is nowadays probably more threatened by globalization than by the Spanish one (with the latter probably closer to be on the defensive in this territory, at least in terms of official support).

Last, but not least, linking Basque language and culture to ETA’s violence is offending and desecrating the very language and culture.

As explained, I have come back to the previous version which was deleted where the Socialism goal is mentioned. I have restored it because ETA has not officially changed its public position in the matter: it only has debased the preeminence of this goal and is less vocal about it. No matter how rhetoric we may think this goal is, but the fact is that they still quote it here and there, being the last quote on Socialism as recent as the Aritxulegi statement a few weeks ago. Probably the idea is, as the article used to say “utopian and impractical”, but the fact is that ETA has not given up on it and the article is about ETA, not about the editor’s ideas on what ETA should do or think. I can’t see why someone may have a problem in having this goal, which is repeatedly claimed by ETA itself, displayed here. One more reason to put back this goal is the fact that it serves as a dividing line within Basque nationalism (which, so far in the article, appears as monolithic, which is not). I make some incidental reference to this in the context section as well, in order to better contextualize. I believe this treatment of Basque nationalism as a whole was an important flaw to be fixed. Obviously we all know in this talk page at least the basics about Basque nationalism, but we shouldn’t lose sight that the occasional visitor may not know a single thing.

CONTEXT

In the first paragraph I have only deleted “anti-repressive” because this term is of the exclusive use of the MLNV and ETA, hence, this expression is definitely politically loaded and definitely tilted to one side of the story. There used to be a second existing paragraph which “disappeared” recently with one of those edits, without further explanation (not even “POV”) provided: I have put it back in place for it looks useful for contextualizing purposes, as follows: “There are also some left-wing nationalist groups seeking Basque independence but clearly disapproving of violent methods, such as Aralar [3] (as of 2005, with a representative in the Basque Parliament, Aintzane Ezenarro) or the Navarran coalition Nafarroa Bai [4] (as of 2005, with a Spanish M.P., Uxue Barkos). In Basque, they could be called abertzale, but that wouldn't mean they support violence. In mainstream Spanish media, though, this term is generally applied only to ETA supporters”. As discussed above, I have made some incidental reference to PNV in order to better contextualize.

TARGETS (agreed)

The recent targets/tactics distinction is adding much redundancy, compromising easy reading and enlarging an article which was already too long before this distinction appeared some weeks ago. As a result of all that, this part looked messy and obviuosly redundant. I have tried to merge both in a satisfactory way, in order to eliminate redundancies, reduce the article’s length and make it more reading-friendly and/or clear. Some users –including myself- noted the overall redundancy and requested changes. In the absence of action from anyone else, I have finally decided to edit myself. I believe it looks much clearer now. I'm hoping you agree.

Other than the merging itself, I am listing hereunder the most noticeable changes:

• I have erased the recent distinction between Eta (m) and Eta (Pm) because it was confusing as to whether these still exist as separate or what's the current situation. I do agree that this should be discussed, but in some other part of the article and in a clearer fashion.
• Deleted “unionist” for the same reasons as to “anti repressive”: this is a parlance exclusively used by ETA and the MLNV; tellingly, the editor who put it here, finds it a suitable and usual word, even though it is not used at all out of the aforementioned circles (besides, the term is not even original but a direct copy from the Ulster scenario).
• Deleted the rocket launchers part because, to my knowledge, this has been used only a handful of times (to little success, as mentioned there) and, since in order to reduce length, I thought it is not relevant. If someone is going to make a case or feel offended for this one deletion, feel free to go ahead restoring it.
• Deleted “communications” because this does not seem a proper tactic in itself: the group, like any other, needs to make public statements: that is understood and taken for granted; it does not deserve additional comment and should leave room for more proper info.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

As for the addition of the 18/98 detailed prosecutions, while interesting, I was considering whether its detailed description here is important enough to justify the room it takes. I have left it in place anyway, but this could be discussed.

The issues I went about here were

• Restoring a line from a full paragraph which was deleted under the usual POV flag, it mentions the proven dual adscription of some Batasuna members.
• Making some reference as to how the MLNV goes about the violence issue.
• deleting “anti repressive” for the above mentioned causes
• deleting the subjective appreciation “controversial”: nothing is said here about the fact that judge Garzón is one in the reduced number of judges entitled to go about the terrorism causes because he is a member of the Audiencia Nacional, the only court to deal with terrorism trials. Thus, more than because of its alleged “controversial” nature, he went about this prosecution because it is his main job. Apparently, the “controversial” reference was there to suggest that his prosecution may be flawed.
• Deleting “enormously” because, once again, it is a subjective appreciation.
• While leaving the different trials in place in order to discuss their convenience here, I have deleted all the external links because all of them are related to Gara, which is the direct “heir” of Egin in terms of staff and else. Egin is the prosecuted part in one of the trials reviewed, which obviously doesn’t make it impartial in this matter, quoting Egin is obviously quoting a partial agent here. Actually, even if it wasn’t involved in any trial, this daily is known for explicitly backing the MLNV positions, which doesn’t make it a reliable (=impartial) source to quote in this regard. I believe preferably non Spanish well known media are best to support claims, as per the policy in this article so far. Last, but not least, these links were all, if I recall correctly, in Spanish language.

POLITICAL SUPPORT

I have erased the last paragraph, for making-room purposes and mostly because it doesn’t exactly belong in this section. I have brought the info on ETA declaring that it won’t be targeting politicians anymore to the targets part. The other assertions in this one were already discussed elsewhere.

PLEASE, HELP

I have detailed above quite exhaustively the extent of the edit. Please discuss, object, support, despise it here; when doing the latter, please try to force your dissenting opinion with a reasoning going further than “that is POV”: it will help us all in finding some light here and make the article better.

I think is fair to expect feedback, whether positive or, specially, negative, here in this talk page: the edits I have gone about have been there for weeks and before any automatic revert/further editing which might be needed takes place, it would be the most fair and best to discuss it here and try to reach consensus first in order to get this article out of the dangerously edit war prone dynamics it is registering lately. It goes without saying that, since I am responsible for the edits and I tried to be quite aseptic with those, I obviously stand by them, but, on the other side, I am totally open to improvements.

Improvements means improvements, not a mere reproduction of the politically loaded claims/language from one side trying to pass them here like undisputed bread and butter assertions. Language is indeed politically loaded. In other words, if we are not to define automatically ETA as a terrorist organization, as per wikipedia’s strict guidelines, then we are not to define the Government action as “repressive” either, just to mention one of the things I edited.

Now, I would like to make the following call:

I would like some kind of arbitration in order to release the recent tension here.

Since I could be wrong with my edit, I thought that maybe Error and/or Jmabel, both familiar and active in this article, could assess my today’s edit. I don’t have a clue as to whether their opinions are close to mine or not. Actually they might be out of synch with myself, however, I have noticed from their respective edits here and there that Error likes to cover his own with a good impartial citation and usually sounds dispassionate, while Jmabel likes to be prudent and respectful with his own lot.

These are qualities that should be enforced specially in this kind of article; and this is why I would like these two users to review today’s edit and come back with their comments here in the talk page.

Sugaar and myself would discuss their comments later on, if you may, and as a result of this debate, a version should be reached to be stable.

Further than my edit today, what I am just trying to do with this suggestion is preventing this article from becoming anyone’s playground, whether Mountolive’s, Sugaar’s, Error’s, Jmabel’s…just some sort of consensus should be achieved in order to keep this article being as neutral as possible.

Is this ok with you?

Thank you in advance.

Mountolive 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you talking about. There's only an edit "mini-war" of two reverts on grounds of POV and I just opened a section for it (and you declined to discuss).

I do have serious reserves about your POV and do keep a watch on this article, specially when you edit it. --Sugaar 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"do keep a watch on this article, specially when you edit it"? wow..I'm impressed, but it might be best if you don't use your cowboy hat when editing here: there's only one John Wayne. Mountolive 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No cowboy style meant. Just that you and I know what POV the other has. I'm willing to discuss everything in benefit of NPOV. Are you? --Sugaar 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AIMS

ETA and all Basque nationalist political groups claim the right to self-determination. Most of them want to realize that self-determination as independence or at least much greater and self-given autonomy (confederation, union under he crown, whatever) but that's not the aim that ETA wants to achieve by armed struggle directly. It is clear for all that if the Basque Country was recognized its right to self-determination, the political conflict would not exist and therefore ETA would be totally ujustified in its existence. You are making gratuituous interpretations here that do not correspond with reality. Said that, I agree with your deletions of two irrelevant and badly built paragraphs. But claiming what is not as you did by changing:

* That the Basque Country (now under Spanish and French administration) achieves the right to self-determination.

by

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

...is not just POV but absolutely false as has been disussed above. I'm undoing it. --Sugaar 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is really a lack of citation on this issue from all sides. Certainly ETA originally called for an independent socialist Basque Country (but even when I say "certainly", citation would be in order). And certainly that formula has been repeated even in recent years (again, citation would be in order). But I'm pretty sure that there have been communiques suggesting that something much less than that would be accepted, possibly as little as a vote (admittedly, with an unspecified electorate) on the future of the region (again, citation would be in order).

