From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Basque
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I think it's important to say that they used to be marxist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ETA's symbol[edit]

Félix Likianiano author of the symbol is quoted several times, saying that the "Bietan jarrai" talked about strenght (the axe) and stealth/astuteness (the snake).

It's Liquiniano or Likiniano, not "Likianiano". He was Anarchist and as such took part in the civil war (1936-1939)..

So the line should be like this "ETA's motto is Bietan jarrai ("Keep up on both"). This refers to the two figures in its symbol, a snake (representing stealth/astuteness) wrapped around an axe (representing strenght)." The citations used are from "El mundo" a right wing Spanish newspaper, that is not an appropiate source. In the biography FÉLIX LIKINIANO. Miliciano de la utopía, Pilar Iparragirre, Pub. Txalaparta, the explanation by Lirkiniano is quoted, so the citation should be that book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"El Mundo" is the second Spanish newspaper. As sources go, "El Mundo" is an A-rate source.
OTOH we could add the source you mentioned. Could you please provide the exact text, page and ISBN number for the book you cited?. Randroide (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism, again[edit]

Someone has added the {{terrorism}} template to this article. For reasons similar to several discussed above, I think that is inappropriate. I would also add that, in general, it is controversial to add navigation templates to articles that are not listed in the template. Last I looked, no individual organizations were listed in that template. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I have removed it pending some justification for its addition. Rockpocket 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, terrorism, again. There is always the die-hards who would look in better eyes the Red Cross template (if it exists) in this article rather than the discussed one. And the milder ones who think that the discussed {terrorism} basically applies to the CIA and similarly evil behemoths, but never to ETA or similar "organizations".

The above is just some POVs, which is ok anyway.

But then fact is that no less than 10 links in the template apply very nicely to this article. Since apparently the template is not properly read ("terrorism" being such an ugly word) let me cite them to prove how self-evident my point is

  • International conventions
  • Anti terror laws
  • Counter-terrorism
  • prop of the deed
  • Nationalist terrorism
  • Car bombing
  • all three points in configuration
  • designated orgs

Also, look at the map in the template. There are six countries with more than 10 terrorist attacks in 2008. Spain is one of those. Who made these attacks? ETA.

