Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc

I have been compelled to correct a couple of non-verifiable statements in the previous version (there is no proof that Government forces routinely assasinate and deport terrorists, as the last version seemed to imply) I have also included links to several related sites (all previous links looked at things from the vasque separatist point of view, Batasuna's 10%): - Amnesty International (should be a good source to find who is violating what)

Effectively. Go to AI-UK [1] (as you may know in ordr to keep neutrality the allegations are investigated by AI groups in other nations, AI-UK takes care of Spanish issues) and make a search with the terms "Spain torture". I got 1229 results.

Anyhow, I can tell you that here (in the Basque Country) everybody knows that's a fact. --Sugaar 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

- Gesto por la paz (vasque organization working towards peace)

I haven't searched Gesto but I think that they are honest enough to denounce violence by both sides. That's why they were sidelined in the last years and replaced by more one-sided groups like Basta Ya. --Sugaar 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

- an article I found that covered government implication in GAL (i don't know wether source is very reliable or not).

As happens with torture it's a fact that everybody knows. The judicial investigation never name PM Felipe González as the top boss of the gang but the press, even Spanish press, assumed that the X placed instead was he. Many other high level politicians of the PSOE (Vera, Barrionuevo, etc.) and police commanders operating in the Basque Country were sentenced in the GAL proccess. It was something that "everybody knew" but in this case there is a judicial process and firm sentences. --Sugaar 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to see where have you taken out the information of the government repression, the references. Specially that piece of information about the tortures made by the Guardia Civil. I see it too doubtful as to appear there. You almost assume that that facts are true without verify them. --80.201.57.137 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it mildly amusing that this page is available in Catalan and Spanish, but not Basque.

---

Someone removed the text about ETA having been sponsored by yadda yadda, with note "not true at all"; I restored it as part of my edit conflict resolution. Does anyone have evidence one way or another? I'd say it's relevant to the article, if true. If false or unproven, but alleged, that's relevant too. Tualha 22:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Anonymous comments 23:55, Mar 12, 2004

nice fucking bias.

nice little insert about the bombing in march 2004 , 'worst bombing sincs blah blah blah'

course you mention Franco like he was a fucking jelly roll vendor

nevermind he killed and oppressed so many, that hundreds of thousands fled to other countries. that he was responsible in part for guernica. you know that banenr that was covered over at the UN when powell was telling us about the vials of poison powder that saddam had.

Gilipolleces

Have you ever been to Spain? I was living in Barcelona with my Spanish wife when the bomb went off on Avinguda Diagonal near Penalbres. No one was killed, but it was quite a serious explosion-- these are not children with firecrackers. ETA killed plenty when it bombed the Corte Inglés shopping center in BCN a few years before. We had friends who lost loved ones in that bombing. Those who survived suffered through a horribly harrowing experience.

No one is so foolish as to think that Franco was a good thing. None of my friends in Spain ever said that. But none of my Spanish friends has ever said that ETA was right, either. My Spanish friends have said that they are violent, selfish, misguided, and uninformed. I have heard this from Catalans, Madrileños, and Vascos. These same people lost family under Franco-- my wife's grandfather died in jail. Why should living Spaniards pay for the mistakes of their dead dictator?

I was amused, but not surprised, to see that you post anonymously.

Timothy Chen Allen 19:40, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Well I've never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music... MicahMN | Talk 03:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bietan jarrai

What does Bietan jarrai allude actually? I don't understand it. -- Error 01:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's in the article now. -- Error 22:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

May be you are correct, Error, but I have always understood that "bietan jarrai" made reference to the two fronts in which they intend to go on fighting, militar and political. And for the meaning of the simbol of ETA, my interpretation is that they intend to oppose two simbols, the axe (simbol of the "guardia civil) representing the straight force and the snake which is te way of operating of ETA. Supporting this interpretation you should consider that the simbol of GAL (Terrorist organised and supported by the spanish government) is the axe cutting the head of the snake. It is the first time for me I read other interpretation to their slogan and simbol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.94.1.122 (talk • contribs) 10 Oct 2005.

From memory, I did not add the explanation. I just made a note to myself when I re-read my question.

About the symbol, it resembles a caduceus. The axe is a Basque axe, such as used by Basque lumberjacks and sportsmen, different from the fasces one. I don't remember the axe in the GAL symbol.

--Error 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The axe means "strengh", and the serpent "guile". Both presented as "positive" values to be used by ETA. The ETA axe is totally unrelated with the "Guardia Civil" fasces.

The GAL logo depicted an axe cutting the serpent´s head.

The "Guardia Civil" logo is a spear crossed with a fasces (a bundle of rods tied together around an axe). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.254.81.164 (talk • contribs) 16 Nov 2005.

Likiniano

Fromn a comment in the article:

Likinianok egindako irudi hau sugea=politika eta aizkora=borroka irudikatzen dute.

"In this image by Felix Likiniano the snake represents politics and the axe, fight." Could somebody confirm that it was Likiniano's work and this meaning? --Error 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All I've found is that claim in the Basque Wikipedia article on him and in the Spanish Wikipedia article on ETA. I've also created the article on Likiniano in English Wikipedia and included that as "claim". --Sugaar 12:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

There is some redundancy between history and the attack section. -- Error 01:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Taxes

What do "taxes" mean in "ETA finances its operations through kidnapping, extortion, robbery, arms traffic and 'taxes'"? Kent Wang 19:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LOL -SV(talk)

The "revolutionary tax" (impuesto revolucionario) is a means of extortion of businessmen and artists. If they don't pay, they can be the next target. Sabbut 15:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is that about arms traffic? As far as I know, when ETA engages in weapons trade is a s a buyer, not as a seller. Can you point an example of ETA getting money for weapons? --Error 02:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parliament

In Spain, all Members of Parliament not belonging to Batasuna or any of the independentist political parties are required to carry a permanent escort lest they should be attacked by ETA. This also extends to all Basque city councilors of non Basque Nationalist parties and several of the Basque Nationalist officials.

Izquierda Unida, as far as I know, don't have escort and they are not independentist.

Are required by whom? This description, I think, applies to the PP and, to a lesser extent, to the PSOE. Maybe we should research the details of who requires whom to carry an escort and who does it voluntarily. — Miguel 02:16, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

I understand it as "if they want to keep alive". They are threatened, either personally or as a group. Juan María Atutxa, the former PNV Basque minister of Internal Affairs, had to have escorts (at least for a period). I suppose that they could refuse escort. -- Error 02:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that ETA has in later years resorted to targets of opportunity, you may be right that "politicians are required to have escort if they want to stay alive", but that would be a rather strong statement to make in the article. Even to say "politicians are advised to have escort" would have implications that might not be accurate. I think what is needed is a more thorough exploration of the security situation for politicians and theire reaction to the threat. A single sentence lends itself to misunderstandings, particularly if an impersonal passive voice is used. — Miguel 05:02, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

The current version "During many years, Spanish politicians not related to Basque nationalism felt obliged to carry an escort with them to avoid ETA attacks." leaves out people like Juan Maria Atutxa or Balza.--Error 23:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I did my best to re-work that sentence. Change it if you find a better version, Error. Cvalda 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

ETA#Other ETA-related events and ETA#History should be merged. And those "hundreds of people" meetings should be removed unless they are milestones somehow. -- Error 22:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm just here to provide some copy editing and some minor POV resolutions. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think it's important to have a good-looking article on an important organization. Let me know if I've screwed anything up, I don't want to cause any trouble. -- Eudyptes 17:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was thinking that it might be good to divide the article into some more sections. I was thinking about "Founding" and "Early years" perhaps together in one section or separately in two. Eudyptes 17:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing

