Talk:Basque conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suicides and traffic accidents

C'mon, how can suicides and traffic accidents be included in the number of casualties? Surely the terrorist activity has caused a number of accidents and suicides at least as important? However, they are not taken into account. Therefore, I would suggest to delete that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.113.137 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ask for protection

This article is going to be vandalized as it has been mentioned on far-right spanish media. It should be protected to avoid vandalism. -Theklan (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this media, the most read online newspaper in Spanish in this world [1] (I say this world because you seem to live in a different one)? JoanD BCN (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arab-american conflict

If the existence of this article is valid, I will create the following with the corresponding infobox.

Arab-american conflict
Battle of Manhattan
Date September 11th, 2001 Location USA, Afganistan, Pakistan Result Ongoing
USA Al-Qaeda
United States of America	Al-Qaeda
Commanders and leaders
Barack Obama George W Bush	Obama Bin Laden Ayman al-Zawahiri
Casualties and losses
killed: 2980[2]	killed: 17 (16[3]+1[4])

What do you think? Should we go ahead? JoanD BCN (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Chamarasca (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And what about the War between United Kingdom and Libya?--Chamarasca (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you show sources in English, or any other language for that matter, which refer to 9/11 as "The Battle of Manhattan" ? Wikipedia goes on the basis of reliable sources not on terms made up by editors. The Spain/France-ETA situation has long been called The Basque conflict in English, see for example: BBC in the year 2000 or CNN in 2002. Valenciano (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the termin "Basque conflict" is a term used by English speaking media. This is not my concern, but rather the fact that:

• The template {{infobox military conflict}} is being used for the activities of a terrorist group, suggesting that it is a war. Guys putting bombs in the lower part of a car is not an army that's a terrorist band of cowards.
• The 2 main editors of this article (of clear nationalist and separatist trend, but that's in all they edit here, but that's a different story) do and undo as they want (semiprotection is perfect to them as long as hunderts of Spanish people look perplexed at this article!), and e.g. don't care whether the references match the information
• At the same time, they seem to have a problem with the term "terrorist", they prefer separatist. I have no problem with separatist, but please, don't skip terrorist, since that is the most characteristic description of ETA. And please, don't ask me for sources here.

You seem to have been in Spain for a while, do you agree with the contents of this essay? JoanD BCN (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia generally disavows the use of the word terrorist. The relevant policy is at WP:LABEL. The current lead is following that principle. At the same time, the fact that ETA is proscribed as terrorist by numerous governments should be mentioned in the lead rather than whitewashed out. Valenciano (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that the main editors support the basque nationalism (that's only a question of neutrality), because this is a legal and accepted political movement in Spain; the Basque Nationalist Party is the most important political party in the Basque Country. Furthermore, the basque separatism is also legal; Eusko Alkartasuna and Aralar are legal too. The problem is that ETA is a terrorist organization. Josu Ternera and Argala were not generals but terrorists. And the Basque National Liberation Movement (MLNV) are the organizations than support ETA and their crimes. That infobox is a strong offense against ETA's victims.

This article is plenty of mistakes and omissions. It don't inform about the Cafetería Rolando bombing (1974), for instance. It was the first indiscriminate and blind terrorist attack against civil people. 14 people died there, and only one of them was a policeman. The Spanish Constitution was not rejected by Basque people in the referendum (the Constitution was supported by 70,24% of the voters in Basque Country against 23,92%; and 76,42% against 17,11% in Navarre). And more.

I apologize for my poor English. I can't edit the article with this handicap.--Chamarasca (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that on English Wikipedia, the use of the word terrorist as an unqualified label is disavowed per WP:LABEL. Instead, we say who considers groups to be terrorist. Regarding the infobox, a similar article, The Troubles, also uses such an infobox, it is standard in conflicts involving groups involved in violent struggles seeking territorial separatism versus governments. Yes, I know about the Rolando cafe attack, it was me who created the article on here. That should certainly be mentioned as the first major ETA attack. Your point about the constitution is also correct. I'll amend that now. Valenciano (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And I created Atentado de la Cafetería Rolando. Thank you for taking note of my suggestions. The infoboxes of this article and The Troubles are not similar. In that infobox there are no name of terrorists of Provisional Irish Republican Army or Ulster Volunteer Force beside Elizabeth II and John Major. Its an important diference. And there are other mistakes in the text.--Chamarasca (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Valenciano, are you done with your review and corresponding changes? In that case, I'd say it is my turn, e.g.:

• Adding references about what these guys are
• Following Chamarasca's suggesting to remove the "commenders" of that ridiculous infobox, why aren't there any in The Troubles where democratically elected presidents are put together with cold blooded murders?

JoanD BCN (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changes to the article. Consensus here can change, though it is standard in such conflict situations on here to avoid labelling terminology like terrorist etc. In the case of the personalities section, I think it does give an overview of who the key figures where. Commanders and leaders could be changed to something like "key figures" if technically possible. Without getting into "other stuff exists" type arguments, the War_on_Terror article has an identical infobox to this one and I don't see that as equalising AlQaeda and the many democratic governments involved. What references do you want to add? Also if Chamarasca can point out any other issues with the text, we can have a look. Valenciano (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Current Situation 2009-2013

I'm planning on re-writing the last 3 years on a more comprehensive way.

They seem to have been written piecemeal and I think the situation deserves to be explained in one block.

Seen that the piece has been tagged has high priority by several wiky projects I would accept recommendations on the following days before going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orhipean (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that there have been no recommendations I'll go on with the changes... Orhipean (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact I will start by the presentation itself comments are more than welcome.Orhipean (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC) So I have changed the presentation including a new partOrhipean (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite the discussion on the neutrality of the article I'll keep updating and improving the article, I only hope changes will be respected or corrected with no vandalisation.

I believe the 2009-Current Day section needs lots of new information.Orhipean (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Terrorists? bullshit!

Just being ironic. I am just wondering, who else has to confirm that these guys are terrorists so that Wikipedia writes it:

• European Union
• United States of America
• United Kingdom

That's not enough? would you keep this article like it is among a nation and a terrorist band? I guess the answer is NO. Thank you. JoanD BCN (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You can add Spain, France, Canada, Venezuela, Council of Europe, Organization of Ibero-American States, United Nations or Europol. You can see it here (in Spanish).--Chamarasca (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Chamarasca, although you mention Venezuela it would be worth to note that from that country ETA members train Colombian narco-guerrillas and together recently planned the assassination of the Colombian president while he was on an official visit to Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.98.219 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

End of 2005-2007 Peace Process

The original article stated that the Peace talkes ended on December 2006, after ETA's attack on Madrid Barajas Airport. The fact is untrue. The Spanish Government claimed they were putting an end to the talks , but Main Spanish Negotiator, Jesus Eguiguren, recognised in his book "ETA, las claves de la paz" "ETA, key factors for peace" that several talk-rounds took place in Switzerland on May 2007. Newspaper El País published a resume of those talks on December 2011. .

User Chamarasca has pointed out that such correction was non-neutral as on his opinion ETA did also claim the talks were ended. I have erased my original wording, to avoid an edition-war and keep the article concise. But ETA did not claim such a thing. It can be seen on the 9 January 2007 Statement, were ETA said " "ETA clearly expresses it willingness to reinforce and promote the process".Orhipean (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For once I agree with [User:Orhipean|Orhipean]]. The talks did indeed continue secretly after the car bomb and the deaths, since the PSOE government in general and President Zapatero in particular did want to appear in history as the ones ending ETA's killings, no matter the cost (political concessions to unrepentant and armed criminals, breaking the Law, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.98.219 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Protection of the article and a couple of facts: I ask for a AfD

Hello, I am pretty concerned about the status and state of this article. The article has been, as requested, semi-protected with this argument:

The article basque conflict has been targeted by far-right media in Spain and is receiving a lot of vandalism. It should be semi-protected.

I don't read far-right media, but, as a few million of people, from time to time a newspaper called elmundo.es, that happens to be the most read newspaper online in Spanish in the world.[5] This newspaper published this article, the only one in the Internet (apart from its mirrors in Latinamerica) talking about this topic. After this article in elmundo.es the political party UPyD, fourth largest political party in Spain[6], asked the Spanish Government to make sure that the contents of this article in Wikipedia were corrected.

The user Xabier Armendaritz used the semiprotection of the article to recover his status quo, and therefore nothing changed. Who is actually gonna check the neutrality of this article, as the template claims? biased users like Theklan, Xabier Armendaritz or Tygerpencil, who edit in Wikipedia to distort the reality and disseminate the separatism of Spain?. Btw, user Xabier Armendaritz changes information without caring much about the sources, which still talk about 829 murdered and not 486 killed in the second footnote of the article, isn't that a violatio of the Wikipedia policies?

This article does not even exist in the Spanish Wikipedia (isn't that strange?) because, actually, the way it is focused is cruel. There are people who would come to the idea of creating such an article, but it is alarming that nobody in this project realized what is being said here and didn't stop them. Fact is that ETA is a terrorist organisation, others may call it separatist, but still terrorist[7] although Wikipedia ignores EU's statement, and therefore there is no place to make out of it a belic conflict between two parties as if it were the US Independence War. Why don't we have accordingly an article called "Northirish conflict" between the Irish Republican Army and the United Kingdom or even between Al Qaeda and USA? doesn't it sound absurd? well, then you'll understand how suitable this article is.