So what else do we possibly need to support use the template here? Or problem is maybe that we just do not want to see the T word in here? MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The template appears to be about terrorism as a concept. There are no specific groups listed on the template and it does not appear in any of the groups commonly designated by others as "terrorist" (read the articles on the IRA, UDA, Al-Qaeda, Baader-Meinhof etc). Why then, should ETA be the exception? Ultimately, we need to avoid using the term "terrorist" as a label for any groups, adding a template about terrorism rather circumvents that effort. Rockpocket 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The distinction between "terrorism as a concept" and "ETA" is not that obvious as implied in your post. ETA's "procedures" (killing politicians, military, policemen, civils in general by means of car bombs or shooting), "activities" (racketeering, kidnapping for money, threats in general) goals (looking for political ends through violent illegal means) and legal status (designated terrorist organization), all lead to the very concept of terrorism. In all, I see the "terrorism as a concept" line as a byzantine way to downplay a certain POV. On the other side, the fact taht the IRA, UDA, Al-Qaeda, and so on do not have this template on their articles does not suffice -on the face of it- for not including it here. Remember that neither two (nor three, four, five...) wrongs will make one right. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, remove it!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
"Terrorist" is a contentious label and is inherently non-neutral (see WP:TERRORIST). Applying that label, unqualified or unattributed, to any group is not acceptable in articles. Adding a template about terrorism to this article is equivalent to adding {{sexual abuse}} to articles about individuals who have been accused of sexual abuse. We don't do either because it strongly implies editorial endorsement of a pjorative label. Highly edited and watched articles on specific subjects (such as IRA or Al-Qaeda) tend to be useful barometers for good practice on less popular articles on similar subjects. Its certainly worth considering why, if that template is so appropriate for such articles, they are not used routinely. Its also worth considering why, if that template is so appropriate for this article, three editors have expressed disapproval. Rockpocket 00:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect, given his catastrophic record in these topics, I expect you to bring better reasons than Vintagekits supporting anything. It looks like this is set for the whole IRA supporter bunch to take over this page (the Irish Revert Army, I mean) and win by suffocation (I've seen that before). Since the things you are mentioning are not addressing in any way my points above, I certainly would like to get more cold opinions instead. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Vk had been editing articles on armed groups longer than both of us. He may have behavioural issues to deal with, but he has considerable experience on how Wikipedia deals with these subjects. Moreover, he is not under any restrictions on this subject, therefore his opinion is as valid as anyone else's. It is particularly unconstructive and disappointing to have editors respond to a content disagreement by name calling, please stop that. If you want to address the issue, perhaps you could justify how your position is consistent with WP:TERRORIST, as I have explained why it is inappropriate. Unless there is wider support for your argument, I will remove the template again later today. Rockpocket 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I can tell for how long Vk has dealt with these subjects by his record of warnings, blocks and else. I do not doubt he has an extensive experience as a consequence. If you are saying that he is able to provide an NPOV approach to this one, then I am tempted to think that you consider me a bit retarded, which is sad to start with. Now, I wouldnt like to discuss about his record or my retardness, but on this topic.
Just to not lose focus, should we ask for a 3O as we kinda agreed in your talk page? MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
3O is for disputes between two editors. We already have a 3O expressed (mine) and a 4O (Vk's), but apparently that is not sufficient. You appear to suggest our opinions are not sufficiently neutral. If you wish more opinions then a RfC would probably be the way to go. Rockpocket 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not really into wiki technicalities and I appreciate you bear with me in this regard. By 3O I thought it would be getting a third opinion from someone who rarely edits on this or similar topics. Indeed, as you point out, I consider neither of the opinions so far sufficiently neutral (including my own, of course) that is why I would like to get some fresh air in here. I am not saying that you dont have a point, but so I do think I still have my own.
I am 100% open for you to introduce me in the world of RfC if that's what it takes. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As per the recommendations at WP:RfC I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism requesting input. If we can't generate consensus from that, we can list an RfC. Rockpocket 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the people at the WikiProject Terrorism is obviously not what I meant by "a third opinion from someone who rarely edits on this or similar topics" I was actually referring to the virtual opposite (the people at WikiProject, dunno, Yellow Birds, or something). But, if it has to be like that, let it be. They may be of good help anyways. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
One can expect people at a relevant Wikiproject to have the required experience and familiarity with this sort of issues to offer an educated opinion (in terms of our guidelines and policies), its not particularly helpful having someone offer an opinion on a WP:WTA issue if they are unfamiliar with the guideline. Which is why opinions from editors who have gone through the same, tired discussions on the IRA pages over the last few years might actually be valued, rather than dismissed. Just because one has experience editing articles about paramilitary groups does not mean one supports them. Rockpocket 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmhh, I just looked at the participants and I am getting increasingly worried (not least because of the massage you just made them above...I guess I am doing the marketing part wrong and I may be the retarded you thought after all).
I mean, if the "expert" we are going to have here is, say, BigDunc, well....I'd better cut corners and concede.
But there is one guy I have not really interacted with, but my instinct tells me he is alright, theFEARGOD. Let's see who will step in here (BigDunc and the rest of the Irish bunch discounted). MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly, your blanket dismissal of editors based on your own prejudices is becoming tiresome. That project has some extremely experienced and well respected Wikipedians, for example: John, Swatjester, Tiptoety. Those are exactly the type of "experts" whose opinion we should value. What is the bottom line here? Do you want people that can offer informed opinions, or do you want people that agree with you? Rockpocket 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Given your weary comment, I must have been expressing myself not too well. The problem I see is when I know beforehand what an editor is going to think about this question or a related one. To call this a "blanket dismissal" is simplifying it way too much.
Dont you think yourself this phenomenon is problematic? Admitedly, this "automatic response" attitude which worries me is not only of those opposed to my views, there is the same attitude from those people I am more in line with. That is why I am cautious about some of the "experienced guys".
If I expressed myself correctly and you got my point, then I am sure you would be also concerned and more cautious about some of the experienced guys.
This said, I dont know any of those editors you mention. If you endorse them, fine. I just hope you are not endorsing them based on the same rationale as with Vk (who, in a way, is also a very experienced user, that I won't deny). MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
i think i´ll start again at the left:

i know there is a long history of debate on this term and that some pages label groups terrorists (for example, the spanish ETA page when i last looked) and some don´t. i´d have one or two observations to make on this last thread relating to the culture of debate.

1) it seems to me not constructive to make "me too" contributions (cf "I agree, remove it!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)") without arguing one´s case. therefore rockpockets statement "We already have a 3O expressed (mine) and a 4O (Vk's), but apparently that is not sufficient." i don`t consider valid. vk´s position is not valid because it is not supported by argument.

2) rockpockets statement "Applying that label, unqualified or unattributed, to any group is not acceptable in articles." seems to me clearly wrong, since the label most definitely should be used as in "designated a terrorist organisation by the EU". The template reference has a similar function, to refer to a relevant document. If it is correct to write "designated a terrorist organisation by the EU", then it is correct to give the reader further guidance on the term "terrorist" by giving the template link in the article.

3) rockpocket´s statement "Adding a template about terrorism to this article is equivalent to adding {{sexual abuse}} to articles about individuals who have been accused of sexual abuse" is wrong. A valid analogy would be "Adding a template about terrorism to this article is equivalent to adding {{sexual abuse}} to articles about individuals who have been _convicted_ of sexual abuse". Put like this, it is difficult to read rockpocket´s argument as written in good faith, as we are asked to do.

4) in the light of this, rockpocket´s argument "One can expect people at a relevant Wikiproject to have the required experience and familiarity with this sort of issues to offer an educated opinion" is unconvincing for me. i don´t think he (sounds like a male) has made an adequate case for removing the template.

i myself don´t have the "required experience and familiartity" but i am a reader of talk pages, including the archives, and i know this is a very old debate. some may say wearily that has all been said before, but it does not seem to have been recapitulated convincingly in this thread.