There is nothing about the division in ETA (m) and ETA (pm), or the assemblies. Nor on the truces and talks with Spanish governments. Nor the Burgos trial. -- Error�

I'm in the process of translating and merging a lot of material from Spanish. ETA (m) and ETA (pm) are now discussed, as is the Burgos trial. Oddly, the Spanish-language article, like the English, seems to ignore how bloody the late 1970s were: I believe that period was actually the height of ETA violence — or, if you prefer, ETA (m) violence — but the article says nothing. Does someone have some sources on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Got the truces, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

mobilario urbano

Question: the Spanish language article said that the "Comandos Y" burned "autobuses y mobilario urbano". I do not properly understand the latter phrase. If someone can translate, please add it back in, for now I'm just saying "buses". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

They also burnt ATMs. Mobiliario urbano means street lamps, benches, garbage containers,... Street furniture. -- Error 01:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

makes sense, no analoguous English-language word, but will edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

more in the translation process

In the discussion of the 1995 Democratic Alternative, after saying that the Spanish government rejected this peace offer, the Spanish-language article goes on "e intento silenciar su difusión y procesó a la mesa nacional de HB por aprovechar los espacios gratuitos de publicidad electoral para difundir la propuesta de paz, añadiendo a su anuncio algunas imágenes extraídas del video de ETA." Roughly translated "and intended to silence its diffusion into the court of public opinion [literally 'the national table'] by HB [for HB] to take advantage of the free [in the sense of 'free of cost'] spaces of electoral publicity to promulgate the peace proposal, adding to their annoucement some images taken from the ETA video." I just don't find this particular detail very useful or interesting. There is a lot that could be said about the '95 events surrounding the Democratic Alternative, and it probably deserves an article of its own, but I see no reason to single out this particular detail. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:09, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Mesa Nacional was the ruling committee at HB. Its members were jailed and later declared not-guilty (I think) for broadcasting this video in the costless propaganda airtime granted by public TVs. It should go at least in the HB article. -- Error 02:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably so. Do you want to take a shot at this, wherever you think it belongs? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Foreign contacts

Besides the IRA contacts, which are certainly well-documented and common knowledge, the Spanish-language article claims ETA to have had contact with FARC and to have received training in Libya, Lebanon, and Nicaragua. I am unaware of evidence for this, and have left it out, pending citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, our article says, "Because of its allegiance to Marxist ideas, ETA has in the past been sponsored by communist regimes such as Cuba, as well as by Libya and Lebanon." I would really like to see documentation for this. I'm not saying that it's false, I'm just saying that it's the sort of thing that merits citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

That section is quite absurd. I see no reason to call the Lebanese government "communist", now or before. It's a poor amalgame of the worst Spanish propaganda. There's no evidence that I know of that ETA was sponsored by this or that. Even the alleged contacts with Sandinistas and FARC (more likely) are basically unproved. I'm editing (deleting most). --Sugaar 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added info about Cuba and Colombia. It seems that there is not hard evidence, but I have left it with qualifiers so that future editors don't think that the issue has been forgotten.

Foreign relations of Libya states that Libya trained ETA. I have left a citationneeded.

About Lebanon, I guess that it was actually PLO camps in Lebanon. In Spanish Jews#Spain and Israel, I wrote:

The UCD governments were divided. They did not want to risk the Arab friendship (Canarian independentism could find support among them) and subjected the establishment to the beginning of a durable solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The discovery of ETA members receiving training in camps of Palestinian militias diminished the sympathy of the Spanish government towards their cause. After years of negotiations, the PSOE government of Felipe González established relations with Israel in 1986, denying links between relations and the admission of Spain into the European Economic Community. ::I got this from a TVE feature by Agustín Remesal on the general modern history of Jews and Spain. A proper reference would be good.

--Error 01:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

confusing phrase(s)

Thanks to those who've fixed my typos (and corrected my Euskadi).

Euskadi is the country. Euskara is the language. -- Error 02:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which shows how badly mine needs correction. I'm very off my turf here, linguistically, though not geographically, I can pretty well read every language in the region except the one that is arguably most relevant. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the edit, no doubt mainly a correction, that left a passage saying, "...and integrated into the political party Euskadiko Ezkerra ("Left of the Basque Country"), which years later split and fused with the Partido Socialista de Euskadi (PSE), the Basque affiliate of the national PSOE) and Eusko Alkartasuna." Would it be correct to say, "...and integrated into the political party Euskadiko Ezkerra ("Left of the Basque Country"), which years later split, part fusing with the Partido Socialista de Euskadi (PSE), the Basque affiliate of the national PSOE) and part becoming Eusko Alkartasuna"? or is it "...part fusing with Eusko Alkartasuna"? Or what? I can't tell from the wording here, nor from the article Eusko Alkartasuna. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

EE split into Euskadiko Ezkerra, Euskal Ezkerra (EuE, "Basque Left"), and some disappointed independents like Juan Mari Bandrés. Then EE merged into PSE-EE and EuE entered the already existing EA. For some years, Basque politics were very variegated, comparing with bipartisan Spanish politics. -- Error 02:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, rewritten accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Open issues Oct 23, 2004

I think we've done a lot of good work on this recently. Thanks especially to Error, who is guiding me through a lot of thickets.

I wanted to point out the few concrete issues mentioned above that have not been addressed:

• Anonymous comment "Izquierda Unida, as far as I know, don't have escort and they are not independentist" has not been confirmed or refuted. Well, I suppose the last clause is a given, but the part about them not having an escort has not been confirmed or refuted. If it is true, the article doesn't reflect this. Citation would be good.
• The "Mesa Nacional" information needs to go in somewhere.
• The issues I raised above under "Foreign Contacts" need addressing. Right now, the article is making uncited assertions in a presumably controversial area.

Also, let me add one:

• This article is getting a bit long. I think we mention plenty of attacks, in context, in the main text of the article. Would anyone object to putting the partial list of attacks in an article of its own, linked from this, and probably fleshed out to be comprehensive? Or do people think it would be too one-sided to end up with an article listing ETA armed actions without context in that same article? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Paramilitary, terrorists, illegal armed group

You say poTAYto, I say poTAHto...

I say "paramilitary", Error says "illegal armed group" (which I have no problem with) someone else says "terrorists", which is a loaded word I think should be used only with an attribution of who calls them "terrorist". Not that I disagreee, but it's still a POV word.

I'm perfectly happy to drop "paramilitary" in favor of "illegal armed group", but now we are left with a red link. Error, do you think it would be misleading to link to "paramilitary" ([[paramilitary|illegal armed group]])? Or is there somewhere we can link it? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I realize now that also Cosa Nostra is an illegal armed group. See Paramilitary#Revolutionary_and_guerilla_paramilitary_groups. illegal armed group? To me a guerrilla is a countryside thing, but that doesn't seem the English sense. --Error 02:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And by the standard definition of terrorist group (those that want to achieve their goal through terror), they are one too. Just that their aims are not political but merely economic. --Sugaar 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use the word "terrorist" to refer to ETA. The support they have in the Basque Country is minimal these days. It could well be that they are the only people who do not call themselves "terrorists". Wikipedia is not going to be less "neutral" by using the word "terrorist" when referring to ETA. -- Somebody from Spain.

The ETA is a terrorist group by definition of the word terrorist. They use coersion and violence for political goals. What does "loaded word" mean? --NoPetrol 02:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We already say that the EU and the US consider them terrorists. That should be enough. See Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development), Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist and Power word#War on Terror --Error 03:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are terrorists. Or else every terrorist group is a illegal armed group. Amagad.