I just hope, that somebody does something and frees Wikipedia from radicalism and biased editors. My proposal would be to initiate an AfD, as the only one meaningful exit for this assault. Matters like this just ridiculize the reputation of Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. JoanD BCN (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally horrified by and absolutely against ETA's killings in the Spanish democratic system, killings which I consider as being terrorist actions. But I also consider that, for an intelligent reader, the word "terrorist" has not very much meaning. "Terrorist" can be anything, depending on who the source is: the Apartheid regime, the USA Administration, the Russian Government... So I think that plain facts speak for themselves, if we trust in an intelligent reader that can tell good from bad for themselves. I consider that we should not treat the reader as if they were little children unable to think for themselves. In this article, I have just added some few data to a text that mostly was already as it is now when I reached it.

So it comes to my surprise that in this section I am the most cited reason (three direct links for me only in this section, and several other indirect mentions here and in other parts of this talk page!!) in favour of considering this a biased article.

I am also surprised that the main argument by JoanD BCN are ad hominem attacks to three contributors (together with two other wikipedians, I am considered to "edit in Wikipedia to distort the reality and disseminate the separatism of Spain"!).

I am also surprised that JoanD BCN writes that I change "information without caring much about the sources, which still talk about 829 murdered and not 486 killed." I think that it is quite clear in the infobox that in those 486 killings the victims are the so called "Belligerents." Then, in that same infobox, "343 civilians killed by ETA" are mentioned: somebody changed the first number to 829, but not the second one, so the total would be 1172 killings, which I think JoanD BCN will agree that is not the number mentioned in the source I brought (a source which is the Spanish Ministry of the Interior itself and which he does not contradict).

And I am also surprised that a wikipedian with such great skills as JoanD BCN — among other great editing jobs by him, I admire how he uses some coding to cite my user page directly and how he cites "an AfD" (I had to search what's that) — is not able to find the "The Troubles" article and that he asks "Why don't we have accordingly an article called 'Northirish conflict' between the Irish Republican Army and the United Kingdom [...]?," although the "The Troubles" article had already been mentioned above.

Now that so much attention has been focused on me, I fear for my personal security, so this is my last contribution to this article as long as it is under the focus of El Mundo, a newspaper that with no grounds fans the theory that ETA has to be blamed for the Madrid March 11 bombings.[8][9] Just a few thoughts before I depart for now:

1. In the conflict that is the topic of this article (as this article is written now), ETA alone is not one of the sides, but a wider group that includes people which does not agree with ETA's activity (which I personally consider terrorist) but agrees with ETA's political objectives (which I do not either agree with but this is not the question here). Between the victims of this conflict, no doubt the most serious ones are the killings; but also there had been two newspapers closed by Spanish police on grounds that they were "helping terrorists" (see the Egunkaria and Gara cases in the article). A lot of years later some justice was finally made, and both newspapers were found innocent of those charges, but the damage was already done, and still nobody has been found guilty of that serious attack on freedom of expression and no compensation has been given. I personally consider that ETA has the biggest responsibility in the damages of this conflict, because until their nowadays "definitive cessation of its armed activity" its sole work was to damage people and properties — but that cannot justify that a Government who should care for people's rights commits serious attacks on those rights. There are two sides to this conflict, and surveys show that most of the Basque people are fed up of it, that the Basque people demands ETA that they lay down arms once and forever, and that the Basque people ask the Spanish Government to sit down with ETA and give a prompt solution to this conflict.
2. I agree that the section "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox should be deleted. I think it is misleading and I see that the "The Troubles" article has no such section in the infobox. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As you note, Wikipedia does indeed have articles on both the Northern Ireland conflict and the US led-Al Qaeda conflict. The fact that Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have such an article, when it exists on the French, Portguese and Romanian Wikipedias, and when even the head of the Basque section of the PP admits the existence of a conflict, well, that's more a reflection on the Spanish Wikipedia than what we have here. Valenciano (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Valenciano, you say that you "fear for your personal security". Please do not make us laugh; everybody knows that the only ones who live in fear for their Iives are those who dare to oppose ETA and their multiple puppet "civic" associations and political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.98.219 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I wrote Valenciano above but I was referring to Javier Armendariz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.98.219 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. These talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not for commenting on individual contributors. Can you outline exactly what changes you want made to the article? Valenciano (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Additions needed in the "belligerants" box

I think the Basque Autonomous Region government flag and a mention to their police (Ertzaintza) and judiciary should be included in the list together with the "Spanish" and "French" ones. Many basque police have been assassinated by ETA and they deserve recognition for their sacrifice and their work. 81.172.98.219 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This page trivialises ETA's murders and violence, and should not exist.

This page contains numerous statements that represent a sectarian view of the bloody history of the terrorisat group ETA, and also trivialises its more than 800 murders and violence by portrying it as a war between two countries, with two imagined "combatant" sides. It also contains many false facts introduced to support ETA's version of history, such as the incredibly bloated number of casualties and wounded suffered by ETA, or the definition of Euskal Herria (a region that only exists in the minds of ultra-radical basque nationalists and ETA), just to name two clear examples.

Note that the existence of this page causes enourmous pain to the numerous victims of these unrepentant killers. Furthermore, there is a law in Spain by wich people can be put on trial by the mere fact of comparing/relating the victims of ETA's violence with the small number of terrorists that have died during the period of activity of the terrorist group. This page contributes to do exactly that.

I think this page should not exist, since it presents the opinion of a small group of radical people with a political agenda (to clean the blood in ETA's hands). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.101.194 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that a Spanish newspaper has criticised this article, we now can expect more comments and editions of readers that may be unfamiliar to Wikipedia and have a strong opinion on this subject. I'd ask you to please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to understand how Wikipedia articles have to be written. Now I'll answer the previous unsigned comments.--Javierme (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article doesn't state the Basque conflict was a war (though it's placed in war categories, which might mislead users who don't read the article). Anyway, portraying something as a war doesn't trivialise it at all (rather it could cause the contrary effect). --Javierme (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand this is one of the cases in which the infobox of two combatant sides oversimplifies a conflict. Not that I see any use in denying the existence of several sides. Rather, we should remark that there were more than two sides (for instance, you cant't put the GAL on the same side as the French republic, since the GAL attacked French citizens to force a change in the French government's politics). It is also an exaggeration to describe Euskal Herria as a region that only exists in the minds of ultra-radical basque (sic) nationalists (you can get some information on the subject from the references of the Basque Country (greater region) article). --Javierme (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You can look to The Troubles article/infobox and compare them.--Alfredalva (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the three side table is a much better approach to the the Northern Irish Troubles than a two sided one could be. It wouldn't b eperfect for this conflict, but it might be better than the current one.--Javierme (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't blame the pain of the victims on the articles about conflicts. Concerning the Spanish law the unregistered user mentioned, I don't think the current redaction of this article would be forbidden, even in Spain. And even if it were, the restrictions to freedom of speech that a state may impose on its citizens can't affect the whole Wikipedia community. --Javierme (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do think a page on this subject has to exist, since the Basque conflict is a concept many people is going to look up on. Of course it has to be improved, but please don't deny it already covers different opinions. --Javierme (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no baske conflict, ETA is a terrorist band, Spain is a country, ETA kills, Spain do justice with killers. WIKIPEDIA IS JUSTIFIYING MURDERERS.79.109.246.72 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is completely biased in its characterization of terrorist activity as "violent conflict" or "war", misleading readers into believing there are two sides combatting, whereas the reality is that terrorists have indiscriminately murdered close to 1000 innocent defenceless citizens. The language is almost identical to the terrorist propaganda, in fact this page is nothing but a blatant use of wikipedia as a vehicle for terrorist propaganda 83.35.54.236 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That was not true in the 4 December version and it's still not true currently. --Javierme (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Javierme, looking at the way you defend freedom of speech I take that you are one of those who also think that the nazi party and their symbols should not be banned in Germany and other democratic countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.98.219 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That kind of speculations on a user's opinions about other subjects are not relevant to this WP article talk. --Javierme (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The information on "casualties" included in the "belligerent" box is rubbish

Firstly, the numbers displayed on the ETA side are beyond the wildest imagination. Unbelievable even for ETA's most radicalised lackeys.

Lastly, and the worst of all, putting "civilians" not here nor there (i.e. shown between both "sides") is insulting to the victims and their families, since they died as a direct consequence of ETA's actions, not those of the Spanish or French police. Note that among these "civilians" are politicians, civil servants, university professors, journalists, wives and children of police or armed forces, etc targeted and killed on purpose by ETA. We are not talking here about "collateral damage" at all. 81.172.98.219 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Not all civilian casualties are a direct consequence of ETA's actions. Spanish police forces killed civilians long before ETA existed, and they kept on killing demonstrators and people who just passed by after. Unionist armed groups such as GANE, BVE and GAL also attacked unarmed people. Other killings of peaceful demonstrators were not claimed by any group, but are considered to have been made by right-wing para shooters. Besides, many of the people ETA killed or wounded were not targeted on purpose. That is what in military jargon is known as "collateral damage". As I wrote before, the main problem with the table is trying to depict a complex multi-sided conflict with just two sides. --Javierme (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Javierme Of course many of the people ETA killed were not targeted because of who they were. They were targeted for what they were (the more the carnage the better). The whole point for ETA was to create terror, do you remember (or is this something you rather choose to forget)? Do you remember Hipercor? And regarding your statement on police forces killing civilians "long before ETA existed", are you referring to a particular period of history or since the first police force was created in Spain? You also say referring to the police "kept killing demonstrators and people who just passed by after"; are you out of your mind or your sectarianism makes you blind and deaf??195.171.101.194 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I remember the 1987 Hipercor bombing, and it is a bad instance for you point. ETA phoned three times (to the police of Barcelona , to the management of HiperCor and to the press) and communciated they had placed a bomb there. In several other cases in which ETA placed bombs in public spaces, they warned about it (a practice they did not follow when they placed them next to police premises). Of course ETA made carnages, but their modus operandi didn't follow your "the more the carnage the better" principle. As to the killing of civilians by Spanish police forces, you don't need

the data for every year, but remember it still happened under Franco's regimes in the years before ETA was created. There is no use in denying police "kept killing demonstrators and people who just passed by after", and less in accusing of sectarianism, blindness or deafness to a user for questioning your assumptions (pelase read Wikipedia:No personal attacks). --Javierme (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the Spanish police and judiciary opposed the Basque National Liberation Movement?