It would seem to me that the only way to settle the question of what we should write about ETA's aims would be to stick to what can be cited. Does anyone have decent citations on any of this? - Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My claim is based in the text of the KAS Alternatiba from the Basque Wikipedia:

Alternatibak honako puntu hauek zituen (The [KAS] Alternative had these points):

• Askatasun demokratikoak (democratic freedoms)
• Preso Politikoen askatasuna (freedom for politcal prisioners)
• Estatuko polizi indar zapaltzaileen disoluzioa (dissolution of the oppressing policial forces of the State)
• alderdi politiko guztiak legeztatzea (legalization of all political parties)
• Langileriaren bizi-egoera hobetzea (improvement of the living conditions of the working class)
• Euskadiren subiranotasun nazionala onartzea (obtaining national sovereignity for the Basque Country)
• Hego Euskal Herrirako autonomia zabaleko erregimena eratzea (organize a regimen of greater autonomy for the Southern Basque Country)

Puntu hauetariko bakoitzak bere azpiatalak zituen, baina horrela laburtzen zen normalean (some of these points had their variations, but this was the way that were briefed normally).

I know Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia and Euskal Wikipedia itself doesn't cite sources but at least it is an uncontested article there. I know that ETA defended openly the KAS Alternative and some claim that ETA was active member of KAS itself. So I reviewed those points, saw nothing about "constitution of a socialist state" and fixed it following the point on obtaining national sovereignity for the Basque Country using "self-determination" (more modern and clear) instead of "national sovereignity" (they mean the same actually).

I have made a search but gives nothing but generalities. ETA in English seems to be the name of companies and clubs, in Basque it is the conjunction "and" and when searched for the full name gives only generalities: people and parties accused of supporting "ETA's goals" and stuff like that. I can't even find anything with detail for the text of KAS Alternatiba itself, only vage mentions to it in relation to the Democratic Alternative that is the current proposal of Batasuna. --Sugaar 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Again in the interwiki way, the (disputed) article on ETA itself makes the following metions:

“gure helburua ez da botere politiko propioa duen Euskadi bat bakarrik, horrekin ez da nahikoa. Botere politiko hau hizkuntza eta kultura arrotz baten zerbitzura egongo balitz, gure helburuetan porrot egingo genuke”. ("our goal is not just a Basque Country with its own political power, that is not enough. If this political power is in favor of a foreing language and culture, our goals would be ruined")

This is just mentioned only vagely referenced as part of some ETA comunication at its early times.

I have something but guess someone else could maybe find better sources.

It can be phrased, I believe, as ETA defines itself as a "socialist revolutionary armed organization" (they used this phrase all the time some 20 years ago but not now anymore) that has the following goals: (stated as they are now or as the whole KAS Alternatiba, what is actually obsolete).

What is clear is that ETA does not claim a socialist state and, if it ever did, has dropped that slogan since at least the 70s or 80s. --Sugaar 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

CONTEXT

I deleted that paragraph in a wider edit of the Context section. I did because it's totally bad explained and surely misplaced. Aralar is a recent break up of Batasuna and is a minor party with one seat in the Basque parliament. It could be justified to mention but it's more proper of the articles Batasuna, MLNV, Basque nationalism or some other. It's not really relevant here, specially as there are other much bigger Basque nationalist parties such as EA and PNV that do reject ETA's means.

Nafarroa Bai is not a party: it is a colaition of Aralar, EA and (I think) PNV. It's not even markedly left-wing. It's just that all those nationalist parties have little support in Navarre and joined forces.

You are mixing things and including suff where they do not deserve to be. I am also undoing this. --Sugaar 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited, replacing your edit for the less confuse and more relevant paragraph:

There are other Nationalist parties that have the same goals as ETA but openly reject their means: they are: EAJ-PNV, Eusko Alkartasuna, Aralar and, in the Northern Basque Country, Abertzaleen Batasuna. Additionally a number of left-wing parties such as Ezker Batua and Batzarre also support self-determination but are not so markedly in favor of independence.

I think this comprises well the other parties that may share some of ETA's goals, while rejecting violence. I doubt that Nafarroa Bai, being a coalition of some of said parties deserves a mention here.

I take the supression of the term anti-repressive as potentially valid. Yet most readers won't know what the article talks about unless a minimalistic explanation of some sort is given. That'w why I introduced the term, as I can't imagine anything as sort and self-explaining. For the record, Askatasuna (formerly Amnistiaren Aldeko Batzordeak, best known as Gestoras pro-Amistía) is an organization that, along with others as Senideak (relatives), Gurasoak (parents), etc. helps ETA and other "political" prisioners of the BNLM, as well as their relatives, they make regular demonstrations to demand their relocation in the Basque Country, to denounce torture and abuses of the prision system, etc. Hence "anti-repressive" may be POV but also defining and the term themsleves use. --Sugaar 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

TARGETS

I've restored the previous version. It's a major edit without discussion and really, I don't think it helped the least. You could at least have kept the basic structure that was discussed before. Mass-editing this way you make things difficult for review.

"Unionist" is not any BNLM's tag. They don't use that normally. It's my own adition to make things understandable for English speakers, as it compares well with the Northern Irish conflict. The only alternative term I can think of is "Spanish nationalist" but this possibly even less of your taste. "Unionist" seems much more neutral.

These parties like to call themselves "non-nationalist" but they are obviously Spanish nationalist.

I'm for keeping the tactics section as I wrote it. The rocket lanuchers may be "anecdotical" but in a time was very common and the article can't ignore it. The commuications is part of ETA's modus operandi and hence should be in the tactics or maybe in other section. In any case it must be mentioned. In my POV, it is a tactic of non-military (political, propaganda...) nature and it is often related with attacks, so it is relevant.

I've also moved a comment on ETA stopping targetting politicians in 2005 to the corresponding line mong the tactics, where it belongs (it was misplaced in the middle of nowhere). --Sugaar 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

You have done much more than you said: you have deleted ALL direct references to sources. I'm undoing it all again. How can you justify that? That's nearing vandalism!

Note: maybe some of your edits are valid but I realy don't have the energies to be discriminative.

You should also reference (source) your allegations. --Sugaar 09:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Restoring a line from a full paragraph which was deleted under the usual POV flag, it mentions the proven dual adscription of some Batasuna members. - Source it.

Anyhow you are clearly trying to imply that because some members of Batasuna were also members of ETA, that means that all Batasuna is ETA. Also some members of the Ertzaintza were ETA members and that does not imply that Ertzintza=ETA.

• deleting “anti repressive” for the above mentioned causes - It's confuse but we can discuss it.
• deleting the subjective appreciation “controversial”: nothing is said here about the fact that judge Garzón is one in the reduced number of judges entitled to go about the terrorism causes because he is a member of the Audiencia Nacional, the only court to deal with terrorism trials. Thus, more than because of its alleged “controversial” nature, he went about this prosecution because it is his main job. Apparently, the “controversial” reference was there to suggest that his prosecution may be flawed.

There is a discussion in another section about that. It was more on the line of the correct English term but anyhow. I sustain that, unlike other AN judges, Garzon is controversial because of things not related to ETA: judgement of Pinochet and other Latin American dictators, intervention in politics as MP (frustrated for not becoming Minister of Justice), GAL process... As I said above he's not any low profile judge like the rest but subject of many unusual procedures and politically controversial actuations in many fields.

I'm open to discussion on this, anyhow.

• • While leaving the different trials in place in order to discuss their convenience here, I have deleted all the external links because all of them are related to Gara, which is the direct “heir” of Egin in terms of staff and else.

That's really insulting and vandalizing. Do you know of any other source? Do not delete sources, please. If you have better ones, add them. Gara sources are the best ones I could find in this matter: all the referenced material is extracted from them.

Also there's no trial against Gara, no judicial procedure of any sort states that Gara is the heir of Egin. Egin is still innocent until proven otherwise. No convictions have been made (and after 8 years it really stinks), specially when this has been percieved almost universally as an attack against freedom of speech and press and nothing else.

For the same invalid reasons I could maybe delete El Mundo (pro-Garzón, pro-PP) or Libertad Digital sources, that are not neutral. I don't dare to vandalize that way. Let's be serious and mutually respectful in the benefit of truth and NPOV.

In general: do not mass-edit this way without discussion: it's just creating edit wars. Not constructive but destructive. You do not trust my criteria but I don't trust yours either. Please read WP:NPOV. --Sugaar 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

POLITICAL SUPPORT

Again you have done more than you admit: you have retouched the previously disputed sentence without discussing it in the section I opened for it. The quotation marks are possibly wrong because we don't know for sure if such exact sentence was made. Can you source it? I'm deleting those quotetion marks until proper source is given. --Sugaar 10:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"UNIONISM"

Again you (Mountolive) have changed without discussion "Spanish unionist" for "Anti ETA" groups. I've undone.

This issue surely deserves discussion.

I introduced the term unionist, not normally used in Basque contexts because it seems easy to understand for English speakers, by comparison with the North Irish conflict, that has some clear parallels.

Spanish unionist parties usually call themselves "non-nationalist", a POV term that hides their obvious Spanish nationalism. In the context of Spain nationalism is used mostly for separatist ideologies and not for centralist/unionist ones. Nevertheless a disapassionate meditation of the issue makes it clearly a POV usage.

Basque nationalists also tend often to use "nationalist" in the exclussive Basque-nationalist sense, using instead "españolista" (Spanish-ist impossible to use in English), what is considered an insult in some circles (variant: "españolazo" or just "español": Spaniard).