Baloogan 20:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a matter of loaded words. The term terrorist has a despective meaning and such respectable media as the BBC don't use it at all. I know it's commonplace in Spanish and other media but we should try to be NPOV. --Sugaar 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, God, who cares? The facts speak for themselves. Also, for what it's worth, legally in Spain ETA members are usually charged with pertenencia a banda armada (belonging to an armed gang) o asociación de malhechores (association of wrongdoers). Their political supporters are the ones usually charged with apología del terrorismo (apology for terrorism). Then there is the Ley antiterrorista that is usually applied immediately after suspected etarras are arrested. I am not sure what the official name of the law is, though. — Miguel 05:03, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

-The definition of terrorism is : "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." This is exactly what ETA is doing so therefore they should be called terrorist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnalle (talk • contribs) 5 Oct 2005.

-The point is that, from some POVs, that definition of "terrorism" also perfectly matches the Spanish government actions in Euskadi... So please, try to adhere to the NPOV policy and also to the recomendation to avoid the word Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.

"One Mans Terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Terrorist is simply a word used by governments to villianize it's enemies. Of course violence against an evil government would be "illegal". So that people who fought against Great Britain in America would be terrorists too. Terrorist isn't a good word to use for anything.There is nothing you can accuse terrorists of that governments don't do themselves. -69.123.9.255 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

restored information

I just restored a very large portion of the article, that was anonymously deleted without explanation or discussion. Least appropriate was the removal of citations. (This was separate from the factoring-out of the List of ETA attacks, which was fine.)

If you feel there is information in the article that does not belong here, please come discuss that on the talk page. Please do not just hack information out of the article without even a comment on your reasons, especially anonymously. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The proper thing to do when removing a substantial amount of text from the article ---- even a single sentence, sometimes --- is to copy it to the talk page along with an explanation for the removal. — Miguel 04:56, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Euskobarómetro

Since people keep removing the Euskobarómetro material, I have now moved it to a separate article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Left Basque Nationalism

Over the last few days, "Left Basque Nationalism" was watered down to "Basque nationalist left politics", then to "Basque nationalisms, often with a left-wing political stance". Also, "Spanish: izquierda nacionalista vasca, Basque: Ezker abertzale, often seen in the mixed-language izquierda abertzale" was completely dropped. I think this is quite wrong. This is basically a proper noun, referring to the politics of certain specific groups. Unless I am extremely mistaken -- I am from the U.S., but I follow Spanish politics reasonably closely -- merely being a Basque nationalist on the political left is a different thing than suscribing to the rather specific political platform of Ezker abertzale.

Rather than my restoring this material myself, can someone from the Basque region (or at least nearby) please weigh in on this? Or does someone have some solid references on this (it's all uncited in the Spanish-language Wikipedia and I don't read Basque). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Aye. Ezker Abertzale and Izquierda Abertzale are being used as if they were proper nouns to mean (Herri) Batasuna people instead of the whole of the Basque Nationalist Left, much as Partido Socialista is often used to mean just the PSOE instead of any other socialist party in Spain. Herri Batasuna succeeded, to some extent, in appropiating this name, like they've almost appropiated the term abertzale, as I tried to explain in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abertzale .--Erri4a 23:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can find many examples of this usage of Izquierda Abertzale. And Ezker Abertzalea was the name of the HB groups in Spanish Congress and regional parliaments until circa 2000.--Erri4a 23:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The corresponding article in en.wikipedia is Basque National Liberation Movement. It's the same thing. The name "the Nationalist Left" (Ezker Abertzalea) is used now more frequently but the classical (self-given) name used to be "Basque National Liberation Movement" (Euskal Herri Askapenerako Mugimendua, often rendered by the Spanish acronym MLNV). --Sugaar 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

illegal

"Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or ETA, is the name of an illegal and armed Basque group that seeks " -- illegal how/ according to whom / the group itself is illegal? Is it an "illegal group"? What makes them an "illegal group"? Pedant 15:48, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

• Don't know if this is what you are getting at, but I do think "paramilitary" is better. It is an entirely neutral term that both sides would more or less accept. It's also consistent with coverage of IRA and FARC, which feels right to me. The article then goes on to make clear the mainstream view of ETA as a terrorist organisation as indeed it should. --Cjnm 16:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• As you can see above, I also favored "paramilitary", but people kept editing it to "terrorist" which is utterly POV. I was hoping that Error's alternative "illegal armed group" might be an acceptable compromise. They are certainly armed. They are, indeed, banned in both countries in which they have significant operations (Spain and France). I would love to see "paramilitary" restored, but I was not willing to fight an edit war over it. My main concern is that the narrative voice of the article not call them "terrorist": I believe that term is loaded enough that it should never be used without an indication of who says so. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

--Error 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, ETA (m) stands for "ETA military" and ETA (pm) stood for "ETA (political-military)". They consider themselves gudari, "soldiers", like the Eusko Gudarostea of yore. So I guess they don't describe themselves as "paramilitary". But I guess that they acknowledge that they are illegal under Spanish, French, American and European jurisdictions, and they describe themselves as "the armed organization". So "illegal armed group" is both acceptable by ETA supporters and makes no doubt that they are reviled by the governments. -- Error 02:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. Not worth arguing about too much - "Illegal armed group" is OK and certainly more neutral than "terrorist" - but why not say paramilitary which is a more encyclopedic term (which is why it has its own page) and slightly less awkward. And actually I'm not you're right that supporters of ETA would find "illegal armed group" a more acceptable definition than "paramilitary".--Cjnm 11:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paramilitary often has its own meaning of obscurely linked to the army and politically akin to the state. So dissident groups can only arguably be considered that. At least in Spanish, when one talks of paramilitary groups, it means groups that side with the state and are often connected to the army or police of that state. For instance, in Colombia, the Autodefensas Unidas would be paramilitaries (because they are linked to the army and police) but the FARC would be a guerrilla (because they are not). So paramilitary can be POV too, or at least confusing. --Sugaar 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Euzkadi ta Azkatasuna [zic!] is a Basque revolutionary movement of national liberation, created in the patriotical resistance, and independent of any other party, organization or organism.[...]" (1st assembly of ETA, May 1962, my translation)

"ETA, Socialist, revolutionary, Basque organization of national liberation, assumes the responsibility for the execution of María Dolores González Cataráin, Yoyes, [...]", (El País, 12 September 1986, my translation)

--Error 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Error, if that was germane, the relevance escapes me. & BTW, "...patriotic resistance..." -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not really, I checked what I have and dumped what I found. --Error 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ETA never carried out a guerrilla war against Spanish forces

I think that some people here just deserve having ETA in their country for a while. Then they would not be so ambiguous while talking about this terrorist bunch

Look in a History book and you will find "oh surprise" that ETA NEVER carried out a guerrilla war against Spanish forces, since ETA had never power enough to attempt a guerrilla war. Since they started they armed actions they used pure terrorist tactics.

And my statements are not based in national pride and my deep hate and depiction towards ETA and all the people who talks ambiguously about ETA or so, but in pure and simple semantic.

I would agree that their tactics have not been those of guerrillas. I'd favor "paramilitary".

While I personally consider ETA's tactics terrorist, I think it is a good general principle not to use the term "terrorist" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia articles: it is always a controversial term, hence sits poorly with NPOV. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid.

On the other hand this, like other articles on similar groups, certainly should indicate that governments and NGOs have condemned ETA as terrorists.

Currently the article uses the word "terror" or "terrorism" about a dozen times, which is probably about right in proportion to its length. However, I would like to see more specificity as to exactly who has callled ETA terrorist; at the moment the article is a bit vague on that, and is actually more specific with reference to who has called Batasuna terrorist. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that the term terrorism has been gradually imposed by Spanish lobbies and government (along with parallel international developements). 30 years ago the term terrorism meant almost exclussively state terrorism.