Can someone explain to me how this is NOT a terrorist organization? I'm curious, the ETA say that they want a Communist / Marxist community of their own, on their own land... yet, they presently live in one of THE most socialist countries on the planet. What exactly is it that they're expecting to get that they can't get where they currently live now? Am I missing something? Or is this nothing more than a couple of old crazies, and hundreds of misguided EMO youths that don't have a job or anything better to do?

Compromiso (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again I support its removal.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
in the light of point 1) in my previous contribution, readers will be likely to gain the impression that editor "vintagekits" states his position without reading anything anyone else has written. Compromiso (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have written mountains on the subject, mountain, why should I have to reproduce it everytime the same opinion is asked for? especially when it is already outlined above? Stop embarassing yourself please!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Compromiso you have come here and have added nothing to the discussion except to attack VK and have not assumed good faith with the contributions of a long time and respected admin instead of reading talk pages maybe you would like to contribute to wiki instead of casting aspersions against other editors. Oh and for the record seen as my name has been mentioned above I support it's removal.BigDuncTalk 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
@vintagekits: as i understand the point for discussion is whether there should be a link to the template: this has not been debated before. therefore i think my comment regarding vintagekits is valid.
@bigdunc: i have not attacked and cast aspersions but argued clear positions, and you have neither of you responded to the content. i have read the talk pages, so please do not assume bad faith. i have contributed to wiki, so please do not make personal attacks. you may disagree with my points, but then i would wish to hear arguments. Compromiso (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Listen child, when you have a couple of thousand edits under yer belt and a featured article under yer belt, then and only then will I take you criticism seriously.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Compromiso you have stated is difficult to read rockpocket´s argument as written in good faith so you are the one not assuming good faith and that VK states his position without reading anything anyone else has written. IMO that is casting aspersions on both editors. And I know you have made 54 contributions to wiki, also where have I made a personal attack I have pointed out what you have said and if I am not AGF then maybe that's because you haven't. BigDuncTalk 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i see this a bit diffferently. when i write is difficult to read rockpocket´s argument as written in good faith it means i wish to assume good faith but the way she or he had presented a argument with faulty reasoning made me wonder. that is supported by the content. i apologize, perhaps i shoulöd have just said that in my reading the reasoning is faulty and very misleading. also, i apologize for writing states his position without reading anything anyone else has written, that was overstated and unfair. a more correct phrasing should have been "ignores the point i made a few lines above". one of you can have the last word on thjis. i prefer to consider the content of the issue and the validity of the arguments presented. the reason for my intervention originally was to contribute to the content of the argument regarding inclusion or nnoninclusion of a reference on this page to the terrorism template. there was a rfequest for other editors to comment, so i did so, and after reading the quality of the argument made some observations on that, which may not suit some poeple but which i think are valid and worth reading. perhaps we could get back to the content. Compromiso (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry my comments leave you doubting my intentions here, Compromiso. One might have thought my 3 and a half years, 18,000+ edits, admin status, 17 barnstars and 3 featured articles could go some way to convincing you otherwise. Either way, I'll keep my response specific to your points (because questioning another editors motivation isn't really very nice):
2) You say my statement is clearly wrong, since the label most definitely should be used as in "designated a terrorist organisation by the EU". Did you actually read what you quoted back at me? I said Applying that label, unqualified or unattributed, to any group is not acceptable in articles. The example you give is both qualified and attributed (" the EU"), so how exactly does that show my position is clearly wrong (especially considering it follows Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject?) If the template in question was about groups designated a terrorist organisation by the EU, then you would have a very good argument. However, it is not.
3) One could argue the semantics of the EU designation being equivalent to a conviction or an accusation, but irrespective the point the remains the same. You say "A valid analogy would be "Adding a template about terrorism to this article is equivalent to adding {{sexual abuse}} to articles about individuals who have been _convicted_ of sexual abuse" Fair enough. So how many articles about individuals convicted of sexual abuse can you find the {{sexual abuse}} template in? See the point?
4) Whether you are convinced by referring the matter to a Wikiproject isn't really here nor there. Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject expressly direct us to that course of action. If you disagree with the guideline, take it up there. Rockpocket 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Some may say that this is now about "mine's bigger than yours" (my edit count, that is) "I have more barnstars than you ha-ha" "you have only made 50 edits and you dare talking to me?" "a-hem, did you notice yet that I am an admin?". That is a sorry reasoning, and very anti-wikipedia in spirit, dont you guys think? (you know, WP:BITE and stuff...)
Anyway. So far no one has really addressed (or so I feel) my initial point as to why a template from which no less than 10 links apply nicely to ETA should not be in the ETA article. In other words, one third of the template are uncontroversialy related to ETA, so? what's the thing with having the template here? or what I am being asked is that I should quote that ETA does car-bombings, that ETA is a designated terrorist org, that ETA is affected by counter-terrorist legislation and so on? Stating the obvious is not my preferred wiki past-time, but I will do it if that is what it takes.
In all, I am really willing for some über-editor to explain and convince on why this template is so very misplaced and out-of-whack here when, actually, much of it does apply in here, also in a cold mind. With the convincing explanation, then we will remove it and be happy. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's funny that you put it this way, because this reminds me greatly of an argument I've had in the past with "skinheads". They declare up and down that the designation of a "skinhead" has nothing to do with NAZIism, yet they can't explain to me how it's different. I've explained to them that if they just want to shave their head and be bald, that's totally cool, but when they classify themselves as skinheads, it puts another connotation on it. It's like in the Flintstones when they refer to "having a gay old time". Someone can say they're "gay" if they want, but unless you went back in time, no one under any circumstances would assume anything other than you being a homosexual. What it all boils down to, really... is someone just trying to ignore the facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Some might say that. But if one chooses to accuse me of editing in bad faith, then I will point that person towards the evidence that makes that accusation look foolish. If anyone don't like that, they can stop assuming bad faith of other editors. Simple.
The 10 links are about facets of the terrorism concept. We do not refer to ETA as a terrorist group, therefore we do not add a terrorist template to this - or any other group accused - of being terrorists. I'm not sure how many times we can say the same things. No matter how many aspects of terrorism you consider may apply to ETA, we (Wikipedia) are not in a position to make share that judgment. Rockpocket 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"We" (wikipedia)? so you're saying you're speaking for the whole wikipedia? I ask because I dont think you are a more legitimate user than, say, myself, I dont agree with your point of view and I would like to see wikipedia endorsing you with this explicitly before settling the question.
If you want to speak for the whole community, then we should take this to a community place, shouldnt we? Since from the Terrorism wikiproject we only got BigDunc and "we" (not majestic plural this time) knew his opinion anyway before he even started typing in here, I dont think that he is really adding that much to ease my concern.
So which is the right place to take this as to get a community endorsed decission? is that ANI? You know better and I trust you with this.
Please dont forget we have the "illegal" character still pending, so a thorough revision of both aspects by a pool of independent admins may certainly help endorsing whatever outcome we get. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We (Wikipedians) are all bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an insistence that we follow these rather then let our own personal opinions or prejudices guide editorial policy, is "speaking for the whole wikipedia" then yes, I am. Let me directly quote to you what the relevant guideline has to say on the subject:
"The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed.... These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels... If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed."
This not my personal opinion, this is the consensus opinion of Wikipedians. I fail to see how one can interpret this in any other way than We (Wikipedia) do not take an editorial position on whether any group is terrorist. If you wish to take this to a community place, feel free to choose anyone you want. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be the most obvious choice, but knock yourself out on WP:AN if you wish. However, I can assure you, the most likely response you will get is individuals directing you to the same guideline I have. Rockpocket 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution? Wiki norms, standards and common sense? Go read the Hamas article.