Yet in English (and maybe in Spanish too) for the sake of clarity and NPOV we should better terms. I think that "unionist" is one of the best possibilities. Alternatively it could be used "Spanish nationalist". Parties such as Ezker Batua (Izquierda Unida) that do accept self determination but don't promote full independence do not fall in that category. Only PSE-PSOE, PP-UPN and CDN fall in that category in the Southern Basque Country.

In the case of paramilitary groups, like GAL, BVE and GCR, they have not just focused on ETA, so they can't just be called anti-ETA. They have killed intentionately many people that were just somewhat ideologically akin to radical Basque nationalism. On of their first attacks was the Montejurra massacre in which left-wing Carlists were impunely killed by GCR members before the noses of non-intervening Guardia Civiles. Other examples are the killing of Santiago Brouard (leader of Herri Batasuna), the killing of Xabier Galdeano (photographer of Egin), etc.

The attack against Herri Batasuna MPs in Madrid, that caused this party to give away their intention of defending heir views in the Spanish Parliment, with one killed and another gravely injured, was never reivindicated but should surely be listed in some way. --Sugaar 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very tricky vocabulary questions here.

Of the major parties, I'd really call only the PP "Spanish nationalist", and even there it is a bit of a stretch for some party supporters. Certainly the PSOE and especially IU have an increasingly multi-national vision of Spain. And the PNV - who have not been immune from ETA violence - are certainly Basque nationalist, they are just not the same type of Basque nationalist.

"Unionist" is an interesting choice, but it has no traditional place in the discourse about Spain, so it is a bit of a neologism here (and it doesn't readily include the PNV). The UK analogy makes it tendentious: after all, to be a Unionist implies a pretty specific politics. Few people outside of Irish Protestants would designate themselves unionists: for example, I've never heard anyon from England itself call him- or herself that, and I've spent what adds up to two years of my life in England.

The thing is, many people opposed to violent independentism are nonetheless either Basque nationalists (not all of whom are even independentists) and/or believers in a multi-national Spain. The latter certainly are non-nationalist. I find it kind of bizarre to call the PSOE today "Spanish nationalist", they are simply not, as a party, cultural nationalists. They are supporters of the integrity of the Spanish state, but state and nation are two different matters.

In each case we have to be clear what we are characterizing. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unionism is not so easily understandable. Basque nationalists also want the "union" of both sides of the border. (It can be also ambiguous in Ireland but time seems to have cleared the usage). I remember some quotation by a naive foreigner: "What do they [Basque nationalists or some specific group] want? Join France?". It's ridiculous (though Guipuscoa was a French departement during the Convention Wars) to anyone knowledgeable but it's an error that could be easily made.

"Constitutionalists" is not good as well. There are some articles in the Constitution that some parties don't have in mind when "defending the Constitution".

What about "pro-Spain"? Too clumsy? --Error 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't accept the difference between PP and PSOE in this sense. Even if PP has a more hardliner discourse and the PSOE a more moderate one, both deny the right of self-determination for the Basque Country and have an overall concordant policy in this aspect. There's no such thing as multi-national discourse in the PSOE outside of Catalonia (PSE and PSN are in this sense totally different from PSC). Wether "unionist" or "Spanish nationalist" or another term, some has to be used to describe this tandem of the two main Spanish anti-self-determination parties. IU is somewhat different: they are federalists and do accept self-determination.

Nation-state and nation are not different matters. And Spain is a nation-state (centered on Castilian identity and culture) and Basque Country is a stateless nation. PSOE, under the pretext of vague internationalism sometimes, has been applying all kind of anti-Basque-nationalist policies. They don't accept the right of Basque Country (or any other territory) to decide their destiny, and hence they are clearly Spanish nationalists (or unionists if you wish). This is one of the most divisive elements of Basque (and even Spanish) politics and the basic lines are: self-determinists (aka Basque nationalists or just nationalists) vs. anti-self-determinists (aka Spanish nationalists or unionists). The second group considers that the only nation that has the right of self-determinationis Spain and that is clearly Spanish nationalism. They even deny the minority nations to use that name, calling them nationalities instead and that is also Spanish nationalism.

I don't see confussion in the term "unionist" but I realize it's an analogy that may be arguable. "Spanish nationalist" is a good alternative (the parties that want to keep Spain united and are against self-dertermination of the nationalities in it) and it paralelizes well with "Basque nationalist".

PNV is clearly Basque nationalist, though it can be considered the more moderate (for some "traitor") and adaptable, their stated aims are self-determination and eventually independence, like all other Basque nationalist parties. Another question is if they ever do anything more than just talk to achieve that goal, but that's beyond our task.

"Pro-Spain" is really confuse. It would imply that Basque nationalists and federalists are "anti-Spain", what is not true. They are against remaining inside Spain (specially under imposed conditions) but they don't wish bad to Spain (normally). Arguably one could say that being unionist is an anti-Spain attitude, as it actually weakens Spain's cohesion instead of reinforcing it (maybe Herrero de Miñón, one of the few Spanish conservatives with an open view of this issue). Some have argued that there's no "Basque problem" but a "Spanish problem" (in the sense of weak national indentity-cohesion, lack of ability to integrate constructively and freely). --Sugaar 12:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The PSOE want to keep Spain politically intact, but that is about the state not about a nation. Multiculturalism is an entirely different matter, having far more to do with nationality and far less to do with states. - Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interpretation. And state and nation are inseparable under the Spanish constitution (1978) that only accepts the term nation for Spain.

Wanting to keep Spain united is legitimate but, specially as this is done via denying the right of self-determination for minority nations such as the Basque one, it clearly is Spanish nationalism.

Part of the problem may be that "nationalist" in Spanish has not the negative connotation that may have in English. Instead "patriotic" does have a negative connotation in Spanish that doesn't seem to have in English. They are sort of inverted in their shades. But basically they mean the same thing after all.

Nationalism is after all the ideology that supports the ambitions of certain nation (nation-state, stateless nation...), often at the expense of others. It's not very different from patriotism actually but somehow people seem to feel differently about these terms and the feelings are opposed in English and Spanish. In Spanish "patria" (fatherland), "patriota" and "patriótico" are part of the language of the Army, which is inherently associated to Francoism and other many military coups. Franco and his partisans abused these terms mercilessly, so Basque nationalists almost never call themselves "patriotas" in Spanish, even if that's the literal translation of "abertzale" but "nationalists". On the other hand Spanish nationalists (PP, PSOE, some minor parties) don't use either term normally but talk about the unity of Spain and not being nationalist (in the sense of stateless nations' patriots).

Also, back to the PSOE, they have a somewhat confuse discourse but, outside of Catalonia, they are clearly centralists. Navarrese PSN is as anti-Basque as UPN (PP). Western Basque PSE-EE is, despite its incorporation of the acronym EE, at most very limitedly regionalist.

Under PSOE governments transference of attributions as per the Gernika statute were frozen almost totally most of the time. Their discourse may be somewhat confuse but they are clearly against Basque self-determination and self-rule beyond what is almost unavoidable to keep some appearence of social peace. They are not as extremist or inflexible as PP maybe but that only makes them moderate Spanish nationalists, but Spanish nationalists anyhow.

PSOE is also strongly in the Jacobinist tradition that all pan-French parties have. Yet the reality of Spain doesn't fit so well with those centralist premises and therefore an unstable arrangement had to be made. It was nevertheless more impelled by the extinct UCD of Suárez than by the PSOE itself. And it's understood by most that the coup of 1981 was a whistle blow, with the complicity of PSOE, against "excessive" decentralization that Suárez seemed willing to concede.

Whatever the case, the term "unionist" seems to avoid all this problematic and is a good English term. I really can't find anything better. My POV is "Spanish nationalist" as more precise term, "unionist" is for me a linguistic compromise and also a step towards NPOV.

I'd really like to hear from Mountolive. He's not said a single word. --Sugaar 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much for your interest. However, I'd rather have had the same appreciation when I asked please discussing here my edit, with is supported by my reasons above, instead of getting it reverted automatically, something which I didn't do with your edits: I didn't have a problem to leave them there for weeks while we started debating.

Now...have you watched See No Evil, Hear No Evil? Me either, but I'm sure we both know what's about. This is why you haven't heard from me. I guess my lack of input is more clear now. Besides, I still stand for my edit as of November 13th: see above.

Because of us reproducing the movie here (and reaching further results in terms of non sense that the movie itself) is why I asked and keep asking for someone who is neither dumb nor deaf (Error and Jmable doesn't seem impaired in this regard) to review the edits and decide.

There's no way you may agree with this, right? Mountolive 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)

I didn't revert automatically, I actually edited all your edits one by one, saving what deserved to be saved (not much, in my opinion). Though it was such a huge effort that I should have directly reverted and saved my energies. You had mass edited the article with not a single comment, deleting sources and adding POV at will. I couldn't see much of value on your edits, sincerely. I reviewed all them though.

We can agree if you want to discuss. We can agree to disagree and use that positively to get a good NPOV article. As it is now, that is not great, it's much better than what you can find in the Spanish Wikipedia (apparently ultra-disputed, currently fully protected but looking horribly POV) and even in the Basque one (just "disputed" but too sober and unsourced).

I imagine that this is partly due to both of us, plus the invaluable collaboration of many others, like Jmabel and Error, converging not in a particular POV but in a more neutral, extense and somewhat referenced article. Congratulations to all.