The means of ETA are those so called "urban guerrilla", which unlike classical guerrillas don't try to capture territory, even temporarily, but use the city as their "jungle" to make hit-and-run attacks on their pre-determined targets in the hope of creating a heavy cost to the enemy moral and economy. It was a common term in the 70s and 80s, specially in Europe (that was full of such groups: ETA, IRA, RAF, Brigate Rosse, GRAPO, and a long etc.) --Sugaar 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct term to use is terrorist. Only ETA it self and their suporter don't consider them selves as terrorist. If you intentionally target civilians for kindnaping and assesination you are a terrorism. When should the term terrorist be used if it can be used for terrorists? should we make it dissapear? another victim of a minimalistic interpretation of languge? --Kraft

I have no idea what the question "When should the term terrorist be used if it can be used for terrorists?" can possibly mean. With reference to your other question, no, we should not make the term disappear. We should, as I said above, use it with clear citation as to who calls them this. The word has nothing like a fixed, objective meaning, so we should be wary of using in Wikipedia's own narrative voice. And, as I said, I feel the word is applicable to ETA, but that's neither here nor there. My opinions on this matter are not encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

My bad, it’s: When the term terrorist should be used, if it can't be used to describe terrorists?

Maybe you may think that terrorist is not suited, but "illegal" is the just the same with out saying who consider them illegal. Worse, it makes it sound as they if they were not illegal what they do were right. As for “armed Basque separatist organization” is absolutely and intentionally misleading.

You are threading very fine here and clearly favoring those who support ETA, that are the ONLY ones who think they are not terrorists. If we follow your logic wouldn’t it be more descriptive to say that with the exception of themselves and their core followers everyone considers ETA a terrorist group? ETA matches 100% with all the definitions of terrorism offered in the wikipedia page for the word. I guess that even in a fuzzy definition, if it matches all possible options is acceptable to use the word. If not delete the entries for terrorist and terrorism.--Kraft

I just changed it to is an armed Basque separatist criminal organization from is an armed Basque separatist organization. That seems to me much neutral although lengthy. They objectively commit crimes under local, national and international laws and organized crime is a good simile to terrorism if terrorism is too controversial. --Kraft

No. Statements like this simply do not belong in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. That's all there is to it, and it's certainly not a matter of giving aid and comfort to terrorists: anyone who can read through this article and can't tell that ETA are thugs simply cannot read. - Jmabel | Talk 04:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sir. I wasn't arguing, sir."Illegal" is the right word to define someone who steals a bike, or sells fake DVDs and also ETA. Very clear, sir. Is much better than "criminal" such an argumentative word, sir. You are not protecting ETA by using their terminology, sir. "Terrorism" is subjective but "illegal" is not, sir. I understand now, sir. Also "armed Basque separatist organization" is a very good description,sir. Bombs under the car of a journalist is a great description of "armed", sir. Is not misleading at all. "Paramilitary" or "criminal organization" are clearly worse than the campy "armed Basque separatist organization", sir.--Kraft

• Kraft, do note a POV on this issue?

• Unless someone wishes to mediate, I am not responding further to this person with his or her condescending and sarcastic tone. Just in case my position is unclear: I have no problem with "ETA is considered by Spain, France, the European Union and the United States to be a terrorist organization." But to call them "criminal" or "terrorist" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia is another matter. Unless there is some sign of a consensus that those words belong there, I will continue to revert the use of "criminal" and "terrorist" in the narrative voice of the article (especially in the lead paragraph). (Similarly in the disambiguation page Eta.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, your tone wasn't better than mine. I understand you may have had this argument before, by I still find very misleading to say in the disambiguation page that ETA is an "Illegal" organization.

I understand perfectly why "terrorist" may be a contentious term, although the subject matches all the possible uses and descriptions of the word. I then proposed "criminal" but that is also not acceptable, even though ETA matches the wikipedia description for crime/criminal. So, even though they are actual criminals under local, regional, national and international laws that word is to controversial to be used – there is a whole blacklist of words. Well, all I say now is that there must be a better word for it than “illegal”. Illegal is very misleading, and as subjective as “terrorist” or “criminal” for the same reasons you seem to favor. Who makes whom illegal? Without falling in the easy traps of pure sophism I'll even say that I rather see "paramilitary" than "illegal". Skaters skating in a public street are an illegal group in most towns.-- Kraft

I just changed it to "is an armed Basque separatist organisation that seeks, through terrorism," I choosed to maintain the armed Basque separitist organisation but changed violence to terrorism. This can not be considered misleading or subjective. There is a very clear definition of terrorism in the english language, and no ETA follower can argue with that. mnalle (5 Oct 2005)

Merriam Webster Online dictionary, defines terrorism as:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion [2]

It's arguable if ETA uses terror. Most of its targets are "military" (what they consider the enemy: members of the Spanish state institutions, specially army, police, judges, politicians) or its economic infrastructure. In general ETA does not target civilians indiscriminately.

Whatever the case, it's a POV statement. There's two policies in Wikipedia manual of style (Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)) that clearly recomend not to fall in such POV (one-sided) descriptions.

A very different thing would be to state that the Spanish government (or the UN, or the USA) considers ETA a "terrorist organization". In this case you would not be making Wikipedia to side in favor of one or another POV but just stating those institutional POVs.

This avoidance of the term "terrorist", is not only done by Wikipedia but also by other very respected media like the BBC. Avoiding ideologically charged words also helps to prevent that an informative material like this article intends to be could fall in the despicable cathegory of blunt one-sided propaganda that helps little to the Wiki-user seeking for balanced information. --Sugaar 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyking's edit at my request

"Everyking (rv to last version by Pearle. Intervening anon edit included significant unexplained deletions. There may also have been addition of good material: someone expert should look.)" This edit by Everyking is at my request, and the comment is mine. My browser is having problems handling this page. Please, address me, not Everyking, on any issues about this edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Latin America

A mention of ETA aid to the FMLN was recently and anonymously changed to say that they have aided FARC. No citation was given, either for the previous claim or for this one. Wouldn't surprise me if both are true, so I'm not reverting, but these claims of ETA involvement in Latin American revolutionary movements could use good citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

These matters have never been fully clear. Most of such claims appeared in Spanish press, which has a biased attitude in the conflict. Anyhow it is very likely that ideologically akin groups have cooperated (training, arms sourcing, info-sharing) at some levels at different times. It is in fact likely (but not proven) that ideologically simmilar armed groups of Europe and Latin America have been solidarious among them at least occasionaly. --Sugaar 12:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So....

Why hasn't anyone ever addressed the obvious question: why doesn't Spain just let the Basque have their own country? I'm certainly not an expert in Basque relations, but it seems like this avenue has never even begun to be explored.

For the same reason that the Basques want it in the first place-nationalist sentiment, SqueakBox 00:14, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The reason the question has not been addressed is because it makes as much sense as asking why the US does not let the Texan people to have their own country. It is a mistake to assume that the majority of the people living in the basque country want their own nation. That is not the case. If it were, then the party winning the elections would be the one backing ETA, and there would be no voters of either the popular, socialist or moderate national parties, which do represent the larger majority. Most of the Basque Spaniards living in that region are happy to be where they are and who they are. There is a basque parlament, a basque constitution, basque police, basque schools, TV and radio stations and all sorts of basque-minded institutions. ETA is a minuscule group that much like the dictator they professed to fight wants to impose their view of the state with bullets, bombs, kidnappings, and extortion as their main argument. Spain is a democratic country with multiple states ("autonomias") and mechanisms in place to change everything from municipal laws to the Constitution. Abortion, Divorce, Universal Health Care, Immigration Laws, and the legalization of the comunist party come to mind as political achievements from any number of different groups. If there was a legitimate sentiment and desire for one state to break away from the rest of the nation it could be addressed via the parlamentary process. How can political dissent result in the assasination of men, women, and children?