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[2][3] Since June 2007, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories... [Some stuff about history]...

...Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[28] the European Union,[29][30][31] Israel,[32] Japan,[33] and the United States.[34] Although Australia[35] and the United Kingdom[36]list only the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[37][38]

It is the article —through reliable sources— which should reflect terrorism, not templates! Read wp:WTA, understand it, fathom it and push the play button! I am sure (since it is apparent at every contentious article talk page) only a little few Wikipedians have had a look at this. Hint: Let the facts speak for themselves. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, how can a group designated as terrorist in France, the United States, the European Union, spain, the UK and Canada be just a "is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization" on Wikipedia? Nonsense. There should be no doubt when calling things by its name. I read in the lead no statement saying "it is a terrorist group", instead I see a list of countries and organizations considering ETA aterrorist group. Seriously?-- (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)1
No where in the lead does it say that the ETA is just an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization. It says that it is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization that is considered a terrorist organization by many countries. That covers the point of view of both sides, the organization themselves and the countries of the world. If you can provide a better description that covers both points of view, present it here for discussion. GB fan please review my editing 23:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case, since here is a far bigger list of countries that consider Kosovo to be independent, I'd better go over to the Kosovo article and state as fact that Kosovo is independent? Don't think so, do you? Armed - check. Basque - check. Separatist - check. Considered terrorist by various countries - check. Nothing missing, all neutrally presented, but judging by the number of virtually identical edits by Spanish IPs in the history of this article, some people will never be happy.... 2 lines of K303 12:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