This change to the infobox is clearly not correct. Besides the police and judiciary, those who opposed the Basques have also included:

• The Spanish army - for example, a major factor in the 23F coup in 1981 was discontent in sectors of the military over what they perceived as a weak state response to ETA violence and devolution in the Basque country. In February 1980, General José Sáenz de Santamaría was appointed by the government to lead the fight against ETA.

• Spanish politicians and political parties - who passed laws in the Cortes against ETA and its various front groups, coordinated actions against them and stood on an anti-ETA platform in the Basque country

• The Spanish press and media

• Victims' groups, such as the Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo or the Colectivo de Víctimas del Terrorismo, who have acted as political pressure groups opposing concessions

• Various civic groups, such as ¡Basta Ya!, similar to above, oppose Basque nationalism

and last, but probably most important:

• Spanish citizens themselves, who have rallied at various times against ETA violence, supported and voted for the political parties opposing ETA and, just as importantly, have refused to back pro-ETA parties in democratic elections.

None of these, can be put under the header of "police and judiciary." Most of these observations also apply to France, so it's far too simplistic and inaccurate to characterise the situation this way. Consequently, I'll revert the infobox back to the previous version.

Incidentally, regarding the UCD and pre-GAL anti ETA paramilitary groups like AAA/BVE/GCR, not everyone accepts that the UCD were not involved, see for example this link Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course not only the Spanish police and judiciary opposed the so called BNMV. But what worries me the most is that after all this discussion, in your first line, you write opposed the Basques, which can be understood as a genersalisation, as if it was not clear that most Basques opposed ETA. --Javierme (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. That's what called a figure of speech in English. By Basques in the context of the headline, I mean Basque national liberation movement (ETA and related groups) not the Basque people. Valenciano (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano Valenciano. You seem to have forgotten that it was you by discribing all this as a "war" in the first place that is creating these and other problems. With that in mind and back to my point, if you are referring to "combatants", the only people who fought the terrorists were the police and the judiciary. The army was not involved (e.g. there were never military operations or battles), nor the media (!!), the victims (!!!) or the spanish citizens in general. Many people and organisations are opposed to things in this world and that does not mean they are at war with them, even if they complain publicly about them. I insist that the note next to the flags must stay, because this is not a war but a matter of law enforcement. There were never two sides (this is not Northern Ireland). You may not want to call ETA a terrorist group based on Wikipedia blah-blahs, but it is definitely a group that carries out terrorist actions. Do you deny this as well?

Regarding paramilitary groups other than GAL, your own admission that "not everyone accepts that the UCD were not involved" would precisely disqualify you mentioning them in the way you have done it i.e. linked to state terrorism as as "combatant" groups on the side of the French and Spanish governments.

Lastly, I cannot understand why you are opposed to include the Basque Government and the Basque flag on the side of France and Spain. Many Ertzantza have been assessinated by ETA as well. Are you implying by you stance that they "fight" on ETA's side?195.171.101.194 (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that Spain and France (police forces and judiciary) also "fought" against the far-right groups you listed, quite effectively in fact.195.171.101.194 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never described it as "a war," nor spoken of "combatants" so the problem is your failure to understand the meaning of the term conflict. You seem to be equating it with "war" which it is not. I can only point you to the words of the Basque head of the PP: “Si el conflicto es entendido como un conflicto entre diferentes identidades en el País Vasco sí lo reconozco. Si el conflicto es ETA, no.” (If the conflict is understood as one between different identities in the Basque Country, then yes I can accept that. If the conflict is ETA, no.)

Those on the Basque side were the Basque National Liberation Movement which includes much more than ETA. As Javierme agrees with me above that this goes further than simply the police and judiciary, you do not have consensus to make this change, so I'll revert it back to the stable version pending further discussion.

Any further changes to the infobox should be discussed here first. For what it's worth, I accept that yes, the infobox could be expanded to more than a two sided conflict, to more accurately reflect the role of the other groups in the Basque country. Valenciano (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So History is now written by committee (majority of two against one)? Sad that you are forced to use that "argument" to keep things as they are (i.e. as you want them). No doubt it reflects in the quality of this article. What is the point on discussing anything here to improve the article? You very quickly eliminate the police and judiciary note (confirming that you do not think that the "conflict" with ETA and their world is just a matter of law enforcement) but keep very quiet and do nothing about including the Basque flag in the same box as the French and Spanish flags. Where is your objetivity here? What happens to the facts when they do not suit your agenda?

Also sad to see that you have to bend over backwards to accommodate all this in a "conflict" format and use words from ETA or some PP guy to justify it (where are the citacions from respected academics when one needs them, eh?). Please show a bit of respect for the terrorist's victims and do not play with the meanings of the word "conflict"; look again at the article's format and tell us with a straight face that this is not portrayed as a war between two sides (even the casualties are mentioned and counted, for Pete's sake!!).

The main problem of this article is that you try to keep "neutral" and "equidistant" on a subject that cannot be treated that way. Very much on your line of thought, I suggest that you and your soulmate Javierme start work on a new article, this time about the "conflict" between police and, for example a serial killer or a gang of bank robbers.195.171.101.194 (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The conflict is not solely defined in the sources as Spain vs ETA. You want citations? Try these:

• "Unfortunately there is no agreement on what the Basque conflict is. Some scholars argue that this is a conflict with roots in the nineteenth century... others argue that the problem is ETA's violence."

• "Political conflict in the Basque Country has entered a new phase. In the past year, a reshuffling of political power in Spain has brought left-wing Basque nationalists to office in some major Basque cities and at the provincial level in Gipuzkoa, while ensconcing their ideological opponents, the conservative Popular Party (PP), in government at the national level in Madrid. Meanwhile, the announcement by the separatist extremist organization ETA in October that it was laying down its arms has raised hopes for an end to decades of secessionist violence." (from 2012)

• "The correct historical explanation of the 'Basque question' requires an analytical separation of what might be considered the political conflict on the one hand and the current problem of terrorist violence on the other. "

• "the antagonism between centralist Spanish parties and Basque parties favoring sovereignty does not bode well for a solution to the political conflict in the Basque Country"

• "the minority population's strong sense of ethno-cultural and linguistic distinctiveness has supported political resistance against the Spanish state and French state giving rise to a Basque Nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century and its armed offspring ETA in the 1950s"

• "Terrorism aside, conflict in the Basque Country has more in common with disputes between stateless nations, like Scotland and Catalonia, and the central authorities or dominant cultural communities of their respective states.

• "The discussed examples suggest, however, that the political conflict concerning the Basque Country takes place increasingly within the Basque Country itself"

Those are just a sample of the sources out there describing it as a "political conflict" , so any attempt to deny that there is a political conflict and portray it solely according to Spanish nationalist POV, as good guys fighting a bad old terrorist group, is doomed to fail our WP:NPOV policy.

The Basque flag can't fit accurately in such a two sided infobox, since Basque constitutional nationalists were often seeking the same thing as ETA (independence for the Basque country) albeit through non violent means. That's why parties like the PNV and Eusko Alkartasuna signed the Lizarra pact along with Batasuna for example. Valenciano (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Basque nationalists seeking independence would not be enough reason per se to remove the Basque flag from the institutional side (see how in The Torubles article the official flags of the Republic of Ireland and of the UK are both in the instutional side, while the paramillitary groups are represented in the box by none of these flags, altough every one of the bands used profusely one of the flags). Anyway, the Basque flag might not be necesary in there if you consider that the Basque autonomous institutions are a part of the Spanish state, so they'd be represented by the flag of the kingdom of Spain (in fact, the Basque government has been forced to display the Spanish flag on Ertzaintza premises). If, however, we decide to add the Basque flag to the government side of the box, due to participation of Basque police in the fight against ETA and the like, we could add the flags of other communities whose police forces hava done the same, as Navarre and Catalonia. --Javierme (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

ETA and their satellite organisations accussed of genocide

I think recent events grant the inclusion of a new section about ETA and their genocide of spaniards (of anyone who opposed their totalitarian plans to create an Albanian-style socialist republic in the basque provinces of Spain and France and in the old kingdom of Navarre).195.171.101.194 (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What recent events? Sources? Valenciano (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-audiencia-nacional-admite-competencia-investigar-actos-genocidio-cometidos-eta-espana-20140219095740.html http://noticias.terra.es/las-victimas-denuncian-a-eta-ante-la-haya-por-genocidio,fda4aa0685f34410VgnVCM4000009bcceb0aRCRD.html 204.58.245.247 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is only two sides, how do we place targets of both sides?