Let's keep adding up and make it even better. Featured is maybe too much but should be an abstract goal. --Sugaar 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountolive's edit to Unionism is clearly not acceptable to some fellow editors , yet there seems no clear wording to describe those loyal to Spain. I suppose Spainish Loyalists is too sharp Mark us street 22 nd Nov

Well, we shouldn't lose sight of what's actually going on here: "unionism" is a really new term here in this page (as new as one month). What is not acceptable is that we use here politically loaded vocabulary such as "unionism". This word is not an original creation of Sugaar, but can be heard in the MLNV parlance. So it sounds like a really unfortunate mix of POV/original research in this context.

There is a very tricky vocabulary question which nationalists of all kinds introduce in the language: despite being a totally legitimate option, apparently there is an on and off vague discomfort with this word ("nationalist") within nationalists themselves, which has produced, from their side, a "mirroring technique" which means "since I am Basque nationalist, everyone who is against Basque nationalism is, then, Spanish/French nationalist" in a "share the burden" or "guilty by association" so called reasoning. It is like if the Feminists had an agenda and then, anyone not supporting it, would be labelled "chauvinist".

By all means, this word is one of the most obvious (and easy to mend) gaffes recently slipped into the article. Mountolive 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

I have archived one page from this one, since it is getting quite long. Not sure whether I proceeded observing wikipedia guidelines in the matter: feel free to revert or fine tune. Thanks Mountolive 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you archived very well. Even with excess of prudence maybe: the last archived comment (if I'm correct) was of April 1. --Sugaar 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some comment series ending in October 2006. You may have seen only the first comment from 2004, but there have been recent additions. I haven't checked whether they are relevant. --Error 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You must be right, since I just copy pasted en masse roughly half of the talk page, without paying attention at the particular edits dates. How are we supposed to put the recent comments back? because they may make no sense without the previous, older, comments. As I said at the time of archiving, feel free to restore completely. Mountolive 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You archived well. If something archived needs to be brought back, the best thing would be that the interested person quotes what was said or makes a reference link to that section along with a summary. Now and then it is a must to archive crowded discussions as this one for mere navigability. Archives are there and can be used for reference as much as needed. --Sugaar 12:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to work this through

There are so many issues in contention right now that I think it is going to be very hard to work them all through simultaneously. Can we try to pick a few key areas of the article on which to try to get consensus, or a few key vocabulary issues? Otherwise this is going to be nothing but a formless brawl. - Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do some of it by indexing my response to Mountolive's edits. I'll try to go over all that tomorrow in a more systematic and positive manner. It's quite late over here right now. --Sugaar 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess step by step should be better. If either Jmabel or Error (preferably both) agree here, I will submit piece by piece my edits so that they can assess whether the improve the present one or not really.

Looking forward to hear from you. Mountolive 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The best edits are the ones that as factual as possible and with the absence of contentous and emotive wording Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

My overview

1. Intro: Euskadi ta Askatasuna is translated as Basque Homeland and Freedom, yet Euskadi (a neologism) is surely better translated as Basque Country, in the territorial and political sense of the term "country". The term homeland is kind of totally out of place, as happens in some other article. There's no real equivalent for homeland in Basque or Spanish and sounds very strange.

2. Aims: Mountolive seemed to insist in claiming (erroneously) that ETA's principal aim is to create a socialist state. This is not real, has been discussed before and can be documented. The current status is ok.

3. Secondary tactical targets:

• Drug traffickers (this has a "citation needed" mark). I can't provide the citation but can say that in the early 80s it was the case.
• I would like a source for the Leitzaran highway, a more recent case, that I think is not so clear though.
• Possibly the complex struggle of Lemoiz nuclear plant needs its own article but well... there are no doubts that at some point ETA took it as their own circustantial fight and actually were decissive in stopping its construction. This may well justify a section of its own for this particular case but a separate article is maybe a better solution.

4. Context: the entry is ok as for now, unless someone has a better idea. There was a minor dispute about wether Askatasuna (former GG.AA./AAT) should be defined as "anti-repressive" or just stated without any explanation.

5. Social support is a little confuse and maybe POV. There's much emphasis on Francoism, what is surely justified, but the division Navarre+Araba vs. Guipuscoa+Biscay is interpreted from the Francoist POV more or less. After all, whatever the support that fascists had in Navarre and Araba, they fell in that side because of where the coup triumphed. There were only three cities in all Spain where the coup was aborted: Madrid, Barcelona and St. Sebastian (plus partially Toledo and Oviedo), the rest just fell where they got in luck. In this sense sentences like Since some Basque nationalists had sided with the Republican government in the Spanish Civil War, Franco restricted virtually any public expressions of Basque culture... are very tendentious. Francoism attempted and partly suceeded in emphasizing the divisions between the provinces with such tactics as declaring Biscay and Guipuscoa "traitor provinces" but not Madrid, Barcelona, Santander or Murcia, that were also in the Republican side.

The last paragraph of this section is also confuse. It's not clear what erosion may have suffered "MLNV" (acronym is not clear for the English reader) in recent years. Sources are needed but HB-EH-Batasuna-EHAK support has oscilated between 18% and 12% (in all Southern Basque Country, Navarre included, where this sector is the largest nationalist one), with ups and downs, and is difficult to count in some elections because of the ban on Batasuna and anything of the like.

The claims on Iparralde are rather false. More than 10% voted nationalist (mostly AB) in latest elections. But regionalism (claim for a separate Basque departement, greater presence of Basque language in administration, economic institutions, etc.) is widespread, being promised by politicians of all parties in each election and rejected by Paris right after them.

6. Tactics: I reviewed this part and mostly is ok. There's the problem of redundancy between tactics and victims and it seems Mountolive had a different approach, that has been partly discussed above.

7. Government response: the treatment of unionist paramilitary groups is too focused on the GAL ignoring once important GCE and BVE) and I'd like to see some material on the following:

• Dispersion of ETA prisioners, history of it and its effects on militant prisioners and their relatives and friends (at least a mention to all those dead in car accidents while travelling to visit their imprisioned relatives).
• Recent legal and judicial steps on practical life terms
• General replacement of Spanish police corps by Basque Ertzantza (in the BAC) and its influence.

The rest is ok, I think, though maybe the 18/98 procedure and the derivated ones need an article for themselves. I'd like also more info on the closed newspapers, radios and magazines, tortures to journalists of Egunkaria (reporters sans frontiers 2004 report).

I think you can retire "controversial" from Garzón - though I insist that he's actually quite controversial in fact, I admit it may break WP:NPOV.

8. Structure: it's difficult to expand due to the secretivity of the organization but some comments:

• talde means literally "group" but it would be best translated as cell or commando.
• I see no reason to keep Spanish terms like "cúpula militar"
• legalak (again why the Spanish term?) seems to be best translated as "legal" (adj.) rather "lawful ones".

9. Political support is very focused in the political parties/coalitions running to elections, what was traditonally seen by the BNLM as just one political front. There's lack of info on the rest of the socio-political network, though some can be found at Basque National Liberation Movement article.

Batasuna is presented just a "sharing the same political goals" with ETA. This is quite confuse and does not make justice to the wide array of parties that actually share the goals with ETA, specially self-determination, rejecting the 1978 Spanish constitution as an imposition, even if with different emphasis. Batasuna does not explicitly share means with ETA, actually they work by other means, when they can. The difference between Batasuna and other nationalist parties is that Batasuna does not want to condemn ETA's violence, claiming that those positionings do nothing to solve the bacground political conflict, of which ETA would be just a symptom.

The most correct range of votes for Batasuna and ancestors is 12-18% actually (from memory). The name of EHAK is always mistranlated from the common but also wrong translation into Spanish. Euskal Herrietako should be translated as "of the Basque Countries". Herri has not a clear territorial meaning (country is the best translation in this sense, though it can also mean people, nation or village) and anyhow "homeland" lacks of any Basque parallel other than "lurraldea" (territory). The emphasis on homeland seems to be a POV disdain against Basque claims for country-ship.

I'm stopping here. I have yet to re-read the History section though. --Sugaar 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that ETA used (maybe not more) legales before legalak. Besides it is a word of Spanish origin. --Error 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: it doesn't matter the origin of the word, the primary language of ETA is Basque, at least that's what they use in comunications and bulletins. As per the article in Basque Wikipedia, it seems that ETA was speaking Basque and giving it outmost importance since its very beginnings.

Another thing is that press and specially police do use Spanish mainly. --Sugaar 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

From my memory of Juaristi, Xabi Etxebarrieta was learning Basque, and several of the Zutik were at least bilingual. I guess that, if ETA has been officially Basque-only at some moment, it has to be after the co-officialization of Basque in the teaching system. --Error 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't say for sure. But anyhow, my suggestion was to put it in English ("legal cells/militants") rather than using foreign words, specially if they have to be written down in 3 different languages and sound the same in all them. It's just a matter of style.

Anyhow, even if ETA may use or have used both languages (plus French surely), it is much more likely that they would prefer to express such things in Basque, as per the very self-attributed meaning of their existence. --Sugaar 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that this sense of "legal" is not proper Basque or Spanish. It's ETA "professional jargon". Translating it should be done carefully. --Error 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Mountolive did not "insist in claiming (erroneously) that ETA's principal aim is to create a socialist state", what he did was restauring the previous version, which is the standard (since it is a mere repetition of ETA's communiqués over the time)

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

this is what ETA has consistently asked from its beginning and was re-stated one month ago or so, virtually verbatim, in the Aritxulegi communiqué.