• I basically agree with the above, although the Texas analogy is a bit of an overstatement: ETA's Basque independentist views certainly have double-digit support in the region (although the majority of Basque independentists oppose ETA's tactics). I don't think a comparable number of Texans would want independence at this time (the late 19th century is another matter...) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's more Canada-Quebec, UK-Ulster, France-Corsica.

I'd say that there is double-digit support in the US to independize fron the Texan president. :) --Error 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean 10% of Texans would support independence? If you count PNV it is a lot more than 10% who would like Basque independence, and arguably the 10% do support the armed struggle for independence, SqueakBox 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• No, I mean that nowhere near 10% of Texans would support Texas independence, and comfortably over 10% or residents of the Basque Country would support Basque independence. Separate question (and not entirely relevant to the article, although none of the foregoing really is, either): do you think all PNV voters would actually vote pro-independence if it came to a referendum? My guess is that, much as there are quite a few people in Quebec who vote Bloc Quebecois in local elections but vote against independence referenda, the same would happen among PNV supporters. Do you think I'm wrong on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Jmabel, maybe the Texan analogy is indeed wrong. I believe a more appropriate analogy would be to ask the American people why they don't stop support for Israel vs. Palestine right after 9/11.. Do you see what we're talking about now? I can assure you the % of people in Araba countries, Europe and the world in general supporting Palestines is waaaay in the double-digits. But still most of us don't even consider asking such a ridiculous question that gives terrorists just what they want (unlike you). (anon 20 July 2005)
  • The previously remark is both ad hominem and incoherent. If I can parse any of it correctly, it seems I am accused of giving some terrorists "just what they want", but I cannot for the life of me what I am supposedly giving to what terrorists. (FWIW, the remark seems to be from someone whose only previous contributions to Wikipedia are to add the word "terrorist" repeatedly to articles about ETA, and to remove the Template:Euskal Herria provinces from the Navarre article. Or, possibly, a registered user who logs out when doing these things, because he/she doesn't have the nerve to make the case in his/her own name.) -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Jmabel, to give terrorists what they want is not necessarily to support their "cause". IMO, just paying the slightest attention to their political claims implies in a way justifying their murderous ways. Terrorists, or "illegal armed organizations" should be taken as assasins and nothing else. They should not deserve any more attention to their "political ideas" (if any) than the common citizen. (anon 21 July 2005)
      • So if I understand you correctly, what I am "giving" the terrorists is my advocacy that this article should include a mention of politics? You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, but the consensus on Wikipedia is clearly against you as to what such articles should cover, and it certainly doesn't excuse. Do I correctly understand that you think this article should say nothing about ETA being Basque nationalist, and should deal with them essentially the same way we would cover, say, an apolitical extortion racket? That we should not discuss their manifestos at all, should discuss this on the context of left Basque nationalism, should perhaps not even discuss the fact that former factions of ETA have evolved into groups participating in electoral politics? Or do I misunderstand you? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I would not exclude their "ideology". What i mean is, this thread starts with something that pretty much implies "why are those oppresive Spaniards not yielding to this and that, they're leaving no other option to these poor people but to place bombs all over the place". With that, I do have a problem. No issue with the way politics are described in the article right now.(anon 22 July 2005)
          • This remains very confusing. I'm not even the person who asked the question that you object to, but you singled me out by name. Not that the person who qualified his/her remark with "I'm certainly not an expert in Basque relations..." particularly deserves to be kicked around, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Means other than violence

User:Error in an edit summary says, "However ETA used no other means than violence". I think that is an accurate description of ETA now, but is it an accurate description throughout their history? As I understand it, in the Franco years, ETA had some pretty substantial educational operations. Also, speaking of the present, this becomes a tautology: non-violent activity by people close to ETA (e.g. Batusana) is considered not to be ETA activity. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, too many pages in my watchlist. I don't know about educational operations. I know about ikastolas but I couldn't tell how linked they were to ETA. About the tautology, some Spanish courts consider all Batasuna activity as ETA's (but being a Batasuna member does not guarantee prosecution!). --Error 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ikastolak"(in Basque)/ "ikastolas" (spanish?) are not linked with ETA. They´ve never been linked with ETA. The problem is thata spanish propaganda links ETA and Ikastolas for a simple reason. Ikastolak=Basque schools are famous because they get better results. They have higher educational level than spanish public schools. So, thousands of people are sending their songs to Ikastolas. For example, only one kid was enroled in spanish lenguage in Gipuzkoa laste year. And more than 30% of kids were enroled in Ikastolas. It means, in some years aroun 90% of Gipuzkoan will know basque. Spanish goverment and anti-basque groups and PP cannot accept that reallity. Also in Navarre, In Pamplona, more than 50% of kids(2 years old) has been enroled with basque lenguage. And more than 30% of total only in Basque. while Ikastolas are refusing kids because they don´t have capacity, in some places spanish schools are closing. --Ikertxo 08:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

I'm against the proposal to merge from ETA (military). My reasons are at Talk:ETA military & I figure it's best to keep discussion in one place, so please respond there. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC

I'm not sure about this. They're basically the same organization. Merging both articles and redirecting ETA (m), and ETA (pm) doesn't sound that bad to me. The text is not too long, so it should be easy to find what people is looking for and once they're there learn a bit more and have an overview of the organization's history.

Not in a historical sense. Didn't both ETAs fight among themselves in some occassion? Ideally we would have an extensive article on each or at least on ETA (pm)--Error 23:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They didn't fight among them as far as I can tell. They were the two main divisions of the same origin. In fact hardcore members of ETA(pm) ended in ETA(m) after the surrender of their organization (what caused a new division), and gave a more "political" twist to ETA(m) - by this meaning, that they started targeting politicians too, something that ETA(m) had avoided earlier, being almost exclussively focused in the army and police.

Another thing would be wether ETA was or not involved in the sell-out of the CAA at Pasaia bay, but that's another story and anyhow has yet to be proven. --Sugaar 07:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulletin

I am not sure now if the name of the current internal bulletin is Zutabe and Zutik was the old name. --Error 01:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I´m sure is Zutabe. --Ikertxo 11:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Manipulation

The section named "Other ETA-related events" is outrageous. For a start, the seize of the basque newspaper Egunkaria is treated as a success against ETA when after sending more than 30 innocent journalists to prision (some of them for two years) without presenting charges against them, and allegedly torturing them during the unjustified "incomunicado" period (their torture reports were dismissed by politicians and spanish media with the excuse of them being part of ETA's strategy of undermining the legitimacy of the police). After going through all this for working on a basque speaking newspaper, they were released once their innocence was proved. The same Minister who said their arrest was the best evidence of their guilt, insisted in saying there probably was some sort of link between the newspaper and ETA, and refused to apologize. The media never said a word again about it. And the torture claims are still unresolved (even though one of the journalists died about a year ago as a consecuence of the mistreat). Is this what you call being neutral? Tumol 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UKT)

It is treated like the escape of Fernández Iradi. If you see it as a success against ETA it is your POV. There a lot of minutiae in that section though. --Error 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of POV if the result of those arrests is not stated. The relation between the newspaper and ETA hasn't been proved, and those men have been ruled innocent after spending up to two years in prision and paying huge amounts of money in bails. Giving only a 20% of the facts and forgetting to publish the other 80 is appliying a POV, don't you reckon? --Tumol 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To try to get people who really knows about ETA and wants to give a NPOV is almost impossible since this NPOV is not interesting for most of the people involved. No one Spanish nationalist would consider the existance of a political problem, they will stop on the matter of terrorism without giving a chance that this partial argument is not neutral. From the other side is even worst. I think that in matters like ETA should try to forget its policy and try to show different opinions from the all the sides concern, renouncing to get an objective solution, becouse there is not. What it could be a very NPOV for some outsider of the problem, will be discussed by all the parties concern one million times. My advise, let people to explain their arguments freely, and let people to base their knowledge on them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.94.1.122 (talk • contribs) 10 Oct 2005.