Currently there is an infobox with two sides of belligerents. How do we place people who socialist or Basque nationalists who were persecuted first by the Spanish government and then by ETA (among others, Joseba Goikoetxea, José Luis López de Lacalle, who got jailed by the Francoist regime and then murdered by ETA...). --Javierme (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides, it's true that part of the Spanish administration organised groups like GAL and some police agents were involved, but then these groups were combatted by other Spanish officers. The three sided table of the Troubles would come closer to this situation, but I'd still doubt how to place victims attacked from several sides. --Javierme (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that we'd be better off ditching the idea of "sides" altogether as there seem to be at least four overlapping ones: illegal anti-ETA groups such as GAL and BVE, legal Spanish and French groups, legal Basque groups, illegal Basque groups. All of those had some cooperation and conflict with the ones to the immediate right or left of them. Casualties are probably better listed and detailed separately, the casualty figures for ETA seem on the high side to me as there even seems to be the odd case of them including people killed in traffic accidents and the like while travelling to visit jailed relatives. Valenciano (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano, Javierme. Please remember Occam's Razor (the right answer is usually the simplest): You either ditch the box altogether or if you insist in portrying it as a "conflict" between sides then: French, Spanish (and Basque) authorities on one side, and on the other all the terrorist groups and their friends (both left and right-wingers). Remember that the Spanish and French authorities also fought against AAA, BVE, GAL, etc during their brief periods of activity and their members ended in jail. Also remember that, unlike what happened in Northern Ireland all along their history, the right and left-wing groups you have listed here did not "fight" each other so they could easily be put together in the same box as fellow criminals.

Valenciano, you seem to contradict yourself here with what you say in the talk-box above regarding what a "conflict" means in the context of this article. Here you clearly portray this not as a political discussion between two ideas or concepts of nation but as a war with casualties in both sides. It seems that, as I suspected, the above was not a genuine explanation but just an attempt to justify not changing the way this article is written.204.58.245.247 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see how you consider my suggestion to recognise "legal Spanish and French groups, legal Basque groups" in the infobox and list casualties separately as portraying this as "a war." Either way, I suggest you read the numerous citations I've provided above describing it as a political conflict. Against that, despite your call for citations, you haven't provided a single one which says that the conflict involved solely the judiciary and police.... you're really and honestly saying that the PP and PSOE did absolutely nothing?!

Your suggestion of putting the anti-ETA paramilitary groups in the same box as ETA is a total non-starter. "They didn't fight each other" you say. What?! The GAL's whole raison d'être was to kill ETA members and Basque nationalists. Valenciano (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I see any sense in putting unionist and separatist groups in the same side. Facts is they fought each other. We could group ETA (pm), ETA (m), CAA and Iparretarrak in one side (though they had their differences); and GAL, GANE and BVE in a different side, but not both kind of bands in the same one. I could argue to Valenciano that the GAL also attacked people unrelated to Basque separatism in France, but it's clear the main targets of GAL and GANE were militants of ETA or Herri Batasuna. In the same manner, ETA argued they had targetted some of their victims claiming they'd been part of the structure of the GAL. --Javierme (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides, the anonimous user's proposal would be a weird representation of the conflict. I already stated above some of these groups were finally dismantled by French and Spanish authorities, who jailed part of their memebers, but the GAL had been founded and funded by the very Spanish government, part of the members of these groups were police officers, they used information from state agencies, etc. So reality is complex: They were related to Spanish aministrations, but neither on the same side as the French republic, nor on ETA, CCAA and their like's side. --Javierme (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

JAvierme / Valenciano: It is not a "conflict". And you cannot call GAL, etc "unionists". It is so unbelievable wrong in so many aspects. I'm afraid you talk like the terrorists and their friends. Whatever your intention with this "article" is, what you are doing is whitewashing all ETA's crimes and rewriting history, so their political collaborators can fool themselves and believe they have clean hands and consciences. Wikipedia should not allow your sectarian views.195.171.101.194 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article as it stands deals with ETA violence. There are numerous sources from international media (see the section above this one) describing the situation as a conflict. Unless you have anything new to add or constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, we're done here. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano, I think it is constructive criticism to say to you that if you indeed try to be "equidistant" (although I find rather difficult to be equidistant between terrorists and victims) you cannot compare in equal terms ETA with GAL or the far right terrorist groups mentioned, nor say that they "fought each other" (name any battles, please). For starters, those groups was active only a couple of years whereas ETA's history spans half a century and it is still active and armed. Also, I do not find "equidistant" many of Javierme's statements here, like for example this one: "some of these groups were finally dismantled by French and Spanish authorities, who jailed part of their memebers" which reads as if the Spanish and French governments were behind these groups when the thruth is that they fought them as strongly as they fought ETA or other far-left groups like GRAPO. Things like these are what makes me mistrust his intentions and very much doubt his equanimity and by extension that of the whole article204.58.245.247 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

I'd also ask the anonymous user who is making unargumented statements to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and to get informed about the issues discussed here.--Javierme (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If (s)he believes we cannot call GAL, etc "unionists", (s)he should provide a reason and define that etc. Tagging a completer account of talk like the terrorists and their friends and sectarian views is no constructive criticism. Adding relevant facts is not whitewashing all ETA's crimes. --Javierme (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how anybody with a knowledge of the subject could ask to name battles to prove the armed groups fought each other. Several of the GAL victims were alledged ETA members (Joxe Lasa Arostegi, José Ignacio Zabala, Eugenio Gutiérrez Salazar, etc.). When the Triple A killed David Salvador Bernardo, he was said to have collaborated with ETA. ETA has repeatedly attacked members and premises of the PSOE, and killed former president of the PSOE of Guipuscoa, Fernando Múgica Herzog, and French businessman Clément Perret (which were allegedly related to the GAL). --Javierme (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages is not a place to state you mistrust other people's intentions, but to make informed arguments or ask for further information. Obviously, I don't try to be equidistant between terrorists and victims. If you read my proposals above, you could somehow say that they are equidistant among terrorists of different sides or that they are equidistant among victims of all sides.--Javierme (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To say that the "GAL or the far right terrorist groups [...] was active only a couple of years" is verifiably false. On the other hand, "some of these groups were finally dismantled by French and Spanish authorities, who jailed part of their memebers" is quite accurate. It does not necesarily read as if the Spanish and French governments were behind these groups (though fact is the Spanish government was behind some of them, GAL being the clearest example). To add "they fought them as strongly as they fought ETA or other far-left groups like GRAPO" is a half truth (it's acceptable for the French administration, but not so for the Spanish one). Several of the acts of these groups were comitted by police officers, some kidnappings and tortures were even comitted in police headquarters. The GAL were funded and directed form Spanish Ministry of Interior. When Spanish police arrest suspects of GRAPO or ETA, these are incommunicated, while GAL leaders as José Barrionuevo and Rafel Vera kept their right to an attorney during interrogation. When the Spanish government passed from the PSOE to the People's Party, the PP kept a similar stance against ETA and GRAPO, but pardoned Barrionuevo and Vera, and refused to unveil the reserved (secret) funds of the Ministry of Interior, thus preventing a complete research of the GAL affair. This is why it would be so unaccurate to place the GAL in the same side as ETA, as it woul be to place it in the side of the French Government. In this case there were at least three clearly opposed sides.--Javierme (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

The simple existence of this article generates hatred between Spanish people because it justifies the action of the terrorist band ETA, I really get the feeling that the intention of this article is trivialize ETA terrorism because its aims are very commendable and noble. As example of the hatred between Spanish people which generates the existence of this article: Spanish political party Union, Progress and Democracy (UPyD), opposed to any justification for 829 people murdered by ETA, has complained about “Basque conflict” Wikipedia article in the Congress of Deputies of Spain and it urged the Spanish government to search ways in order to avoid that web pages justify to ETA murderers like Wikipedia was doing. For example, this serious matter is treated as if it has been a civil war when, actually, was only one camp (ETA) who has killed innocents. The vast majority of ETA members’ deaths have been produced by failures in their own bombs that exploited before what these ETA members had planned. A less proportion of ETA members’ killed by police or by Spanish and French government can be justified because their obligation was to attack the terrorism of ETA which was killing many innocent people.

Besides generating hatred between Spanish citizens, its content is anything but encyclopedic content. The article gives as valid that "Basque conflict" is the article title when this term has been rejected by the practical totality of the Spanish and French society. The term Basque conflict has been only accepted by ETA and by Basque nationalistic parties (PNV and abertzale left-wing parties) that sympathize with ETA; although they don’t agree with ETA methods, they agree with its very noble aims. In fact these Basque nationalistic parties share and want to reach the same aims that has the terrorist band ETA nowadays.

Lastly, this article doesn’t exist in the Spanish Wipedia at present time, it was created but it was erased on April 4, 2007 for the same reasons that I have exposed here now.