-It's incredible for me that the term "terrorist" is not added to describe ETA. You can't even imagine what it is, to live in a country with democracy, with law, with a guarantee system and that they still kill civil people with bombs or a shoot in the head in order to extortionate the government. This is terrorism. And the nationalism in Spain in not like in other countries in the world. They can speak, they have political parties, the could arrive to the government if they would get so much votes, but not everybody wants that, and so that they try to get everything killing people, all kind of people, with all ages. They are terrorists, and you are helping them to improve their international image and to get their goals using euphemism like “separatist group”. Neither you inform correctly, because you are not calling them by their name. They kill people, they don’t make politic, and nobody in Spain is gonna make politic with them because they are terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Nothing new. The article does include the term "terrorist", it is right there in the lead. You may wish to familiarise yourself with neutral point-of-view (that's something that differs from Spanish point-of-view), or how about the BBC article Why aren't Eta 'terrorists'?. 2 lines of K303 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Can we rename this article to "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna"? I find it helpful to have unambiguous names for articles, so that I recognise what topics are being updated. John Vandenberg 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people do not even know that their full name is Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, they are almost universally known just as ETA. I could see the logic in a move to something like "ETA (Basque separatist group)" or something similar. O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think leaving it here is best. This meaning of ETA is very well known worldwide and is likely the most common understanding of the word. For instance the US changed the name of their travel pre-authorisation plan from ETA to ESTA after Spanish complaints, and ETA is almost exclusively used when reporting on the ground in the news. I don't believe I've heard the full name mentioned in the media before in fact. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to see a disambiguation term in here. ETA has existed for less than a century. While I haven't done any research yet, I'd be willing to bet that this three-letter abbreviation has been used for myriad other purposes both before and since, as well as an all-caps variant of the Greek letter eta. I do not think it is the first thing most people think of when they hear or see "ETA" without any context. I'd be much happier to see ETA (Basque group) or ETA (Basque organization). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well a quick look at the page view stats backs up the current setup. On a normal day this page gets over 1000 views compared to just over 100 views for the disam page. Following ETAs declaration of another ceasefire, 2 days page view stats for this page spiked to 24,000 and 42,000. This article rightly has the primary spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at ETA (disambiguation), not one of them strikes me as a likely candidate that would occur more frequently in the news than ETA (this one). Akerbeltz (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is far more likely to be what people are looking for than anything else on the disam page. ETA is certainly the only thing anyone internationally knows the group as, and their recent announcement of a ceasefire got plenty of international media coverage. This is the most notable ETA. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
ETA for "estimated time of arrival" might be more common, but is best looked for in a dictionary. However, I would argue that if there are two or more articles with the same possible name ALL of them should have disambiguation tags no matter how common one of them might be. A redirect could be set up at the undisambiguated page to the most common meaning IF there is consensus that there is one, otherwise it would redirect to the disambiguation page. --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah but I suspect that even of there was consensus for dabbing, we'd argue till the cows come home on how to dab this page... Basque pages rarely attract civil debates and rational compromises. Do we have that much time? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
ETA (Basque group) or even just ETA (Basque) should be acceptable to everyone. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Pageviews isn't a valid statistic for this sort of thing, and if anything the spike in views following the ceasefire (and this page's ITN listing) should be taken as evidence of a recentist bias in those numbers (though I'll note that, Wikipedia aside, ghits do not reflect those numbers; the first reference to this group is on the second page of results). As I said before, this group has existed for less than one century. Moreover, despite its activity during this era of easily available news articles and books, there is no convincing evidence that it is the primary meaning of "ETA", either worldwide or even simply in the English-speaking world (given this is English WP).
"ETA" should redirect to the dab page as it's a common three-letter acronym and because it's an all-caps variant of the very common Greek letter eta. Primary usage is generally reserved for cases where the primary usage is patently obvious, such as a book title. TLAs are notoriously problematic because the number of valid and commonly used expansions are legion. I would have no objection with this group being towards the top of the dab page because it's evidently a subject of interest. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point on the letter. I'd be happy with something like ETA (organisation) or ETA (armed group), dunno what the most appropriate dab would be. I guess (Basque group) would work too. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Human rights" section?[edit]

Isn't this a bit POV? An organisation which has murdered over 340 civilians in cold blood, complaining about a loosely defined concept like "human rights"? This section is heavily bias in favour of the terrorist organisation IMO. We need to balance this section out a bit more and mention whether ETA itself acts within the lines of international human rights legistlation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Human rights subsection is ridicously one-sided and biased -- (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. This section is totally biased. I added some lines to balance it. --Piculo (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I put some lines very related with the human rights. Very "Neutral point of view".--Piculo (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The deaths attributed to "state violence" reference are totally biased. Simply go to source [64] Euskal Memoria and check that the causes of death include traffic accident, other accidents and event deaths by diseases. I propose to remove it unless it is compared with other trusted sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

About the lead[edit]