If someone feels like he is smart enough to interpret what ETA is asking for, well, go ahead with it. But I just thought that this article was about ETA's motives, not about the people who think they know better ETA's claims than ETA itself.

What Mountolive did was asking for some talk on his version here in the talk page, instead of an automatic revert of his edit, provided the fact that the latest edits I was going about have had their chance to be displayed there for weeks and there is consensus in this talk page that the Tactics section is a mess.

He also thought that no one would have a problem in discuss his revised version here but, apparently, not everyone feels confident enough about their own edits and prefer to revert automatically, even to the oldest version possible, including the typos and mispellings which had been polished, in order to avoid any possible "polution" whatsoever, I guess.

Funny.

The current status is not ok and nothing has been discussed. As usual, ever since a few weeks self righteousness has taken over here.

Apparently it looks like it is necessary to state here that "discussion" is not saying "I can't accept/you are wrong/erroneous/POV...the current status is ok"...we are not trading anything here: this is not about finding a middle version with claims from both sides, this is about trying to get as aseptic as possible and reproduce facts, without interpretation nor using politically loaded language. Mountolive 01:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's a good approximation of WP:NPOV but it is also about consensus (see WP:CON. Anyhow, I won't oppose any rightful NPOV approach. I consider that piece of policy the most valuable thing in all Wikipedia.

May I ask you why did you wrote part of your text diff like if you were someone else, talking of yourself in third person? It looks very odd.

Anyhow, what you did was to add something I edited long ago and documented as far as I could. As I have done again now. Thanks for making me work doubly. Your "revert" refers to something that happened at least a month ago and that was as reasonably documented as possible (now as before) (Ref. Talk:ETA#ETA's aims, from mid October). You have a claim but no documentation nor any other proof. I've lived in the Basque Country for most or all of ETA's armed activity period and I know what I'm talking about (more or less).

When somebody claims that ETA killed drug traffickers and alleged police collaborators I know it's true because it happened in my neighbourhood, one of them being a man I used to buy sport material to (alleged collaborator), when somebody claims that ETA attacked banks I know it's true because I've been awoken by such explosions, when somebody claims that Santiago Brouard was a phyisician killed by the GAL in his home and office in María Díaz de Haro street, Bilbao in a 20th of November, I know because he was my granfather's neighbour and, curiously enough, his nephew is my own neighbour now.

This may be not enough for Wikipedia standards but anyhow it helps knowing the matter first hand.

So when I say that ETA's main aim is self-determination, I know what I'm talking about because I have discussed on that a zillion times with so many people, of all sides. Wether I can document it or is 100% exact, I can't guarantee. But you have brought no evidence that says otherwise.

Would you do, I'd gladly either concede you are right or discuss on when and in what context.

What I don't want is to make this a personal discussion. Let's bring forward information, sources and ideas and build up a good article. That's what we are in Wikipedia for, aren't we? --Sugaar 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I used third person because I try to minimize the personal dimension. Thus, when the tension rises -like when I feel misquoted on purpose- instead of taking it personal and use the you and I, I thought this more polite way would ease the situation. I thought that, since the post is signed, there was no chance of confusion, but I am sorry if it puzzled you for a while.

The edits I went about are, as you say, from October, more or less. That is not "a long time ago" anyway and, well, if "a long time ago" was to be a qualifying thing, then you should remember that your changes suppressed edits which were there for much longer than one month and a half.

Well, looks like you are a bit sour for having to work "doubly". I'm sorry, but, since this is not your own article, but an open one (remember: "Wikipedia: the open encyclopaedia") you will have to get used to it. On the other side, let me mention, if you may, that I am also sorry that my work got reverted by you without giving it a chance to be there for weeks, as I let yours just waiting for a discussion here which never seemed to start, that's why I finally proceeded and supported each of the edits with the relative reasons.

Sorry, but living in the Basque country does not add much to your opinion. In the worst case, you could be a relative of a person assassinated by ETA or you could be a ETA's imprisoned relative and both would reduce your objectivity. In a more ordinary case, you could be a PP voter or a Batasuna voter (just to mention the wider gap possible) trying to defend here political claims or one side of the story.

In any of the cases, there is a higher chance that living in the Basque country reduces your objectivity for obvious reasons. I am not saying that it does necessarily, but I am saying that it doesn't add anything to someone's level of impartiality, which is what we are after.

As for the drug trafficking stuff, well, you are barking at the wrong tree here: I have never disputed that one.

Mountolive 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding all the controversy... I made a few minor grammatical changes and moved a block of text that was disconnected from its lead sentence. I have no opinion at all, just proofreading. Hope this article gets worked out, because I found it really interesting.

Resonanteye 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why do you consider this order better but maybe it is. Successive edits and unstable compromises may have damaged the structure of the article a bit after all.

:What I don't know is why you deleted this from the tactics

*Direct attacks: killing, such as by shooting. This tactic has been mostly abandoned because it involves too much risk for the commandos.

It was used often in the early times and sometimes later too. They documented some target's moves, went to him (more rarely her) and shooted on the back of the head. Later as security and police presence increased this was mostly dropped.

In Spanish the expression "tiro en la nuca" is near-synonim for terrorism and is used frequently, even if that practice was dropped at some momment and replaced by bomb attacks. (never mind, I was trusting the history red markers too much) --Sugaar 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually what this article needs is more editors like you, with the mind focused in improving it rather than in this or that POV. So your help is actually greatly appreciated. --Sugaar 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More: news-briefing on the last Zutabe [1]:

ETA, que advierte que «la izquierda abertzale no aceptará seudo-soluciones ni trampas» y que la base de la resolución se sustenta en la autodeterminación y la territorialidad, vuelve a resaltar «el valor de la lucha» para garantizar la supervivencia de Euskal Herria, y se reafirma «en los objetivos marcados en la declaración del 22 de marzo [en la que anunció el inicio del alto el fuego y en la que aseguraba que «la paz, aquí y ahora, es posible»]»..

I think you mean that show of weapons that they did in Gipuzkoa in the Gudari Eguna this year. I don't recall what "the boys" said but that doesn't seem but political rethoric in a political act.

Now we just need the communication of March 22. It should be easy to get. --Sugaar 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not so specific but the Cease Fire declaration of March was anyhow in the same line [2]:

El objetivo de esta decisión es impulsar un proceso democrático en Euskal Herria para que mediante el diálogo, la negociación y el acuerdo, el Pueblo Vasco pueda realizar el cambio político que necesita.

Superando el actual marco de negación, partición e imposición hay que construir un marco democrático para Euskal Herria, reconociendo los derechos que como pueblo le corresponden y asegurando de cara al futuro la posibilidad de desarrollo de todas las opciones políticas.

Al final de ese proceso los ciudadanos y ciudadanas vascas deben tener la palabra y la decisión sobre su futuro, dando así una solución democrática al conflicto.

I let you the task of looking for more. --Sugaar 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Friends, the current page for ETA we all agree can be improved to make it more interesting and factual for the informed and complete beginner to the subject. Please don't ask me to assist in the more polticial sensitive issues , I will however like to help to make this discussion page more productive for ALL of you here. I really think you need to focus on getting factual information backed by mutually accepted sources and work on from there , starting with the intro and work down and even add some new sections where required. Also I suggest you keep things as breif as possible, Mark us street Nov 22th 2006

Goals

Thinking about the goals of ETA, I think that we could express the goals explicitly recognized by ETA in recent communiqués and then citations of goals not recognized but widely suspected. I was trying to find a CIA or USDOS statement on the goals of ETA, but couldn't. I propose something like:

• Many Spanish sectors consider that ETA intends to create a Socialist state in the historical Basque Country

I don't like the weasely "many", but I cannot tell who exactly thinks like that and who doesn't. An official statement from, say, the police or a minister would be better. --Error 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of statement opens a way out the present stalemate. I propose something like

• That an independent state be created in the Basque-inhabited areas of Spain and France. ETA has usually called for this new state to be a socialist one. The latter claim is being mentioned less frequently after the fall of the Soviet bloc, yet have not disappeared.

I think there's no point in mentioning "Spanish sectors" since, in the event of independence, I guess those sectors couldn't care less if whatever new state was socialist, fascist or scientologist. The ones most concerned with the socialist claim would actually be Basque conservatives themselves, whether nationalists or not.

Thanks, Error, for the valuable input.Mountolive 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a better source: something public. That officer is totally unknown and he seems to be using that rethorically to persuade a distant international public (NATO). I'd like some news from some Spanish or Basque paper where some politician claims that, so we actually if someone apart Mr. Liñán claims it and who.

If it is part of the discourse of the Spanish government of that time (PP), we should have some Acebes, Trillo or another politically meaningful source claiming the same.

As Error, I'd strongly prefer a police/judicial source or (even better) a document of ETA.

So far the only redaction valid to me seems "an obscure officer of the Spanish Ministry of Defense claimed in 2002 at a NATO conference that...", what I don't finde encyclopedically relevant.

Mountolive, you are the one claiming that very strongly, I'm almost sure that you must have read it somewhere. Why don't you search for that better and more clarifying source?