Post scriptum: I’m sorry for my poor English, I’m Spanish and I only got B1 level.Javier93h (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your speedy promo template. There's no way this article meets the requirement for a speedy on promotional grounds. A PROD won't work either, so take it to AfD if you must, but don't be surprised if it ends in a speedy keep. Meters (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Javier93h, if your English is enough to read discussions above, please read them. If not, don't tag the page for speedy deletion. Please don't support your claims either on your feelings of other people intentions or on flase statements such as "was only one camp (ETA) who has killed innocents". --Javierme (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation: Javier93h, si tu inglés es suficiente para leer las discusiones de arriba, por favor léelas. Si no, no marques la página para borrado rápido. Por favor, no apoyes tus peticiones en tus sentimientos sobre las intenciones de otra gente, ni en afirmaciones falsas como "era solo un campo (ETA) quien mataba inocentes". --Javierme (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This statement was only one camp (ETA) who has killed innocents is true. ETA members aren't innocents because they have killed innocent people. Spanish police and even "El Gal" have killed ETA members but these aren't innocents. To consider that an armed conflict there's need two camps, not a terrorist band that murdered innocent people and a country that's trying to avoid it. It's not the same that a civil war, it's not a war, it's just terrorism.Javier93h (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the people killed by the GAL weren't ETA members and a number of other Basques not connected with ETA have also been killed. But I think you're simply repeating the mistake that El Mundo and UPyD made. A conflict is not the same as a war.

Here's what El Mundo said for example in their criticism of this page: "Según el artículo en inglés de la conocida enciclopedia web... el "conflicto vasco" es una guerra que empieza cuando en 1959 nace ETA. Yet nowhere in this article does it say that it was a "war which began in 1959 when ETA were born" so that's either poor journalism or poor understanding of English on their part.

As for the UPyD, a party born out of "anti-ETA civic associations," they're hardly the best people to be judging this article. Nor are the Spanish government, which is composed of the PP, a party which almost broke its neck to wrongly accuse ETA of the Madrid bombings in 2004 for its own selfish political motives. One of UPyD's criticisms, the existence of "commanders" in the infobox has been dealt with. That was removed. We've also noted that the terminology is controversial (though it's one widely used in English language media.)

The existence or non-existence of this article on the Spanish Wikipedia is irrelevant. It exists on 4 other Wikipedias besides this one, including the French one as Conflit basque, despite you saying that the French don't use that term. There a proposal to removal the article in July 2010 was not successful. I would suggest that you and others either nominate the article for deletion (see WP:AFD) or work on improving it based on reliable sources. Constant complaining based on personal opinions will achieve nothing productive.

Lastly, moving this page to a title which breaches WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST in the middle of this discussion is disruptive and you should avoid that. Valenciano (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to present an accusation of alleged glorification of terrorism and incitement to the hatred in order to achieve that this article will be deleted.Javier93h (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely your right, WP:AFD is the place to go. If you have problems nominating it, you can let me know here or on my talk page and I'll help you do so. However, I'd advise you against it. With respect, your arguments so far seem to boil down to WP:ITANNOYSME, an argument specifically discouraged in deletion discussions and any nomination made on that basis is certain to fail.

You'll also have to explain why a term widely used about the political situation there is worthy of deletion. It's been used for over 3 decades in English language media (see for example this article in the New York Times of 1983.) Why is the term used by The BBC, CNN or RTE, the main Irish TV channel? Why does El País, one of the main Spanish newspapers, have articles like "La luz al final del conflicto vasco" or a specific tag for conflicto vasco, which you claim doesn't exist? Those are all questions you'd have to answer in an AFD and vague arguments that it "glorifies terrorism" or "incites hatred", based on your POV, will count for little, I'm afraid.

Personally, I would ask you to go ahead an nominate it, so that we can put this issue to bed. Enough of editors' time has been spent over the last few months in such futile arguments, rather than actually improving articles. Valenciano (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not only the GAL who killed people who were no ETA members. Other similar groups like BVE also did. And the police also killed people (in demonstrations and even under arrest) whoe didn't belong to ETA. Anyway, even if it was true that only one side had resorted to violence, that wouldn't mean there was no conflict. --Javierme (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

the stages of conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.23.60 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Algerian War article has a three column table

Current version of the Algerian War article has a three-side table (the firast one for FLN (MLN) and MNA, the central one for the French republic, and a third one for illegal French armed fractions FAF and OAS). That would be better that current misleading two-side table to represent this multiparty conflict --Javierme (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This page trivialises ETA's murders and violence

This article hasn't got a neutral point of view and it must be completely checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier93h (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right, but those editing after its semiprotection will not really help to fix the problem...JoanD BCN (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am basque and I have to agree with you. This is basque separatist propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.232.201 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Basque conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022080546/http://www.noticiasdegipuzkoa.com:80/ediciones/2008/10/18/politica/euskadi/d18eus20.1310616.php to http://www2.noticiasdegipuzkoa.com/ediciones/2008/10/18/politica/euskadi/d18eus20.1310616.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704211219/http://www.covite.org:80/covite_balancedolor.php to http://www.covite.org/covite_balancedolor.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006202356/http://www.mir.es:80/DGRIS/Terrorismo_de_ETA/ to http://www.mir.es/DGRIS/Terrorismo_de_ETA/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers

Having carefully examined this article's content and the arguments in the talk page, it is clear that this is a typical case of a spin-off article from the main ETA article in order to push POVs that wouldn't fly under proper scrutiny from Wikipedians who are knowledgeable of the topic. I agree with all the other users who have been asking for this article to be either rewritten from scratch or deleted. For now I will start working on it and, at least ensure it tones down the pro-terrorist propaganda, emotive language and ridiculous misinformation based on dodgy pro-terrorist sources.

23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Did you edit here under any previous accounts? First off, you'll want to reword this section title, which is a blatant personal attack. I'll give you a chance to do it yourself before I take it further. Secondly, you want to note that the terminology is controversial, but that's not necessary, since it's already noted in the lead in the second paragraph. I know that that paragraph's there, since it was I who added it. It goes much wider than ETA and the terminology, as well as being the most common in English language media, is also used extensively in Spanish media, for example El Mundo, ABC Publico, El Pais, the Basque head of the conservative PP. Not sure what other than that we can say. I'd suggest that you discuss changes here and remain civil, you'll get more done that way. Valenciano (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok.Valenciano Lots of things to say here. Firstly,no I have not edited here previously. I think you can tell from my anger and outrage that this is the first time I come across this page. I perhaps was hasty to accuse you personally of being an ETA sympathiser but both this article and the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners have been basically written by ETA sympathisers. I am likely to jump on anyone who will want to keep them as they are. I see from your user page you are not native Spanish even if you are knowledgeable on Spain and Spanish politics, which is a reason for me to back track on my accusations.

Yes, you are right that "Basque Conflict" is used in the English speaking media (for sake of journalistic simplicity and language.) But it is controversial in Spain and in the Basque country itself. Notice that one of the sources you give the term is in quotation marks, implying sarcasm. I don't know if you are aware (I wasn't until just now) but Spanish party UPyD lodged an official complaint to the Spanish government for the mere existence of this Wikipedia article as a deliberate attempt to falsify history. Most Spaniards and particularly Basques who have suffered first hand ETA violence and intimidation find it extremely offensive. Evidently, such an article would never exist in the Spanish wikipedia. Here is an article in El Pais you should read: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/03/11/actualidad/1426103143_149437.html Its not just the term which is controversial. There was no armed conflict - i.e. a war because one side killing and one side trying to enforce the law in a democratic country does not qualify as a war. Conflating a political conflict with terrorism is just vile propaganda, I hope you understand why.

Spain isn't Turkey or Saddam Hussein with the Kurds. It never was. Only one side of this conflict really lived in fear in the Basque country. Only one side had a shoot to kill policy of both armed forces, local and national police and politically active civilians. The exception of GAL led to a prompt jail conviction by the Spanish state of all of those involved. ETA victims in the Basque country, members of non-nationalist parties who are half of Euskadi, do not accept this term. Even many PNV voters in Euskadi do not accept it either.

Please re-read the lead paragraph of the article, tell me as a human being, that you really find nothing wrong with it. The worse thing is the Publico source you offer which gives a list of 500 "deaths victims of the Spanish dirty war". Please. Do you really believe this? Honestly? If you are of good faith and, as you tell me, have nothing to do with this exercise of propaganda, I beg you try to look into this, so we can continue with this article. Look into who this list includes? Does it include terrorists who were killed by the bombs they were making? Does it include people who died in car accidents while visiting convicted killers? Thank you. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also,Valenciano ] If you go beyond the headline of the head of the Partido Popular you quote as saying there is a conflict the article says "El líder del PP vasco ha señalado a Urizar que en Euskadi “no hay una guerra entre dos bandos ni víctimas de dos lados” y que en ningún caso se le puede exigir pasos al Gobierno español." So he is actually saying the opposite of what you are claiming he says. You speak Spanish fluently, I take. So please read the sources you use to support your arguments.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano btw, I am really, really shocked by that Publico article you have linked. I knew Publico had a pro-Podemos editorial line lately, but I never thought it would allow something like that to be published. It used to be a simple left leaning alternative to El Pais and now its publishing pro-ETA stuff for the sake of Podemos' political strategy?? Asilah1981 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 thanks for rewording that. The issue is that Wikipedia always sticks to an WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:LABEL which strongly discourages the unattributed use of such terms. It's also unncecessary, as the vast majority of our readers will be able to read articles like 1987 Hipercor bombing and draw their own conclusions. There is no need for editorialising. Let the facts speak for themselves. I think, as I've said here before, the issue is that Spanish speakers often seem to conflate "conflict" with war, even though it is not synonymous. In this case it was a political conflict, involving significant violence. No, I don't believe there were 500 people killed in a dirty war, unless that figure includes tenuous links to people killed in the Franco era. Without checking it, the number from 1975 on was around 50-70 killed by GAL/BVE/AAA. I think the best way forward would be to discuss changes here, for example you mention revulsion on the part of the Spanish public at ETA attacks. That's true and looking over the article, the reasons for that are not really explained, for example, there's no mention of the attacks like those at Hipercor and Zaragoza in which substantial numbers of women and children were killed. Valenciano (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