NPOV does not mean that we keep opinions out of the article and somehow reach objective truth. It means that the opinions are well-cited as to whose opinions they are (the Spanish government, a particular academic, ETA itself, etc.) and that they come from relevant sources, rather than being in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is getting surreal

Ok, it'd be brilliant if we didn't have to cope with all that conservative party crap. Before making my comments on the actual article, There's something in this discussion that needs to be said. I don't know who's the fellow talking about giving the terrorists what they want and how much support does the unionism have in the Basque Country. But it's been literally taken from Aznar's PP views. Acepting the FACT that there IS an OBVIOUS political problem behind ETA, is the only way of reaching a solution. If support for the unity of Spain is so big in the Basque Country, what's the problem then with recognizing the self determination right of the basques and calling a referendum!!?? Let them say loud and clear that they feel confortable in Spain and achieve peace at the same time! I mean, if this is true: "If it were, then the party winning the elections would be the one backing ETA, and there would be no voters of either the popular, socialist or moderate national parties, which do represent the larger majority." What's the problem? On the other hand, no only you make the mistake of putting ETA, and all the basque nationalism-independentism at the same level, but also dare saying the socialist and "popular" (ultra conservative is more like it) parties have larger support. That must be why there's never been a president of a party other than the Basque Nationalist Party since the arrival of "democracy". The truth is that more than a 65% of basque voters choose to vote for nationalist parties. Even though the peculiar parlamentary system of the Basque Country evens things up a lot. For those of you who don't know this, each of the three territories of the BC elect 25 members of the parlament (so more than a million people in Biscay elect 25, 600.000 guipuscoans elect 25, and 250.000 people from Álava elect the other 25). Effectively, 12.000 biscain votes have the same value as 6000 guipuscoan, an 1000 alavese votes. What means that even though the consevative party only has some support in Álava (second most voted after the basque nationalist party in that territory, and only 10-20 thousand votes over Batasuna all together) it still is the third party in the parlament. And even though the result of adding the votes of both the socialist and the conservative parties is still lower than the total votes of the basque nationalist party, they have one more member in the parliament (adding the votes of the two big spanish parties!!). In the last elections the basque nationalist party was the winning party in every single territory. The three of them, both by votes and members of the parlament.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE NEEDS

Ok, after this explanation of why the self determination has never been granted (don't you believe all that crap about happy being in Spain till it's proved in a democratic referendum, please). What this artcle really needs is less talk about what they are or what have they been accused of by the governments (as far as I'm concerned they are terrorists, organized as an ilegal armed independentist group). What it needs is background information. When was the group created, under wich circumstances, why did they have support all over the country? We all know how many people they've killed, and that they kill people! That's what all media tell us everyday. What we need to know is what no one tell in the conventional encyclopedias, how are they organized, what led to their foundation, and why are they still active. The real history of ETA, and what it is not only now, but what it's been through it's history. Is it true that Spain is a fully democratic country? What about Amnesty International, and The United Nations, them both have accused the spanish goverment of systematic torture (and they can't be dismissed as pro terrorist organizations, as all the human rights associations in Spain during the conservative party ruling). There are so many things that should be taken into account here apart from what we all know. It'd be interesting to list all the "anti terrorist" laws of Spain, laws that effectively undermine the freedom and civil rights of all basque citizens, and make them second class citizens (the fact that you can be arrested for 15 days without seeing a lawyer or an independent doctor, or having any contact with the outside world -the infamous "incomunicado" arrest- , or that a 13 year old basque kid can be taken to prision for a couple of years for any act of vandalism while kids from any other place in the country can go home with a warning, the fact that a basque newspaper can be closed and all it's workers taken to jail and tortured during their "incomunicado" period, treated as terrorist in all the spanish media, and insulted by conservative politicians with the applause of "journalists", "philosophers" and "intellectuals", to be declared innocent 2 years later because there were no evidences at all against them, etc, etc, etc...) I do agree with most of you: ETA is a cancer in the basque society, but if you open your eyes, you'll find that it could be successfully removed simply by doing the right thing, forgetting all the crap taught during the 40 years of nazi francoist dictatorship (base for a 95% of the spanish unity "arguments"), and accepting the right people has to be whatever they want to be democratically through a referendum (saying that this is not democratic, and that preventing this from happening is fighting for freedom is plain bullshit as anyone with a little brains can see). Many people should review the recent yugoslavian history and learn from it before it's too late. Mikel

WHAT YOU NEED is some human condition and less lies. Your support to terrorism, kidnaping, execution, coward bombing of multitudes that your ETA idol's practice in your nationalistic name is revolting. EHow can you say SPain is not a democracy? are you the democracies judge? is the UN or the EU wrong about this?. Your solution taht the only way to get rid of ETA is to claudicate ot all their demands is obviously your out-of-touch-with-reallity desire. Thanks.

<Eneko>

Status of Batasuna

Batasuna was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States in May 2003 and by all EU countries in June 2003.

According to the Batasuna article, it is currently legal in France. Either it is terrorist in France or it is legal. --Error 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is legal in all EU but Spain. EU as a whole and EU countries in particular had a hard time accepting the political-judicial measures of Spain agains a party with 12-18% of support in all the Southern Basque Country (including Navarre) that has never openly advocated for violence. It's much like the Sinn Fein case. --Sugaar 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wealth transfer

Removed:

This was accompanied by a systematic transfer of wealth from the Basque country into Franco's base of power in Madrid and the south.

This does not match with Biscay being the richest province by per capita income of Spain in the 1970s.

I'd like references on the exact grade of Basque language prohibition. --Error 01:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't reference but can say that the early phase of fascism (40s and 50s) was very hispano-centric and use of Basque (or Catalan for the case) out of home was a personal risk. Later, the dictatorship slowly softened its attitude and allowed some of that, notably the first ikastolas (Basque-only schools), possibly because they understood their attitude was too costly politically.

But officially the only language was Spanish and all was in Spanish only. This period of some 4 decades harmed Basque survival a lot. --Sugaar 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Prisoners

"…by 'Basque prisoners' only ETA members are meant". Really? Not abertzale more generally? I can't imagine that every convicted prisoner in the struggle is known to be an ETA member. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"in the struggle" What are you talking about? that strugle terminology is totally nationalist neotalk. You're on one side pal, you compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. Go on building the Dolchstosslegende<Eneko>

What I mean by "struggle" -- and believe me, I'm no friend of ETA, at least not in the last 30 years -- is exactly that: there is a struggle going on between, on the one hand, ETA and other violent Basque nationalists and, on the other, the Spanish government (with various others arrayed at various points in between at various times). Jailing and dispersing people is one of the government's tactics of struggle, just as blowing people up is one of ETA's. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree; "struggle" or "el conflicto" is the way the MNLV attempts to make ETA's actions part of a nationalistic enterprise, even part of the Basque whole. Many Basques are not nationalists and many more even though nationalists don't feel represented by ETA, so implying a struggle between the Basques and the Country in general only represent ETA's points of view. <Eneko>