As per ETA's own opinion, the best we have so far is the KAS Alterntiba, with its many points. It should probably be mentioned too, though, like Error, I'd prefer to focus in their latest comunications on that matter.

Found something:

Sobre el contenido del comunicado, Rajoy declaró que «de nuevo, nos dicen que el objetivo es iniciar un proceso que conduzca al objetivo de siempre, que es el derecho de autodeterminación y nos impone las condiciones de siempre». [3]

I'm searching for more. But guess that having Rajoy (PP) saying that is more than enough. --Sugaar 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned it already in the past, but I don't mind saying it again:

The Aritxulegi communiqué:

Signed by: ETA (Rajoy is a source to define ETA's goals? are you kidding us? not very good joke anyway)

Key words: Independence, Socialism, guns in our hands

Date: approx. one month and a half ago, in a context of negotiations (which means that they have weighted their words before making it public)

Self determination?: nothing even close was mentioned at all.

why quoting Rajoy (Rajoy???) instead of ETA?

I can't see why a recent ETA communiqué is not enough and we should look for something else, what else is needed?...why look for Rajoy, an "obscure officer" etc when we have the official statement??

c'mon guys!

Mountolive 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have that source? I'm looking the best I can, you should do that too. I found this (you should like it, Mountolive): the instruction of the Audiencia Nacional (case 18/98) says that the objectives of ETA and KAS are the same ones [4] (for RTF original format: http://www.gara.net/dokumentuak/fitxategiak/20051112_18_98_peticionfiscal.rtf). More specifically:

En 1.976 E.T.A.-Político Militar, presentó los principios de sus objetivos en un "programa político", configurado alrededor de siete puntos como alternativa al ordenamiento entonces vigente.

...

La "izquierda abertzale" vasca y navarra, en la que concurrían organizaciones políticas, sindicales y sociales diversas optó por una ruptura política específica para el ámbito del País Vasco y Navarra, a través de un programa elaborado por E.T.A.-Político Militar, que fue asumido como propio por el resto de las organizaciones sometidas a E.T.A., y que se denominó "Alternativa K.A.S."

...

Por ello puede concluirse que en 1.992, las siglas K.A.S. representaban tres conceptos:

I. Un "programa político" que aunaba cinco puntos básicos:

1. la "amnistía",

2. las "libertades democráticas",

3. la "retirada" de fuerzas militares y policiales de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco y de la Comunidad Foral Navarra,

4. la "mejora" de las condiciones de vida y trabajo de las clases populares y trabajadoras,

5. y el reconocimiento del derecho de autodeterminación para la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca y la Comunidad Foral Navarra.

All that in the forced language of the Spanish judicature and police. A better version is the one I copied from Euskal Wikipedia above, that looks more genuine, but they are the same in content. --Sugaar 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How should I say it so that you understand that, for ETA's goals, we do not need Rajoy's evaluation, an obscure official's evaluation, the Audiencia Nacional's evaluation: we need ETA's official statement, don't we? (look for it above).

is there anything so wrong with quoting ETA's statements on his goals that we have to look for everybody and else their grandmother's evaluations instead of the ETA itself statement? am I the only one who sees it this way or what? Don't get surreal, man!.

By the way, no double standards please: you deleted in your edits all of what the Audiencia Nacional and the "controversial" judge Garzón said or did about ETA because is.... POV...that wasn't a long time ago, remember? so it can not be POV then and now good for determining ETA's goal.

Looks like you are confusing ETA's goal with the one of the MLNV: the latter quotes much more frequently self determination, not ETA.

Mountolive 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

News briefing of the last Zutabe [5]:

ETA, que advierte que «la izquierda abertzale no aceptará seudo-soluciones ni trampas» y que la base de la resolución se sustenta en la autodeterminación y la territorialidad...

Everybody of some weight says the same: Trillo, Garzón and ETA agree on this. Why can't you and I agree? It escapes my understanding.

The show of force of Gipuzkoa (I don't recall what they said) was just a political act. I don't think you can take that as official.

But anyhow, if you argued less and sourced more, we would work faster and better. --Sugaar 05:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More: ETA communication of June 2006 [6]:

Claves para solucionar el conflicto

Para avanzar en el camino del diálogo es imprescindible desactivar todas las medidas represivas y de excepción que han acompañado durante tantos años las estrategias de guerra ya fracasadas. La represión que a día de hoy aún persiste es absolutamente incompatible con un proceso de paz.

El proceso democrático que debe desarrollarse en Euskal Herria con la participación e implicación de todos los agentes vascos tiene que contar con garantías suficientes de no injerencia por parte de los poderes del Estado español. Los aparatos del Estado no pueden condicionar ni el desarrollo ni el resultado del proceso.

Al final de este proceso la ciudadanía vasca deberá tener la palabra y la capacidad de decisión en torno a su futuro, sin ningún tipo de límites.

Bold is mine. Again insisting in self-determination. --Sugaar 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not so specific but the Cease Fire declaration of March was anyhow in the same line [7]:

El objetivo de esta decisión es impulsar un proceso democrático en Euskal Herria para que mediante el diálogo, la negociación y el acuerdo, el Pueblo Vasco pueda realizar el cambio político que necesita.

Superando el actual marco de negación, partición e imposición hay que construir un marco democrático para Euskal Herria, reconociendo los derechos que como pueblo le corresponden y asegurando de cara al futuro la posibilidad de desarrollo de todas las opciones políticas.

Al final de ese proceso los ciudadanos y ciudadanas vascas deben tener la palabra y la decisión sobre su futuro, dando así una solución democrática al conflicto.

I let you the task of looking for more. --Sugaar 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's everywhere in google, I'm surprised you didn't hit it during your searches...after a quick search I just couldn't find it in English but apparently Spanish could also be valid. If not, I have the French version readily.

http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/ultimahora.php/2006/09/24/comunicado_integro_de_eta

"Euskadi Ta Askatasuna quiere saludar estrechamente a todos los luchadores que os habéis reunido en este acto. El Gudari Eguna no es una fecha para mirar hacia atrás. Al contrario, con el ejemplo de los compañeros de lucha en la memoria y aprendiendo sobre el camino recorrido, este día tiene que servir para afianzar la lucha de hoy y mañana, tiene que servir para fortalecer el compromiso personal por la libertad de Euskal Herria. La lucha no es el pasado, sino el presente y el futuro.

Continuar, sin desistir, en la lucha por el camino ejemplar de los gudaris, nos llevará a ser un Pueblo libre. Hacer frente firmemente a la opresión que vive Euskal Herria es un trabajo imprescindible para garantizar la supervivencia de nuestro pueblo.

En este camino abrupto nadie nos va a regalar nada, la oportunidad de conseguir la libertad de Euskal Herria está en nuestro corazón y en nuestras manos. Construiremos la independencia de Euskal Herria con nuestros actos diarios. Ese es el mensaje que ETA quiere haceros llegar hoy: Confirmamos el compromiso de seguir luchando firmemente, con las armas en la mano, hasta conseguir la independencia y el socialismo de Euskal Herria. ¡Tenemos la sangre preparada para darla por ella! ¡Lo conseguiremos!

¡Viva los luchadores vascos! ¡Viva Euskal Herria libre! ¡Viva Euskal Herria socialista! ¡Sin descanso hasta conseguir la independencia y el socialismo!"

24th Sept. 2006

I don't even need to add bold or italics, do I?

Just note the date and, specially, the context: negotiations/contacts going on, which means that the words that the organization makes public must be weighted. To say that this is a "political act" which you can't take as official is just hilarious...a public statement (call it "a political act" if you want) is not official? what is it? intimate? should we take Garzón's or Trillo's opinions regarding this as official instead?

As usual, my original post tonight has been buried under many paragraphs of Sugaar's copy paste and comments as usual during the last weeks. This is really compromising each and everyone of my posts here in this talk page and it would be nice if he was a bit more considerate.

Let's just wait for feedback from people other than him and myself and listen to what they have to say. I hope this is ok with Sugaar (no need prove it that he is ok with it by posting 249 lines below this one, but that's ok if you want to)

Mountolive 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is rethorical. That's clear. Bold would have been nice anyhow, so I didn't have to read all, I almost didn't find it.

Anyhow it's merely rethorical. It's just a political act, an old fashioned slogan in the day of rememberance of the "martyrs of the nation". Just that.

You are right that the words and actions must be weighted but this act has not the entity of an oficial communication, the KAS Alternatiba or whatever. Nobody here (in EH) thinks that that part about socialism is anything but rethoric.

When press has emphasized something about that act, what did they say? Surely they dwelt on the threat of taking up arms again, but nobody minimally serious would take the term "socialism" too seriously these days.

You like that Liñán seem to have that obsession but I don't see politicians denouncing: "ETA wants socialism", they denounce: "ETA wants self-determination". Why? Because saying otherwise would be laughed upon.

Honestly, I know a lot of people with leftist ideas here in the Basque Country, and most among them who dislike or are critic towards the BNLM are so because they consider the movement too burgueoise, too socialdemocratic, too focused in ethnic nationalism only and too ambiguous regarding socialism. Your claim for any serious socialist/communist is quite laughable (no offense meant).

I wish you were right (in a sense) but you are not. --Sugaar 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for determining what is rethorical and what is not (so is it "rethorical" or "political"?). In the past you have already determined what is true and what is not true. What is POV and what is not POV. What is biased and what is not. Thank you for your opinions.