ValencianoOk then we are on the same page, but I don't think I fully managed to explain where Im getting at. Firstly, one thing I would like to highlight is that there are seriously dodgy sources here and we should be selective with what we use. We can't take everything we read for face value (like that Podemos article or Eusko News) and data should primarily come either from the Basque or Spanish government (note the Basque government is run by a nationalist party which is not part of the ETA ecosystem). Secondly, I think when Spaniards protest about "conflict" they mean "armed conflict", which is effectively a synonym of war. I mean there is a "conflict" with Catalonia (or at least the Catalan government), no one complains about the word "conflict" used in that sense. The use of the word in Euskadi is very much done on purpose to draw parallels with other more balanced conflicts such as the Arab-Israeli conflict or Northern Ireland. Unlike in Northern Ireland the army was NEVER deployed in the Basque country. The abertzale left are effectively trying to rewrite history to create a moral equivalence between ETA terrorists which may have been killed and their victims (i.e. the State and those basques who spoke out against ETA).

I'm not asking for details of all the murders committed by ETA to be given here such as hypercor. Its at a conceptual level that this article is wrong. The moment you define ETA terror as a conflict between two equal parties in which both parties exercised violence at a similar level, you are falsifying history. The abertzale left never felt fear in Euskadi. They never had to look under their car before getting on or needed bodyguards. Those who spoke out against them, including some former ETA members, did. There was never a comparable paramilitary force seeking retribution for ETA murders In terms of BVE AAA etc... The Spanish wikipedia page "terrorismo tardofranquista" is the best source - 66 murders (not all basque, this includes leftists throughout Spain - notably the labour lawyer massacre of Atocha in Madrid) which led to only 17 sentences for those involved. The GAL killed 27 people and everyone involved went to jail - including a government minister. So your estimate of 50-70 ETA linked people sounds about right.

Finally: the opening line: "an armed and political conflict between the Spain, France and the "basque liberation movement". Where does that leave all the basque people who risked and gave their lives for standing up to ETA? The town councilors, the journalists, the businessmen who refused extortion, the local police etc...? Were they also "Spain" fighting the Basque liberation movement? They compose half of the of victims. Do you see how perverse this is? Asilah1981 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Asilah1981 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not spending a minute reading the above personal statement/rant. Whatever is relevant and accurate, do add it with the maximum detail possible and verifiability, and that is fine.

However, the above editor has a long history of irregular behaviour, violating WP rules and POV pushing. As far as I was able to spot, no explanation lines, alteration of previous data based on sourced materials, frequent judgemental edits with absent verifiability most of the times, no attention to detail whatsoever, violation of NPOV, confrontational stance,... further research could help determine the damage to the reliability of a wide range of Spain-related and other articles. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah, I think you've unwittingly come upon the problem when you speak about other "balanced conflicts" like Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland and when you also say that this is different from Turkey and the Kurds. This is the issue, you're Spanish I presume and therefore do get worked up about the Basque situation in a way that you don't about the other three, but in the other three cases it's the same. All the respective governments see/saw it as a security issue: a legitimate government of good guys fighting evil terrorist bad guys. Some of the people involved and people internationally saw it differently: that the people involved were suffering repression and being denied their right to national self-determination. I'm not saying I support either POV, but both do need to be represented in this article. However, you're certainly welcome to add reliable sourced views from one side. Valenciano (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But Valenciano, regardless of political sympathies with one side or the other in Northern Ireland and Arab Israeli conflict, there is one undeniable factual difference with ETA. Unlike Northern Ireland and Israel Palestine, the army was never deployed, martial law never declared. Unlike these conflicts there was no civilians killed or real collateral damage on the state side. There was no real paramilitary armed organization opposing ETA like there was in Northern Ireland. I personally am more sympathetic to Israel than with Palestinian factions but I could hardly try to argue that the Israeli airforce bombing of Gaza was "not a military operation or armed conflict" but some form of normal day-to-day anti-terrorist police operation.

There was no military organization involved in combating ETA (this is forbidden by Spanish law). ETA was an effective terrorist organization which nearly brought down democracy during years of a difficult transition. But the situation is more akin to the Bader Meinhoff gang in Germany. One would never refer to that as an armed conflict (despite very well supported claims that the German goverment was involved in extra judicial killings). Sorry for my past post being a bit too rambling, btw. It is true it is an emotional topic, but I think my argument is not emotionally based.

To summarize: an armed conflict involves at least one side using its armed forces (if it has any), or in the absence of a state being involved, two armed non-state forces fighting. A murder campaign is certainly not an armed conflict. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I add this link related to the present debate. No true, honest debate is possible under this circumstances. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL There was never a question of debating with certain positions. The article which you are defending Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, besides being an insane misrepresentation of reality, is illegal in its current form. It is an exaltation of terrorism and terrorists. It even gives a name-by-name list of the hundred odd criminals currently in jail, carefully omitting what they were convicted for, as if they were martyrs. If you understand the Spanish criminal code, I remind you again you will eventually be liable for "apología del terrorismo" if you engage in unjustified automatic reverts of every edit I make. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL La fiscalía del estado no puede actuar contra Wikipedia, pero sí que lo puede hacer contra sus editores, si el delito se ha cometido en territorio español. http://lawcenter.es/w/blog/view/6204/enaltecimiento-o-justificacio%CC%81n-de-los-delitos-comprendidos-en-los-arti%CC%81culos-571-a-577-cp-concepto-de-terrorismo-segu%CC%81n-normativa-internacional So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981, regarding your above comments on armed conflict, we're back to the same issue: that conflict in English does not necessarily mean war and will not be understood that way by English native speakers. There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles which are offensive in some way or other to religious, ethnic or national groups, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, pages are not removed on that basis. We've already noted in the lead and the main body that this term is controversial, albeit widely used. We can do no more than that. You've identified possible neutrality issues with the article and I'd encourage you to go ahead and fix them, though being mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. Also, as I said to you in this thread and on your talk page, please do so without labelling other editors as terrorist supporters or making veiled threats about them being prosecuted. Behaviour like that will not go down well with admins and I don't want to see you blocked. Valenciano (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano You may be right, I'll let the issue go, much as part of me would like not to. I guess I made my position clear, I'm sure someone will pick up on it eventually. It particularly annoys me that the editor who drafted the "prisoners" article Adam Cli has eliminated his/her account - or deletes it again after every edit - the last of which was a few days ago. This is a clear indicator that he is very much aware of what I have been saying.

Its not a veiled threat, though. I have better things to do than call the police because some person is writing stuff on wikipedia. Considering the amount of ISIS apology that goes on in the internet it would be a bit petty. I was just pointing to a reality: Spain is pretty harsh with this matter, and many people are being prosecuted today even for comments on twitter. If Iñaki has a registered account linked to an email and is a resident in Spain, he should be careful not to endorse positions which justify or glorify ETA terrorism or those who have been involved in their murders. Certainly he should not collaborate with this Adam Cli person who is at least wise enough to take precautions. A jail sentence of under 3 years does not involve physically going to jail in Spain so he wouldn't become a "prisoner of conscience" but it would be a criminal conviction nonetheless, which kind of sucks.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano Ok I understand your perspective and I accept it. I see you are also a fluent Spanish speaker. All I think should be done then is to expand on WHY the issue of "armed conflict" is controversial in Spain. It is, and massively, and there are dozens of sources discussing it. One side does everything to present it as an armed conflict and the other is adamant to deny it. We have to discuss the reasons for both in a full paragraph or section. Coincidentially, only yesterday I was sitting in my living room watching Spanish TV and a Spanish general was on (probably discussing attacks in brussels). In that context, he was reminiscing on the "peace process" with ETA and on how they were adamant to negotiate with the Spanish Army and the generals - he found it insane since the Spanish armed forces had absolutely no engagement with ETA (beyond being periodically murdered in bomb attacks). He was explaining how, just as ISIS sees their campaign as a military conflict, so did ETA - or at least they were desperate to develop their terrorist campaign into an armed conflict with the military, which would somehow legitimize them as an army - legitimize their murders. This is one aspect of this "language" topic but there are many more. We should not brush it away with a sentence saying that the concept is controversial. Again, I won't do much editing unless I spot something factually wrong but maybe you could look into this?Asilah1981 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I can only insist in the re-establishment of guarantees for the editors to contribute with legitimate information and according to WP:Civility, the principle of Consensus building, and of course, no fear. The above editor besides showing a Manichean stance arrogating for himself censorship tasks ("I won't do much editing unless I spot something factually wrong", sure you own the truth...), shows an emotionally charged plea intertwined with warnings to the outside-of-the-WP lives of the editors, that makes impossible any pondered argumentation or analysis. I should urge a ban (temporary or definite) or, failing that, serious warning to the editor in question, as I pointed in the ANI. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, regarding your request, as my user page notes, I'm on holiday at the moment. Though I check my watchlist most days, it will likely be a couple of months before I can do any substantial editing and I have other things higher on the to do list. Valenciano (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on Iñaki LL stop being a wimp. :-) You have nothing to "fear". I informed you of something important you may have been unaware of, end of story. Lets all tone it down and relax (me included). Valenciano, don't worry, my request was more of an open ended suggestion for editors in general, with a time frame of the next year or two. I'm not a frantic wikipedia editor myself, just an occasional pass time. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is no information but PROPAGANDA