I've reverted the changes by Vintagekits. What distinguishes ETA as a group is not that they stand for "sovereignty and self determination for the Basque people." Other groups such as the Basque Nationalist Party and Aralar stand for the same thing. What differentiates ETA from those groups is that they use violence as their principle means of obtaining their political objectives. I strongly disagree with any attempt to downgrade this in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to restructuring the lead, but the the content as it was repeated the same thing in the first three sentences. Perhaps a draft could be agreed here before such a rework? Rockpocket 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to establish wether everybody other than Vintagekits is reasonably happy about the current structure, which has remained stable for months...and that is quite some achievement for an article like this. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The current structure is fine and better English than the previous one - as well as being less POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Which doesn't explain why you deleted this sourced and very relevant sentence from the lead on the pretext of 'changing order' : "Since 1968, ETA has killed over 800 individuals, injured thousands and undertaken dozens of kidnappings." ETA isn't proscribed as a terrorist organisation for the hell of it so their use of violence and political killings is very relevant to the lead. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, so I have reverted the removal for that precise reason. Their violent struggle is the very essence of their notability, and the nature of that struggle (killings and kidnappings etc) is what makes them a proscribed terrorist organisation. Rockpocket 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was going to but I was beaten to it. Rockpocket 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It might belong in the lead of an Al Qaida article but I suspect it's much more difficult to pin down what Al Qaida has and hasn't done - ETA attacks are usually relatively easy to identify, for one because there's usually a statement. By most people's standards, and I include myself, a lover of all things Basque, ETA is a clandestine organisation who has killed a significant number of people so it's relevant, especially since ETA has few goals these days that lie outside a narrow scope. Looking at the IRA article I see they don't list the number of people killed but I suspect that, once again, it's harder to pinpoint with the IRA than with ETA. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed> Rockpocket 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional Irish Republican Army which is the more recent terrorist organisation does mention the number of deaths, the whole introduction was redrafted recently and it was agreed the deaths did belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrorist organisation and the number of people killed by the group should not be hidden or swept under the carpet. I oppose any weakening of the wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with it being in the article and you are right, it shouldnt be swept under the carpet - it just shouldnt be in the lead. Is it in the PIRA article lead? --Vintagekits (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is following a complete rewrite of the whole introduction which was overseen by a neutral admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A standard BritishWatcher failed to follow through at articles about pro-British "terrorist" organisations such as the UDA and UVF, despite it being pointed out at the time. Draw your own conclusion there.. This must question whether his input here is based on encyclopedic neutrality or not. Should all articles be treated equally, and demonstably so, it should be mentioned in the lead here. But while editors selectively enforce which articles contain casualties in the lead and which do not then they should not be here. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have said i would not oppose such things being added to loyalist paramilitary groups, but its very important terrorist groups like ETA and PIRA show in their introduction the amount of slaughter they carry out and hiding that figure from the introduction does nothing to help the reader, except appease their supporters. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I assume you would support the inclusion of a body count of the murders committed by the terrorist in the British Army as well, yes.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd also support UVF/UDA murders being added to the lead of those respective articles since their notability, like that of ETA, rests on their politically motivated violence. As far as I'm concerned though, it's not really relevant here as this is an article about a group operating in Spain, France and the Basque regions. As regards "regular armies" killing civilians, if you have sufficient sources then by all means add them there, however can I draw editors attention to WP:TPG. This is a forum for discussing improvements to the ETA article. Issues such as consistency across multiple articles or perceived editor bias should be raised at the appropriate forums, not here. Valenciano (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The intro seems to be OK. But perhaps mention that they have slaughtered random Spanish civilians in their terrorist attacks, and that its not just military personel or politicians who have been killed. Currently it says "individuals" which is a bit ambigious. Also, while Marxist-Leninism is mentioned at the end of the second sentence, this should be mentioned in the opening few words. "Basque" is simply the mask, Marxist-Leninism is the cause and motivation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! Why not drop the term ETA from the lead and just say "Baby raping, murdering rapist commie cunts" and be done with it. How can you article edit an encylopedia.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know if there is a good grammatical, linguistic or similar reason why the BBC who are usually quite pedantic about these things consistently use the 'Eta' rather than 'ETA' on their articles. (e.g. --Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 11:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said that BBC and many other British publications use lowercase acronyms in general. They always type "Nato" and "Nasa" as well, so it's not just this one example. Soap 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon Anza killed and buried by spanish police?[edit]

Please, delete this. I'm getting worried about the mental sanity of some editors. -- (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, at the very least, add the results of the french autopsy over the body which states that he died from natural causes, with no violence signs.-- (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Change it as soon as possible because it is not a fair image of the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ETA and ATA?[edit]

Not having much knowledge about ETA, I'm not sure whether this should be included in the article somewhere or not, but here it is (if it is used with the references provided, just remove the "group=test" before inserting in the article!)...

Originally, the name used for the organisation used the word Aberri instead of Euskadi, creating the acronym ATA. However, in some Basque dialects, ata means duck, so the name was changed.[test 1][test 2][test 3]


  1. ^ Kurlansky, Mark (2004). "1968". London: Jonathan Cape (Random House). p. 254. ISBN 0224062514. 
  2. ^ Domínguez, Florencio (23 March 2006). "ETA, una historia de muerte y destrucción ('ETA, a story of death and destruction')" (in Spanish). Extremadura, Spain: Diario Hoy. Retrieved 6 May 2010. 
  3. ^ Antolín, Matías (6 March 2006). "El origen de ETA ('The origins of ETA')" (in Spanish). Palencia, Spain: Diario Palentino. Retrieved 6 May 2010. 