You don't agree with my explanation of what I meant? Fine, feel free to presume bad faith. But please, at least read what I said. I did not say that there is "a struggle between the Basques and the Country in general", unless you consider "ETA and other violent Basque nationalists" to be equivalent to "Basques" and "the Spanish government" to be equivalent to "the Country in general": quite a stretch on both counts, but especially the first count. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Is not that I don´t agree with your interpretation of what you meant. I´m not saying that. What I say is that the use of the word "struggle" as a maniqueistic noun ("every convicted prisoner in the struggle "), in what you attest is a "stretch on both counts", is precisely what ETA and their support net do. I did presume bad faith on the first message, and I apologize for that, but not in any following one. <Eneko>

I meant that, say, Basque smugglers, murderers, fraudsters,... are not what is usually meant by "Euskal presoak" (well, when Ezker Batua campaigned for bringing home the scattered prisoners, they explained they meant "every Basque prisoner"). If I am not wrong, scattering is a policy for terrorists, so people who have not been sentenced for ETA membership would not be scattered. Maybe you mean that not everybody sentenced as an ETA member is held by the MLNV as an ETA member. Just being an abertzale prisoner doesn't mean dispersion, I think. If you think of a better expression,... --Error 01:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we largely agree on the facts: I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not at all convinced that everyone who has been dispersed is actually ETA, and our wording right now implies that they are. I have some things I'm trying to understand here, and no particular agenda other than getting the article to describe the actual policy for who is dispersed:

El ministro de Justicia afirma que la dispersión ya se aplica a los presos por terrorismo islamista --Error 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Does the government have an overt policy on who is dispersed?

   Yes, and is not some secret or arbitrary thing. Anyone sentenced for organized crime may be subject to dispersion. That means not only ETA's prisoners, but GRAPO's, Islamist's,and mafia and drug traffickers. <Eneko>

   From the linked article, I think that the policy is nost secret, but also not generally known. --Error 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Do I understand correctly from what you just said that only people who are believed by the government to be ETA members and/or to have participated in violent acts on behalf of Basque independence are dispersed? Or, if I don't have that quite right, what are the criteria?

   From the Lukor article, also international terrorists and drug traffickers. --Error 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Are they dispersed only if they have been convicted of belonging to ETA? Or does the government make a judgement as to whom to disperse independent of the formal charge on which they are convicted?

I'm not sure that was totally clear, if it's not, let me know what is vague. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gara map

In the Gara map that I have just added to the External links, I notice that there are no prisoners in the Canary or Balearic islands. I don't know if this is a mildening of the most extreme cases of dispersion on the part of the government or just a Gara mistake. We may have to update the mention to Salto del Negro in the article. I also read in a Basta Ya page (I think) that ETA is accepting now that prisoners request the milder third degree from the penitentiary authorities. --Error 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This link is really biased. Gara defines ETA’s prisoners as "presos politicos" (political prisoners), when they are not recognized as such by IA or any other similar organization. Also the ETA prisoners at the Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, Melilla and Ceuta were moved in the late 90's to prisons in the peninsular as part of good will gestures from the Spanish government towards a peace agreement. Even though ETA's truce was a tactical move, not a real movement toward peace, and the conversations failed ETA’s prisoners never went back to prisons out of the Iberian Peninsula<Eneko>

The information on overseas prisoners is added. Thanks. --Error 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"accepting now that prisoners request the milder third degree"? Error, I'm not sure what you mean by that. In English, "the third degree" means torture as a means of interrogation. -- Jmabel | Talk

That "Third Degree" could be translated as "parole", although is not the same is quite simmilar. ETA direction has yielded on letting the prisioners aspire to tercer grado since the early 90's, when twice the whole leadership of the organization ended in jail<Eneko>

Hehe, yeah. I forgot. Según el art. 100 del Reglamento Penitenciario "tras el ingreso los penados serán clasificados en grados. Los grados serán nominados correlativamente, de manera que el primero se corresponda con un régimen en el que las medidas de control y seguridad serán más estrictas, el segundo con el régimen ordinario y el tercero con el régimen abierto". 1st degree, strict and closed regime; 2nd, ordinary regime; 3rd, open regime, coming to the prison just for the night.

The third degree requires some conditions (showing repentment, paying the compensations,...) that ETA did not allow to its members. Apparently, the ETA direction has yielded on this. --Error 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "open regime" does exist in English, but it's a bit vague. What you are describing sounds exactly equivalent to "day furlough". Also, repentment ==> "repentance". Good stuff, we should be getting this into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

French targets

Also ETA carried actions against France's policemen and menaced some judges and prosecutors in France.

Do we have an article on Laurence Le Vert? I think that the attacks against French policemen are unplanned, resulting of hazardous encounters. Isn't it so? --Error 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Went ETA is planning criminal acts in France, including robery of explosives, and they pull the guns wen the police stop them I don´t think is just a hazardous encounter. They had planned using force to scape or to reach their goals, even if the French policemen try to stop them. Also if we want to be really strick we can add soccer players (Lizarazu, menaced by ETA), and an article on Lebert will be great. Oh and something on the relation with the Breton Rebolutionary Army link with ETA<Eneko>

Exactly. They shoot French policemen (sometimes) if the police is blocking their escape, but ETA memebers would prefer to avoid them, whereas the attacks against Spanish policemen are staged, often against specific people.

From memory, Bixente Lixarazu was threatened while playing in Athletic Bilbao, not in France.

--Error 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, but what I mean is that if they premeditated the idea of shooting policemen as soon as they stop them, it´s already a planned attack on the police although it depends of the fortuity f the encounter. The same when the shoot a civil guard or a ertzaina in a road block. The extortion to Lizarazu

-that´s how he writes his name- was after he played for the Athletic, he was playing with the Bayern de Munich, the extortion letter was received by his parent at their home in Hendaya (France´s Basque Country)where he pressed charges with the French police(don´t know how to put links http://www.el-mundo.es/elmundo/2000/12/16/espana/976932003.html). Also ETA said that he was not the only french basque sportman required to pay the impuesto revolucionario.

That's a stretch. Was ETA targetting the Jesuits when Carrero Blanco's car flew over a Jesuit house? No. Did they take measures to save the Jesuits from harm? No.

You can put external links like this

--Error 03:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

European tribunals

The Spanish Supreme court and the tribunals in Europe have validated the actions of the government against ETA's support net.

Which are "the tribunals in Europe"? What cases have they dealt with? --Error 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On european Tribunals:European Court of Human Rights(http://www.lavanguardia.es/public/web/titc_2378398054.html) Eneko

El tribunal ha considerado que Vitoria no tiene legitimidad para recurrir porque el Gobierno vasco es parte de un Estado y no un particular perjudicado por esa ley...

That's a matter of procedure, not a validation. At most, it is a non-invalidation. It is like saying that since Wikipedia rejected my recipe of marmitako, I am a bad cook. Wikipedia would be saying that the proper place is the wikicookbook. --Error 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Social support

The roots of ETA's support lie the attempts of the Spanish state under Francisco Franco to destroy Basque nationalism. Since Basque nationalism had sided with the Republican government in the Spanish Civil War, Franco restricted virtually all expressions of Basque culture and banned all expressions of Basque nationalism, including public display of the nationalist flag, celebration of nationalist holidays, speaking the Basque language in public and teaching it in schools; even baptizing children with non-Spanish names was illegal.

I think this paragraph is misleading. The ETA´s support was not based only in the franquist repression against Basque nationalism. Although Franco´s regime attacked many expression of basque culture, to affirm that he attempted to destroy basque nationalism is ridiculous knowing the relations of sectors of the PNV with the regime.

What do you mean? All the PNV property was seized. Basque nationalism was suppressed. If some Basque nationalists were welcome in the new regime, it was after they renounced nationalism. --Error 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ETA´s support in the Basque society has to do with carlism (at least most historians think so), has to do with the support of the basque church to ETA, has to do with the socioeconomic condition of the isolated rural parts of the Basque country that provided the first ETA´s activists, etc.