I agree that ETA's socialist claim is quite laughable. But, hey, that is ETA's claim, not mine.

As I have said before, we are not discussing here about what you, your acquaintances, Garzon or "obscure officers" think about ETA's goal.

We are discussing their goals, regardless how laughable or serious we may think they are.

Mountolive 07:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, please. It is my opinion and it has at least some good grounds.

I think that there are different levels of authority to estabilish those goals, in all sides. An official communication by ETA's commanders is more authoritative than a ghostly appearence in a political act of some militants, the opinion of Rajoy (vice-President of the Spanish government in 2002 and current leader of the opposition) explained to the press is more authoritative than the allegations of an obscure officer in a NATO meeting, the opinion of "super-judge" Garzón (no matter how you or I may agree or disagree with it) is also an arguably authoritative source (though it is instruction, not sentence, it is based in the opinions of police investigators, even if those opinions are apparently partly based on "intuition").

Don't make this personal, please, make it NPOV, make it Wikipedia.

I'd also like third opinions before continuing with this particular item of discussion. --Sugaar 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors , of all the editing you will do on this page the editing of ETA's goals will be the most important and I suggest you take serious time to fully tweak it into an agreed shape. I will do some research and come back to you. Once again I strongly suggest to keep it straight and factual as possible Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

I was unable to find suitable sources to assist here however, may I also suggest the using of the word 'Aims' rather than 'Goals' given the serious nature of the subject matter. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

Well, objectives, aims, goals... I really don't see much difference. But what I see clear is that all what I've been able to gather points in the direction of self-determination being the main goal of fight and of the peace process. In fact, while without a deal on the prisioners there's no realistic prospect of peace, it is in itself a rather secondary objective and something that sraise everybody seems to take for granted if the peace process ends well. The other objectives of the (caduc) KAS Alternatiba, as well as any claims of "socialism" that may happen now and then, are basically things they roughly (and often rethorically) agree with but not essential motivations for the fight nor anything that ETA is claiming emphatically anywhere. They are more the ideological frame that ETA and the Nationalist Left share but not objectives of the fight themselves.

I wish someone more neutral and less wikistressed than myself could make a good proposal. I personally would say:

The main objective of ETA is the consecution of the right of self-determination for the Southern Basque Country. Other important objective is the liberation (amnesty) for their imprisioned militants (that they calle "political prisioners").

Aditionally ETA shares the general socialist ideology of the Nationalist Left that was articulated in the 70s and 80s in the KAS Alternative and more recently in the Democratic Alternative proposed by the political organizations.

The KAS Alterntive points were so and so.

The Democratic Alternative states this and that.

But I want second and third opinions before daring to make reforms to the article that would surely be strongly critizised by Mountolive. I want some clear consensus or at least some neutral hand to go ahead with the actual changes. --Sugaar 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems you have made an excellent attempt, I am not expert enough to comment fairly, so I will await others imput before agreeing anything. Perhaps ETA's political wing have something to contribute here ? Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

Just a note: "ETA's political wing" is a POV term. This issue is subject to one or more current trials (case 18/98 and related) and nothing is clear, much less to the point of using such expressions. What is clear is that they have a simmilar ideology and that some people have been in both.

Besides, if you refer to the parties/coalitions, there are and have been more than one: Euskadiko Ezkerra was originally sort of the "political wing" of ETA(pm). The coalition Herri Batasuna had several parties inside, most notably historical EAE-ANV (much older than ETA) and HASI (now self-dissolved). Euskal Herritarrok was an even wider coalition and Batasuna is now a political party but with EAE still inside as a separate entity. Aditionally the same ideological fraction has used other lists, either locally or nation-wide (example: EHAK

Also from the viewpoint of the Nationalist Left, electoral politics is just a fraction of politics as such and there are many other autonomous sectorial movements and organizations that also make politics from the same ideological spectrum. --Sugaar 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit but I found that I remembered that I have a García de Cortázar book that includes the KAS Alternative in Spanish (signed by ETA (PM) and other organizations) and a manifesto from the 1st assembly (1962) that rejects Communism and Fascism. On the other hand, there were some schisms in the 1970s (ETA V, ETA berri), some of which abandoned nationalism and went Trotskyite or such.

A proposal for the goals: Could we say that ETA defsnds socialism for internal audiences but not for external ones? --Error 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes the "commies" went political (now Zutik, earlier LKI and EMK, in the future probably separated again).

I think that you are right in your statement that ETA (and part of the BNLM) keeps the "socialist" discourse for the "internal" audiences. But that's a personal opinion and I would not dare to write it in an encyclopedic article.

I'd rather say that they priorize the national issue over anything else. It would be easier if nobody would have raised the issue of (rethorical) socialism (as it's not really important) but, if Mountolive insists, we can write it somehow.

I'd make a division between goals and ideology. The first should be as it is now (more or less), as that' what ETA puts on the table in any negotiation. Then there can be a wider section on ideology - but they are not fighting for socialism, at least directly, notwithstanding that many may have such ideals and these are part of their ideological background. --Sugaar 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Give others time to contribute to this one. I will get back later today, but like the distinction between aims and ideology for a start to make things clearer Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006.

As for Error's proposal, is remarkable as a means to settle some common ground, however, is kind of vague and difficult to source. I guess by "internal" is meant their militant base (not the Basque Country) but, how can we prove this distinction? is rather impossible, I guess.

I would still go to something like

• That an independent state be created in the Basque-inhabited areas of Spain and France. ETA has usually called for this new state to be a socialist one. The latter claim is being mentioned less frequently after the fall of the Soviet bloc, yet have not disappeared.

This is nothing but restauring of the previous version but noting now that the socialist claim, while still there, has lost some emphasis. I sincerely think is a good edit (wording aside) since it does reflect the situation quite accuratelly. Mountolive 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountolive's wording is pretty agreeable for me but may I make suggestions that may improve it slightly. I think the word 'State' has two meanings, 'state' can also imply that Eta seek to be a regional county or state like in the USA. I suggest if I am correct in my understanding that Eta is seeking to establish a 'Seperate country', therefore if my understanding is correct perhaps use the word 'country' instead of 'state'. Also, while they have been less prominent about their socialist ideology this may have nothing to do with the soviet bloc, without such evidence I suggest dropping the POV reasoning linking their slight change to the soviet bloc. Mark us street Nov 25th 2006

I disagree. ETA, like all Basque nationalist organizations, claims (at least discursively) an independent state. But that's not what they put on the table when they try to reach an agreement: what they put on the table is:

1. Self determination

2. Territoriality (i.e. the issues of Navarre and Trebiño)

3. Prisioners

They do not expect to obtain independence by force of arms or negotiation, but they do expect/hope to get the right of self-determination acknowledged and that's surely a non-negotiable minimum. Independence or large autonomy, as well as economic policies or whatever, would be something to be decided by the Basque people, not ETA nor Spain.

This is quite clear to all, including Rajoy and so many others (see documentation above). I don't see why this discussion. The problem is obviously that Spain is not willing to acknowledge this right of self-determination, which is the only real exit to the problem, wether ETA exists or not. --Sugaar 20:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed the intro

It stated that ETA's goals are "socialism and independence as such". I've placed the main points of the Democratic Alternative (already 11 years old) instead with two online references.

I know this is under discussion but it was so contraditory with the "Aims" section (and reality) and it's so well documented that I couldn't do less. --Sugaar 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

International Links

I note that the international links are not sourced of referenced in any way,. Given the seriousness of this I have some concern in this regard and may I ask for references to prove the links to organisations etc Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

I agree. Nevertheless, in most cases (IRA, Bretons) there is little doubt about them. The most controversial ones have already been removed, I believe. --Sugaar 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see their links are called 'fraternal' and not 'operational', it appears the political wings are more linked than the military but there is technically a link so it should stay, you may consider including the word 'fraternal' . I don't know if there is evidence of technical co-operation between them, but some source may claim so Mark us street 24th Nov

The link is ideological (and possibly informally more structural) but there's no evidence of direct connection, even if we all realize they are in some kind of communion.

Judicially there's just no evidence. For instance, if you can read Spanish, check this article from a few days ago:

The Chief of Police experts declares that "not all is ETA".

(...)

"Are you saying that is not all KAS which had relation with ETA but an organ whose mebers are not identified?", asked [Judge] Zulueta. "Correct" replied the policeman.

(...)

"We have no certainty that there was any participation, we can't say that there was organic relation between both orgaizations", he added.

This lack of evidence on any sort of organic relation between ETA and any of the organizations accused of being part of ETA is systematic in all the 18/98 related trials. Many of these organisms are not even political or part of the BNLM in any way, as happens with the newspaper Egunkaria. --Sugaar 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Looks like we have a problem here. It's not my style to get personal -if only because it never helps- and so I have been refraining from doing that for already a few weeks now, but I just can't see any other way left anymore: the problem are Sugaar's manners and, I'm afraid, his very approach to wikipedia (or, at least, this particular article) which serves a purpose and that is, obviously, tilting the article to the ETA side. I maybe could deal with a pro-ETA/Batasuna bias in this article if it just wasn’t as blatant and as obvious as the one he is introducing by borrowing the very same words, mimicking the very same lines, quoting the very same sources and, well, even displaying the very same stubbornness and holier-than-thou delivery…too much for something which intends to be a dispassionate encyclopaedic article.