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add that to the history section myself at some point, just hadn't found the time. Yeah, go for it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will do so! Thanks -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Someone messed up the infobox at the top of this article. Could someone please fix it? And maybe message whoever messed it up in the first place and suggest they try things out in the sandbox first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Begoña Urroz (1958-1960)[edit]

"" (Note: the girl from the picture, usually misidentified as Begoña Urroz, is Ester Barrera, killed by ETA in the late 1980s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
ETA has killed many children (23 plus one unborn whose pregnant mother was killed in the early 1980s), the first of them in 1980 (José María Piris, 13 year old), but in the case of Begoña Urroz Ibarrola there's a lot of one-sided misinformation and little evidence. That baby seems to have been killed as a 'collateral damage' by the DRIL, the same anti-Francoist and anti-Salazarist group that in 1961 kidnapped the Portuguese liner 'Santa María'(see page 32 of "" and page 106 of ""). The Spanish goverment, in league with the media, has launched an overwhelming propaganda campaign to make people believe that Begoña was ETA's first victim, and nowadays in Spain that's the official truth.
P.D._It was a bomb -a sort of booby trap in a wallet- at Amara rail station (St.Sebastian) in June 1960, not an attempt at derailing a train (of Francoist war veterans) in 1961. She died on the 27th June 1960. She had been wounded one or two days earlier. There were some 5 wounded commuters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
We must accept reliable sources and the respected Spanish government, not a terrorist organisation. Did you want something changed or added to the article, or was this simply a random comment? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Basque-speaking daily "Berria" (reproducing a page of "Le Monde" dating from 29 June 1960. "Pour la police espagnole les attentats [...] sont ouvre d'un réseau baptisé DRIL"). "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Le Monde (29 June 1960): ""
It's a pity to say this, but the respected Spanish goverment in this case is not exactly a reliable source , like in March 2004, when Islamist bombers committed a massacre in Madrid, the so-called 11-M, and the Goverment laid the blame on ETA. I'm not trying to protect ETA's honour -they are a bunch of killers-, but Begoña Urroz was not killed by ETA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"" (unlike "El Correo", "Deia" is a Basque Nationalist daily)
I've changed 'Beatriz' Urroz into Begoña Urroz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I point out that the reference to the "train of war veterans" is nonsensical. That was in 1961, not in 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
ATTENTION, PLEASE_ (& once again) : ETA tried to derail a train laden with Francoists supporters on 18th July 1961, 13 months later than the incendiary device at Amara narrow-gauge station that killed Begoña Urroz. The article is merging 2 different occurrences. For a proper chronology, see the Spanish Wikipedia article on ETA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"" (the 2nd paragraph can be more or less roughly translated in my broken English into: Its first violent action was on 18 July 1961: the failed attempt of derailing a train with Francoist volunteers bound for San Sebastian to commemorate the Uprising (The Alzamiento or Uprising was the military coup that started the Spanish civil war on 17 & 18 July 1936). The baby girl Begoña Urroz was mortally wounded by an incendiary bomb concealed in the left-luggage office at Amara narrow-gauge rail station in San Sebastian on 27 June 1960. She died the following day. Nothing to do with the 'tren de voluntarios franquistas' and the failed rail sabotage.
Txelis's computer in 1992?_That's wishful thinking rather than the 'smoking gun'. The terrorist Txelis was 6 years old in 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The link DRIL_For the time being it leads to an article on medicine, nothing to do with the Spanish and Portuguese Liberation Iberian Revolutionary Directorate (Directorio Revolucionario Ibérico de Liberación in Spanish) from the early 1960s. In Portuguese: Directório Revolucionário Ibérico de Libertação —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hijacking of the Portuguese liner Santa María by the DRIL in 1961: "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The bombings were claimed
1.-In 1972 the former DRIL leader in exile Jorge de Sotomayor (nickname, his actual name was José Fernández Vázquez) published a book (Yo robé el Santa María, Monte Ávila Editores, Caracas, 1972) on the hijacking of the liner "Santa María" in January 1961. There is a paragraph on the bombings carried out at rail stations by the DRIL from 26 to 29 June 1960 in some Spanish provincial capitals and on the express train Madrid-Barcelona. Sotomayor mentions that their bomb at "Bilbao station" [sic] killed by mistake a 2-year-old baby girl, that was the only innocent victim. Sotomayor didn't tell apart the 27 June bomb at Amara (San Sebastian) from that of 29 June at Achuri (Bilbao), but he was referring no doubt to Begoña Urroz.