I doubt it. According to that, ETA support would be have been greater in Navarre (a Carlist stronghold) than in industrial areas. The ETA-friendly Basque church would have been PNVist rather than Carlist. From memory, early ETA members branched from EGI, not Falange. --Error 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ETA came from E.K.I.N an excision of the PNV, a partie with deep carlist roots. Falange was not a carlist organization, Franco united them something neither group wanted at all. ETA´s support in some Carlist areas of Navarre has been always high. The evolution of the most traditionalist-carlist part of the PNV, was the one that founded EA (with good its best representation is in Navarre). I know that none of this groups are now carlists, ETA never was a carlist organization, but the substrata of carlism was one of the bases of the social support for ETA. Azurmendi has said something quite important that ETA´s founders and the guys that later in the V assembly opted for the armed actions were different people from different social strata.<Eneko>

Ultimately, Basque nationalism comes from Carlism, but pointing Carlism as the source of ETA that is like pointing Reconquista, or the battle of Roncesvalles. Too remote. The immediate sources of ETA are nationalist reaction against Francoism and later Marxist youths. --Error 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Other areas of Spain with differentiated cultures as Catalonia, Galicia or Asturias suffered the same repression as the Basque country did, some like Asturias arguably more, and never developed a terrorist group like ETA.<Eneko>

Catalonia had some (although less) similar use of terror tactics in the Franco era, but it faded rapidly once the transition to democracy was under way. I don't know if there was any in Asturias, and Franco's hand was generally lighter in Galicia.

In Catalonia there wasn´t anything simmilar to ETA during Franco´s regime, if you are referring to Terra Lliure that organization was founded in 78. The represion in Gallicia was maybe milder, but in Asturias was worst than in the Basque Country due to some old relatoinship with Franco, the miners and being a stronghold of the PCE.<Eneko>

Depends on what you mean by similar. The Tallion urban guerilla group was active in Catalonia and I believe GRAPO worked in the area as well, though neither are seperatist, they're both "terrorist" groups of a similar nature to ETA (and I believe GRAPO had some workings with ETA?). -KB (4 feb 2006)

I meant similar in relation with the original affirmation in the page as:"The roots of ETA's support lie the attempts of the Spanish state under Francisco Franco to destroy Basque nationalism". Terra Iure is a post-franquist group. Tallion was not a nationalist group - there were groups like that through out Spain during Franco's regime. There is hardly any documented relationship between ETA and GRAPO. -<Eneko> (feb 2006)

FWIW, I knew several exiled ETA people in London in the early 1970s. To the best of my knowledge, only one was a practicing Catholic; their politics were all definitely on the left, basically ranging from cocila democratic to outright socialist. And they were all from urban, working-class or middle-class backgrounds. So I'm a bit skeptical of that picture of rural Catholic Carlists. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Their being practicing Catholics is not very relevant. I think that it was Jon Juaristi who asserted that, in the 1960s, people from Basque Catholic schools were quite ready to jump from Catholic theology and the social doctrine of the Church to Marxism. People from state schools had other ideological leanings that I forgot.

Actually, if you search among transition-era Spanish politicians, you may find lots of former priests and seminary students in leftist parties.

--Error 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking of the foundation of ETA and it´s base social support. The relation with the Basque church is vital and there is plenty of documentation. The changed was produced at the end of the 60´s when ETA had been going for a little more than a decade.<Eneko>

Minority

In recent years, ETA supporters have become a minority in the Basque region.

This implies that they were not a minority before. Are there sources showing massive support for ETA ever? --Error 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but I'd be pretty confident that in the tail end of the Franco era their support was large, quite possibly a majority, and that ever since the restoration of democracy it has rather steadily declined. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be because on Franco's dictatorship they weren't seen so bad as they were fighting the dictator. Now they're fighting the democracy. I don't think it had been a majority, but i neither have souces of it. Platonides 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely: most Basques are willing to participate in the democratic process, now that there is one. Also, ETA's violence in the late 1970s exceeded anything they did in the Franco years. But it looks like we all agree that the suggestion of past majority without citation is, at best, dubious. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that ETA had its support base divided in two basic groups:

• Voters of Batasuna (and earlier versions of the same party), they ranged from 18% to 12% of the vote.
• Some voters of other Basque nationalist parties or left-wing parties, who prefered milder or more pragmatic options but could understand ETA motivations and even accept their fight. It's difficult to determine how many of this were/are.

As near nobody will declare publically that he/she supports ETA (it's a crime and you can go to jail for that) we have to rely in indirect sources, of which the vote to Batasuna is the more reliable probably (but does not necessarily include all those that somehow support ETA passively). In this sense, the percentage of vote to Nationalist Left options has eroded slowly since the early 90s. Anyhow, due to the legal barriers to electoral participation in the last years, it has become increasingly difficult to know.

In general the Nationalist Left electoral base was pretty solid and changed (up and down) only very slowly since 1979 (I believe it is the first time they run). It is also very homogenous through the different provinces of the Southern Basque Country. --Sugaar 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Events"

Sections Recent events and Other ETA-related events are turning into laundry lists. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of these could be merged into List of ETA attacks, which doesn't seem to have details of recent attacks. -- ElBenevolente 00:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do! That would be an appropriate refactoring. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the attacks into List of ETA attacks and merged both recent events sections, as I didn't see the need for two sections for recent events. I'll work on doing some cleanup in the section tomorrow, as we probably don't need the list of attacks in both articles. -- ElBenevolente 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction POV

The introduction is highly anti-ETA, and written from a point of view of a person opposing ETA. This doesn't belong to wikipedia. See, for exmaple, the article on Al-Qaeda, and the talk page section on its neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda#Neutrality_Dispute I don't think this neutrality stuff should be chewed over and over again about every "terrorist" group, so could someone please make the introduction more neutral (I don't know enough about to topic to do this)? Some people refer to the CIA as a terrorist group (for example because it illegally blew up a building full of civilians in Pakistan), but we don't go around shouting that in the article's intro.--85.49.234.93 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the change of Lalouk. I don't think that stating early that the US , the EU and most of the Basque and Spanish population consider ETA terrorist is POV, rather it is informative and defuses accusations of being pro-ETA. --Error 05:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "some people" and the governments of Spain, France, the European Union and the United States. We do not say in Wikipedia's own narrative voice that ETA is terrorist (which, clearly, a lot of editors would like to do). Now that would be a POV issue.

If I understand you correctly, though, you are saying that the material is unbalanced, not that it is written from a particular point of view. As far as I can tell, everything mentioned in the lead is factual and significant. Do you feel that any of it is false, insignificant, or misleadingly/non-neutrally worded? Do you feel that there is something that should be added? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If the introduction had said "ETA is a Basque terrorist organisation", that would indeed have been POV. If it says governments X, Y and Z officialy consider it to be a terrorist then it isn't POV, it is stating a fact. However, you are free to state that governments A, B and C don't, or that xx% of the Basque population considers it to be a liberation organisation, etc. Elf-friend 12:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist

I am not sure whether the person or people who carry on changing the intro from Armed Basque Nationalist Organization to Terrorist, actually realises that a few sentences down, there is a clear mention of the EU and US considering ETA a terrorist organisation. Therefore, what is the point of this bloody edit war?!? Regards, Asterion 16:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Aims"

This introduction was clearly written from an anti perspective, as it talks about their methods, and doesn't once mention the aims of the ETA. I have edited it to be more true to the sub-heading. Bumcheekcity 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is written from anti perspective. I don´t know who write it, but that's the only perspective possible, as the only perspective possible for an article about Hitler, Pinochet or any fascim guy or organization.