Ever since he revamped the goals section at his own risk (and put in its place a mess, by the way) since he seems to have gotten away with it so far -because we have respected the current messy edit trying to reach consensus here in the talkpage- he is now keeping pushing this article to look each time more like a Batasuna pamphlet instead of an article about ETA; I guess he does so in the hope that he can keep abusing our bona fide: while we keep posting here in the talk page quite a lot, he continues working out his own agenda in the article, which is what the situation has been like lately.

He couldn’t care less about everyone else’s positions here in the talk page: he always have a ton of copy-paste readily from Gara and/or Egunkaria to “back” his edits and pound everyone else’s posts under those large quotations from those very particular media. In the meantime, while this talk page gets longer and longer, his disputed recent edits remain in the article, unchanged (he will not allow us to change them, will you?) and now he is going for more, while he keeps feeding the talk page with lots of Gara/Egunkaria copy paste in the meantime in what seems to be a distraction manoeuvre which is getting tiresome already.

So yesterday he proceeded once again with a further major edit, this time in the very header of the article. He says "I know this is under discussion"....and he edits anyway, so the message we get is “I know is under discussion, but I couldn’t care less”.

Man: if it is under discussion, do not edit, please.

He says "it is so contradictory with the Aims section" like if this -his own- edit on the Aims section was not one of the main hot subjects of discussion and, hopefully, soon to be mended.

Unfortunately, we have already learnt -the hard way- that Sugaar's style is not to step back from his edits a single comma. Hence, as for his last edit, I have no other option than reverting to the previous version before it is too late to do so and he has already entrenched in his edit from where to keep pushing more, as he has been doing lately. Otherwise we will get more of the same: endless discussion here in the talk page about Sugaar’s edits and an article increasingly biased anyway just the way Sugaar wants it to be.

Actually, further than reverting his latest unconfronted edit, and in order to break through the present unsustainable situation, I am going to post back later today my own edit of Nov. 13th which just was a response to Sugaar's edits in October. He automatically reverted my edit back to his and we have been stalled here for weeks ever since, with Sugaar not conceding anything to anyone, bouncing back at whatever was said with a few paragraphs of Gara copy paste.

It's been for weeks that his edits are in the main article despite being really contested, it is high time to change the tone of the discussion and so I’m hoping he shouldn't have a problem with giving a chance to my own edit, so that we can discuss it here, something for which I asked back in the day and was not possible because he immediately axed the very possibility by reverting.

I will edit as per Jmable comments somewhere above, in other words, section by section, so that we can try to focus in.

Now, besides Jmabel and Error, there is another user, Mark us street, so I am hoping that between you three guys assess step by step the whole thing and decide whether to keep my edit as it is, introduce amendments to it or go back to Sugaar's, with or without amendments. Since Sugaar is obviously partial for his edit as I am for my own, it must be others who discuss it.

The situation is not getting any better due to this user's increasingly self-righteous behaviour (no surprise, by the way, that he’s been already blocked from editing somewhere else). If he acts with no consideration to the other editors’ work and against the discussion of a quite heated talk page, then I guess he is forcing the whole thing to be arbitrated, mediated or whatever the procedure for that is called. I’m not familiar with this process (luckily for me, before this user started editing here, I had only met the bright side of wikipedia, where everyone is reasonable and discussion fruitful). Thus, I will appreciate you would advise me if some of you guys knows how to start this mediation process, if the case is, of course, that Sugaar keeps the same approach.

Whatever we decide to do, we should do it soon, because the situation is lingering for several weeks now, the article is messier now and it promises to get worse unless there’s some action from people other than myself or Sugaar. Thanks.

Mountolive 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Sugaar, this post is about you, but not addressed to you, so please do not post here your comments. If you want to review this post, something which I guess you should, please open a new post right below this one, but please don’t post here: it is intended for all the other users. Thank you.

Look: I have edited and explained why: the introduction (as it was and as you reverted) is clearly biased and POV. I am sourcing ETA's Democratic Alternative (wherever I could find it online). You have no sources.

It's been discussed in length and it's clear that stating that ETA's goals are the constitution of an independent socislist state are at least very confusing/misleading and at worst plainly false.

I cannot accept that the introduction of the article states such falsehoods, I am restoring my version. I welcome anyone else editing it in good faith to make it more clear or improve the style but I can't accept that falsehoods are stated as truths, much less in the introductory paragraph. --Sugaar 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask that, if the introdution needs any editing (what is possible as some of its contents are redundant with the small section "Aims"), that it is made by someone neutral, not Mountolive and that false claims are not sustained there.

If minority opinions barely supported by a few isolate low level documentation have to be included at all, they should not be in the introductory paragraph but in the section on Aims or Ideology. --Sugaar 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ETA's aims are under heavy discussion. Once again we will have to "swallow" Sugaar's edit on this despite being discussed, we do so for the sake of discussion and manners which he won't observe. I won't revert back again as we are focusing right now on other minor stuff. But this edit is absolutely contested by me. I won't enter with the reasoning now so that we don't open a new talk before we finish with the other, but I will edit with a new version soon. Maybe we can find something worth for everyone. Mountolive 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's more than sufficient evidence to support the fact that ETA declares that its aims are the Democratic Alternative. I am sure that you can't be blind to that fact.

Bring some evidence forward or concede the point. This is tiresome. --Sugaar 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tactics edit

As per my post above, I have edited the Tactics section, these are the reasons

The recent targets/tactics distinction is adding much redundancy, compromising easy reading and enlarging an article which was already too long before this distinction appeared some weeks ago. As a result of all that, this part looked messy and obviuosly redundant. I have tried to merge both in a satisfactory way, in order to eliminate redundancies, reduce the article’s length and make it more reading-friendly and/or clear. Some users –including myself- noted the overall redundancy and requested changes. In the absence of action from anyone else, I have finally decided to edit myself. I believe it looks much clearer now. I'm hoping you agree.

Other than the merging itself, I am listing hereunder the most noticeable changes:

• I have erased the recent distinction between Eta (m) and Eta (Pm) because it was confusing as to whether these still exist as separate or what's the current situation. I do agree that this should be discussed, but in some other part of the article and in a clearer fashion.
• Deleted “unionist” for the same reasons as to “anti repressive”: this is a parlance exclusively used by ETA and the MLNV; tellingly, the editor who put it here, finds it a suitable and usual word, even though it is not used at all out of the aforementioned circles (besides, the term is not even original but a direct copy from the Ulster scenario).
• Deleted the rocket launchers part because, to my knowledge, this has been used only a handful of times (to little success, as mentioned there) and, since in order to reduce length, I thought it is not relevant. If someone is going to make a case or feel offended for this one deletion, feel free to go ahead restoring it. Since Sugaar thinks this is important, I have left it in place.
• Deleted “communications” because this does not seem a proper tactic in itself: the group, like any other, needs to make public statements: that is understood and taken for granted; it does not deserve additional comment and should leave room for more proper info.

As per my comments in the above post, please editors (other than Sugaar, whose position is known) review this version and decide whether it is improving the previous or not. Please Sugaar do not revert until the relative decissions have been taken by people other than you and I.

Mountolive 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Since this is part of a larger edit, some redundances are shown with other parts of the article: I brought excerpts from other sections to this one, where they look more relevant. If this version gets consensus, we will amend the redundances by erasing these lines in the other sections.

In this case I think you have made a reasonable edit. Congrats! --Sugaar 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to you! unlike in the past (when your edits are really predictable) this time you have really puzzled me, for what you now think is a reasonable edit was reverted by you two weeks ago...I guess you just automatically reverted without even bothering to look at the reasons of my edit ¿?

Anyway, I'm glad that you agree, but I'm hoping the rest of editors do as well. I will then continue with the rest of my edit of nov. 13th to see if consensus can be reached. Mountolive 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do that 2 weeks ago: you did a much more savage unilateral edit.

And I don't agree with all you did. But I'm not going to fight each cm. It's tiresome.

For example:

1. I think that ETA(pm) and ETA(m) differences and coincidences should be treated in the article and that they are relevant to tactics: traditionally ETA(m) restricted itself to "military objectives", while ETA(pm) acted more widely, also the transfer of hardliner members of ETA(pm) into ETA(m) after the disolution/division of the former is generally percieved as very influential in the twist of re-unified ETA (ETA(m)+hardliner polimilis) into attacking political targets in the 90s.

2. I think that simply deleting "unionist" and "anti-represive" doesn't help to clarity. What we need is to find better adjectives that sound less POV while explaining things clearly to non-Basque readers.

3. Communications is clearly a tactic: it is non-military but it is still a tactic: remember Bietan jarrai (politics+war). It should be mentioned somewhere anyhow and the tactics section seems appropiate.

So saying that your edits were reasonable, doesn't mean that I fully agree with them, just that they have some consistency and are not blatant POV-pushing as you did in the past. --Sugaar 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that we do not need better adjectives. We need less adjectives and more nouns, so that this article stays more aseptic and less POV (your favourite subject)Mountolive 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So instead of "unionist armed groups" would it be better "paramilitary groups organized by the Spanish secret services"???

You may have a point but simply deleting the adjectives is no solution. And anyhow for mere gramatical need we need to use adjectives now and then.

You have not replied to my other criticisms. --Sugaar 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)