This article, from the first line to the last, is an attempt to justify ETA's terrorism, with euphemisms like "armed conflict" instead of terrorism, pretending an absurd balance between eta's murders and police arrests and actions, portraying eta terrorists as something similar to "fighters for freedom", ignoring lots of facts while focusing on others, and so on. ¿Who the hell has written this? Someone from the "abetzale left" (group of pro-eta platforms and political parties) most likely --83.59.235.152 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It dares to call ETA "SEPARATIST ORGANIZATION". Excuse me, but killing more than 800 hundred people, men, women an children, makes you much more than a "separatist organization". It's called TERRORISM, or at least, CRIME, not just separatism. I may want union or independence, but I have killed no one. Besides, it says ETA has attacked spanish administrations. SHAME, it has attacked and killed HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. --83.59.235.152 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Who? That question has an easy answer, look here (please, let it one minute to load). JoanD BCN (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The link above is not valid anymore. Sorry, JoanD BCN. So shall we come back to call things by their name, especially the TERRORIST ETA???SantiTNS (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the lead say why the term is controversial?

Some editors here seem unhappy with the reasons, and the source used is a basque one.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What you're adding is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a group of academics. Why are their opinions more important than say, that of the Associate professor of International Relations at the University of the Basque Country, who is clearly no ETA sympathiser and has no issue using the term "conflict"? The rest is mostly your editorialising since the source doesn't mention "non-Basque nationalist public opinion" or "a distortion of reality" and we need to stick with what the sources say. If you can find other sources which say that that was the reason why it was controversial, we can discuss including it in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying the term is controversial in Spain and the reason for which it is controversial? Would you like more sources? No one is denying the term is used, the sources just say it is controversial. The lead already said it was controversial, the source simply mentions why. Where is the OR? It summarizes the content of the source. How is the opinion of the vast majority of the Spanish population and that of a significant part of the basque country (including the civilian victims of ETA the majority of which were Basque) undue weight? We can take this to RfC if you like. You are censoring the content of the source, unless you do not speak Spanish maybe? If you are non-Spanish you may be reverting in good faith out of lack of knowledge, if you are Spanish it gets increasingly hard to assume good faith.

Asilah1981 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that it was me who added the fact that the term was controversial to the lead in the first place it's hardly likely that I'd be denying the controversy surrounding it. If you look at my article creations in this area, lack of knowledge of the Basque conflict is also something that it's hard to accuse me of. Very simply we can't give WP:UNDUE weight to one source in the lead (it's already in the main body.) Find other sources which support those claims and we can discuss adding it to the lead. Valenciano (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, you've now made 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, please don't edit war and readd that material while we are in the middle of discussing it here. One of the sources you're adding is not acceptable as a reliable source at all. This one for example is simply a "letter to the editor" and unacceptable both in the lead and main body. Valenciano (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added mention of the disproportionate number of casualties to the lead, based on reliable sources and without editorialising. Valenciano (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok Valenciano I agree with your compromise edits. Sorry for the tone, I freak out with some of the sources used here. I know the Basque country and its easy to stumble on really dodgy sources. ETA is finished but its ecosystem is still very much there. Anything from the Nationalist party (PNV) or Basque government is fine, but I don't think the abertzale left should be considered as acceptable for Wikipedia. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember that you are not deciding absolutely anything on POV, it will be fine if you just stick to complying with WP policies and keeping it cooperative like any other editor, instead of putting the burden on others. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Asqueladd, we agree with Valenciano's consensus version? Let's not start an edit war during holiday period.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not fully understand [10]. Is he calling the author a campaigner? I should remember Iñaki LL that he is not deciding absolutely anything on POV.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Copycating? (...) That is all you have to say. Other than that, it would be enough if you just kept attention and read thoroughly what other wikipedians have pointed just a bit earlier in the summary line, and keep it cooperative, instead of hurrying to anathematize inconvenient authors. Thanks for not WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Again. How is saying (bear in mind the reliable source is saying it, not me) those authors have divulgated a particular narrative is "anathematize"?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The DRIL claimed all the bombings, including those of San Sebastian on 27 June 1960

And it was published in Spain when Henrique Galvao hijacked the Portuguese liner "Santa María" in late January 1961 (Santa Maria hijacking). Google: "hemeroteca ABC 1961/01/28 galvao DRIL maletas explosivas" and "hemeroteca ABC 1961/02/10 galvao actos terrorismo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What is DRIL? Your reference is not valid (nothing about to Amara station) and this one it is [11]. There is no doubt it was ETA.SantiTNS (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? DRIL means Revolutionary Iberian Directorate of Liberation. See Henrique Galvao. He claimed those bombings. Twice. In late June 1960 and in late January 1961. Begoña Urroz with 100% certainty was not killed by ETA. The DRIL bomber most likely was a certain Reyes Marín Novoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.241.112 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikel Buesa's brother was killed by ETA and "Libertad Digital" is a right-wing web. _"http://www.libertaddigital.com/opinion/mikel-buesa/memento-11-m-75101/" (note: the late Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo so far as I know arrived from Cuba in mid-July 1960, so he had an alibi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.241.112 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on sources

Iñaki LL (aside from some nasty ad-hominems) has tagged the following source as "dubious sources" [sic] wanting to undermine (actually delete altogether) the content supported by that source:

• Fernández Soldevilla, Gaizka (2016). "Mitos que matan: La narrativa del «conflicto vasco» (y sus consecuencias)". La voluntad del gudari: génesis y metástasis de la violencia de ETA. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. pp. 23–62. ISBN 978-84-309-6844-2.

Maybe he want to enlighthen us about why it is a dubious source.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd, [defamation removed by Iñaki LL] Iñaki LL (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC) (I´m the first to do so, terrorism has affected me personally).Asilah1981 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether the source is dubious which is at issue, it's that it violates WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. WP:LEAD states that the lead should not introduce material covered in the main body. That's exactly what this edit does. What makes his views and opinions more notable than countless others who have written on the subject? That's where WP:UNDUE comes in. There are further problems with these two edits which don't come close to the neutral tone that we aim for and also steer into editorialising territory. Commentary like >>>is known for inflating the death toll in this so-called "side"<<< is what I'd expect to see in a blog, not an encyclopedia article and also is contrary to our manual of style (see WP:SCAREQUOTES for why so-called is unacceptable.) I have absolutely no doubt that there are sources which question the Euskal Memoria foundation list, but it would be good to include more than one and to present it a neutral way, as alternative opinion, rather than fact. Finally, can we avoid commenting on other editors, please? Valenciano (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

a) Valenciano I get, for starters, that we can include the deleted content from the lead in the body, right? What makes his views and opinions than countless others? I don't know which are the others. Maybe it has been included in the lead because the work has has been reviewed, it's state of the art (2016) and is already cited as an important progress on the scientific understanding of the issue, unlike so-so links to the NYT et. al??--Asqueladd (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

b) According to you, if the scientific source cites:

"Entre ellos hay activistas de diferentes organizaciones (desde EGI hasta Iraultza, pasando por las distintas ramas de la banda terrorista) a los que les habían estallado sus propias bombas, se habían suicidado, habían fallecido en la cárcel, por el «exilio», a causa de enfermedades naturales, en accidentes de tráfico (e incluso de avión) o en enfrentamientos con los FCSE. A tal nómina Euskal memoria ha sumado criminales comunes, un hincha de fútbol muerto a manos de seguidores de otro equipo o casos ocurridos fuera de España, como el de un misionero vasco asesinado por paramilitares en Colombia, otro muerto en una mina en Nicaragua, dos uruguayos en su país, un manifestante en Roma y dos cooperantes de la guerrilla en El Salvador".

— Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla (2016) pp. 52-53

is it a fact or an opinion?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

c) If the issue 1 of the journal of Euskal Memoria proclaims the aim of Euskal Memoria Fundazioa is:

"Para que Euskal Herria tenga una base de datos documentada con la que contrarrestar las mentiras del Estado"

— Euskal Fundazioa 1 (2010) last page. cfr Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla (2016) p. 52

is it a fact or an opinion?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

d) Mentioning that Euskal Memoria Fundazioa tries to impose a particular narrative and is linked to the abertzale left is the fringe opinion of a loony or rather a well stablished view?[12][13][14][15][16].--Asqueladd (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer your points in turn. a) yes, mentioning it in the body as fine, but it should ideally be qualified "Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla argued that...." for example. You speak rather dismissively of the New York Times source, however, the author of that piece is not some clueless American, writing from afar about topics which he has no knowledge of, it's Paddy Woodworth who's been writing about Basque topics for 40 years and has published at least 2 books on the subject. b) it's a claim and needs to be presented as a claim c) counterpoints or disputes about the accuracy of that source can be made in a neutral dispassionate way. Language like "including here an alleged bias from the academic historiography), is known for inflating the death toll in this so-called "side" " is not that neutral and dispassionate way. d) Some of those, especially the ABC source, are exactly the type of criticisms of the Euskal Memoria source which I was suggesting we seek and which can go in, bearing in mind the WP:NPOV issue I mentioned in reply to point c. Valenciano (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Asqueladd! Is Euskal Memoria used as a source in this and other articles????Asilah1981 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano But how can someone seriously state that the "Basque Conflict is a taboo" in Spain when it was the main topic of the news and political discussions for nearly three decades in Spain. Perhaps he was just trying to say something else and it came out wrong? The statement is inherently stupid. Its like saying discussing World War II is a taboo in the UK. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The comments above are inflammatory, including (again) a personal attack/attempt at misrepresenting me (above, removed by me) e.g. this (what the hell are you talking about, "devastated"...), and straight POV considerations, conspicuously Manichean in their claims. There is a problem with the total inability of Asilah1981 to engage in constructive editing (2 years now), and keeps attacking editors he does not like (reiterative). I do know Asqueladd only slightly, but he seems to be in the same path, requested by Asilah1981 to come here, to nothing constructive really but WP:BATTLEGROUND. What we get is anger and rage, and on these grounds they seem to claim they are just right, so let's anathematize inconvenient authors with absolute lack of nuance, slogans and headlines, well done. Btw, you may use that dubious book, I will not refute it, I wonder what lies really behind the big words, I have seen too many official versions. Ironically enough, the Spanish government refused its participation in a Truth Commission (with international witnesses) on all events related to the conflict some years ago, the solution backed by the Basque society, very telling. Let's create a demon (taboo). In the same way that it rejects United Nations recommendations on torture, and on and on and on... Indeed very hurtful topics all of them.

Both for Asqueladd and Asilah1981, Do not put the burden on me, be responsible for your own editions and smooth editing. Clear cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT include [17] and this (Asqueladd), after my summary line, and this (referenced information), this (misrepresentation of sources), reiteration of misrepresentation of sources, misleading summary line,POV based summary line/misrepresentation of sources. I am at a loss really. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, care to explain why it is a dubious book, Iñaki LL? The reviews I have read about it do not claim that, but the contrary. Again, you are not deciding absolutely anything on POV (your words). "And avoid commenting on other editors, please" or something like that?--Asqueladd (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good reviews from where? Obviously, it is a mirror of the official version according to the statements made by high-ranking officials of the Sp Govt about what official truth must be. For a start, did they cross-examined their data with Euskal Memoria to know their view? I strongly doubt, although I have to say I have not read neither Euskal Memoria's report, nor that book. However, that is not the central contention point. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am perplexed. It is the central point of this "thread". You have questioned the book, and I have asked you why. I'll bring you the reviews in a hurry, don't worry.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am shocked. This is the first time I'm having the burden of proving the source is reliable with academic reviews:

• Rojas Claros, Francisco (2016). "FERNÁNDEZ SOLDEVILLA, Gaizka, La voluntad del gudari. Génesis y metástasis de la violencia de ETA, Madrid, Tecnos, 368 pp" (PDF). Pasado y Memoria. 15 (396–398). Universitat d'Alacant. ISSN 1579-3311.
• Mota Zurdo, David (2016). "LA VOLUNTAD DEL GUDARI. GÉNESIS Y METÁSTASIS DE LA VIOLENCIA DE ETA" (PDF). Sancho el Sabio: Revista de Investigación Vasca-Euskal Ikerketa Aldizkaria (39). Vitoria-Gasteiz: Fundación Sancho el Sabio Fundazioa. ISSN 2445-0782.
• Díaz-Maroto Isidro, Aitor (2016). "Fernández Soldevilla, Gaizka. La voluntad del gudari. Génesis y metástasis de la violencia de ETA. Tecnos, Madrid, 2016, 368 pp". Historia Actual Online (40). ISSN 1696-2060.

Are you talking for yourself? You are "shocked" / "devastated" (sic) and all the drama you can add. I did not tell you to prove the source is reliable, that is your own conclusion. I put the burden of proper editing on you, you conspicuously reverted edits without even reading community input added before, eager as you were to rush into your revelations. As I told you if you read it above (again, take the pain of reading others' comments as I am taking the pain to read your's), these readings are absolute quarantine for me but you may use them, cause I am not wasting a minute more with that. I have been attacked and misrepresented again by Asilah1981 and that is my obvious concern. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Again. You said the source is dubious here. The title of this section is "question on sources" (as a source has been questioned... by you) and the purpose is to discern if that claim holds any water, and not to make a rant of your problems with Asilah1981, which you can deal with elsewhere. I get I have proved you the source is reliable, despite your earlier bold (as you haven't actually read it) claim.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Still did not read the links I provided? With re to the sources, I told you those works are, personally, straight quarantine as far as I am concerned, per my own experience, and they make very good headlines for some media. Now WP is not a WP:FORUM, and this is going nowhere. You may use them as far as I am concerned, I won't waste a minute of mine more on the matter. But I dearly recommend you to keep your rage for yourself, if you are unable to control yourself or engage in verbal incontinence, I urge you to have your own webpage, failing that go back to where you come, the ES:WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, happy to know your views because your own experience (whatever that means) means zilch as far as we are concerned. I think you are projecting yourself. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki I am not misrepresenting your views. You make your views patently clear. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

____________________________ @Valenciano: I've included content based on different sources in the body and recovered parts of the deleted parts from the lead and included them in the body. I think, given sources, and how sources formulate it, the "according to" formula for part of the content dealing with the narrative of the basque conflict being used as justifying framework of ETA activities is not needed at all, but I am not in a hurry. I plan to recover the deleted bits from the sections of victims, taking into consideration your observations and adding more sources. In regards of the thing of the taboo commented by Asilah, is Paddy Woodworth immune to WP:LEAD and to "according to"? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good job. I've no argument against any of those changes. I think also we could remove the mention of the taboo topic from the lead, since that's not in the main body. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, after all..., sorry I strongly object to removing the taboo mention, it puts the reader in the right framework of what is being said in the published, government subsidized corporate press in Spain, very relevant indeed. May I remind, I did not add the source. "According to" is fine, it remains important for a balanced view in a topic so polarized in Spain. The aim of contributions is to make a better article, not suit anyone's personal political orientation or replicate Spanish official messages. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you find other sources which make the same claim? Valenciano (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The taboo topic? I do not need, it is in the reference. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the taboo topic. The point is we have multiple refs saying that it's controversial and the controversy is covered in the main body. So adding the Woodworth/NYT source to those is fine, that meets WP:LEAD. However, we only have one ref which says it is taboo and nowhere do we say so in the main body, so that doesn't meet WP:LEAD and is getting into WP:UNDUE territory, since other sources don't support that claim. Valenciano (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, where does it say that there needs to be more than one source? The statement is not gratuitous in that it gives the reader a compelling approach to what the topic's treatment is in Spain, not so much in the Basque Country, where different and nuanced views on the matter live together, not black and white. For a solution, I would settle on a "the issue has been referred to as a taboo in Spain". Iñaki LL (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is a particularly compelling/informative phrasement at all (raising the issue of a conventional two-side war conflict would often meet outright rejection or attempts to silence in the rest of Spain could be a more "compelling" and "informative" way to insert what I interpret the author means -of course, that is OR, just as like the opinion of Iñaki about the statement giving a compelling approach to the topic's treatment in Spain- but you need quality sources to make it to the lead. Anyways, per Valenciano, the thing is the statement is violating WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Those problems could be easily solved removing the statement from the lead and including "According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict was nearly a taboo issue in Spain." in the body.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you mean "quality sources" published data leaked straight from police bodies and information lacking any cross-examination with all the parts involved. Anyways, for compromise, I should agree with According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict is nearly a taboo issue in Spain.. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah 1) Again, no one here gets to "quarantine" reliable sources per his/her own experience 2) The According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict is nearly a taboo issue in Spain should be included in the body, not in the lead, because it fails to meet WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, "According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict was nearly a taboo issue in Spain" is fine in the body. However, unless other sources also make that claim it can't go in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I should point, I am very concerned for the latest edits reminiscent of WP:BATTLEGROUND, which in no way add to a better or balanced article, including a series of statements with an obsessive focus on ostracising and blacklisting sources that do not adhere to the Sp Govt's views, it really looks like a flaming bonfire of heretics. Fortunately or not, tellingly no more than 25% of the voters in the Basque Autonomous Community support such rigid, alienating and confrontational views on the conflict. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We are all here to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. I am planning to eventually (no hurry) discuss some tweaks of the lead in this talk page according to the already cited sources and this very recent English-language one:

• Alonso, Martín; Molina, Fernando (2017). "Historical narratives, violence and nation. Reconsidering "the Basque conflict"". In Rafael Leonisio, Fernando Molina and Diego Muro (Eds.) (ed.). ETA's Terrorist Campaign. From violence to politics, 1968-2015. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 165–183. ISBN 978-1-138-10014-5.

Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Content

Recently a user has deleted a bit from the infobox, on the basis the source apparently says those are claims/complaints. Temporarily I've moved the content to the body and present the number as such (claims/complaints) but, as I do not read Basque, I ask Iñaki LL, for example, opinion about what the source actually says.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)