2.- As I have mentioned beforehand, in June 1960 the international press, and always according to the the Spanish police and United Press International, blamed the DRIL for the bombings.  ::3.-According to the historian (in my opinion rather biased) Iñaki Egaña, some 12 DRIL members were arrested in Liège (Belgium) in the early 1960s,and the Spanish authorities blamed them for Begoña's death. Incidentally, 3 of those DRIL members were stool pigeons working for the Francoist police.  ::4._Before the early 1990s no one blamed ETA for the bombing at Amara (Sotomayor, by the way, had died in Venezuela in the late 1980s). The first one in doing so was the Roman Catholic priest José Antonio Pagola, who mentioned as part of a footpage of one his books that Begoña Urroz might have been perhaps victim to ETA (although Pagola in fact doesn't believe in such hypothesis). Ernest Lluch, a great man and killed by ETA in 2000, circulated Pagola's hypothesis, but despite his comprehensive research he never found out any evidence pointing to ETA but the Urroz's family belief. The sources published in 2010 (Duva, García Rey, Alonso y Domínguez) are basically well-paid second-hand rubbish, rife with inconsistencies and nonsensicalities like blaming ETA for all the DRIL bombings from 26 to 29 June -it seems that no one in 50 years noticed that in June 1960 ETA laid bombs in Madrid and Barcelona, ludicrous-, making mistakes with dates and artfully editing texts from Egaña and Pagola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S._And sorry for my broken English, odd syntax and odd use of prepositions.
Daily ABC , 28 January 1961_the attacks by using explosive luggage in june 1960 were claimed by a bragging Henrique Galvao from Venezuela (and those attacks caused some innocent victims in the North of Spain)_""
El Socialista, voice of PSOE in exile, weekly newspaper, issue No. 6039,7 July 1960, section Desde la España franquista (From Francoist Spain), story Más bombas en España (More bombs in Spain): an actual or alleged group by the title of DRIL has circulated a "dispatch of operations" (parte de operaciones) claiming to have carried out those bombings_""
"ABC", 10 February 1961 (Henrique Galvao , after having hijacked the "Santa María" and interviewed by a French journalist called Roland Faure, owned up that he was the mind behind the 1960 bombings in Madrid, Barcelona and San Sebastian)_"". I can't believe that the Urroz family didn't get wind of this in early 1961. The source is the Agencia Efe, the Spanish official news agency under the government's control. All the dailies published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"". And it's a bunch of lies, as usual.
1-No organization has ever claimed responsibility & The Government is not concerned with establishing responsibility for the attack. On 29 June 1960 "Le Monde" and United Press International blamed the DRIL. ¿Their source? The Spanish police. The DRIL leadership claimed responsibility for the June bombings some days later from Venezuela. In the early 1970s a former DRIL leader -Jorge de Sotomayor- mentioned in a book that in the summer of 1960 one of their incendiary devices killed by mistake a baby girl.
2-These were the first such attacks following the end of the civil war [in 1939]. False. The maquis (maquisards, Republican guerrillas) kept on fighting in the 1940s -and in occupied France against the Nazis as well- and in the 1950s. The isolated last maquis was killed by the Francoist police on 10 March 1965: José Castro Veiga, Galician. See Spanish Maquis. In February 1960 there were bombings by the DRIL.
3-There would no further terrorism until 8 years laters, when ETA murdered a civil guard [in 1968]. False. On 23 January 1961 DRIL commandoes killed a sailor on board the Portuguese liner "Santa María", on 9 August 1961 a maquis inroad under the leadership of El Campesino -with French official backing behind the curtain- killed a lookout of the Civil Guard (Spanish constabulary) when trying to sabotage Irabia dam in northern Navarre, and on 12 June 1962 the bombings by the DI (Defensa Interior/Home Defence, a misnomer for the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo/Labour National Confederacy) killed by mistake a pickpocket in Madrid. Their names: Joāo José Nascimento Costa, Luis Moreno Ortega and Manuel Eleuterio Llánez (according to Eliseo Bayo in a book published in 1976 by Plaza&Janés:Los atentados contra Franco) or Manuel Eleuterio Liáñez Benítez (according to the daily "ABC" in June 1962). Although sources are at variance, the Portuguese General Humberto Delgado paid his kidnappers dear and killed one of his assailants -a Dutch mercenary- at Villanueva del Fresno ( Badajoz) on 13 February 1965. In the early 1960s Spain became the base of the French OAS, opposed to De Gaulle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
-Just an example: ""
-And "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
-Just in case Cuban armed opposition to Fidel Castro happens to be terrorism: 3 Spaniard sailors were killed on 15 September 1964 when an anti-Castrist motor boat opened fire on the Spanish merchant vessel Sierra Aránzazu, bound for Cuba ...with a cargo of toys._""
4-Begoña died on 27 June. She died the next day. In hospital.
5-A little known Anarchist group as DRIL. The DRIL was neither a little known group nor Anarchist.
According to the press articles and essays published by Ernest Lluch in the mid and late 1990s on Begoña Urroz -Ernest was killed by ETA in 2000-, the OPE newsletter no. 3189 (Oficina de Prensa de Euzkadi, Basque Government in exile, 1 July 1960) said that the DRIL was an organization of confused existence, and it was difficult to pronounce on its authenticity. The problem is that the OPE no.3189 (1 July 1960) said just the opposite: the DRIL was behind the bomb at Amara station on 27 June 1960 and the DRIL was a group whose existence no longer could be put into question. In fact , Ernest picked up what he needed for his purposes, because the doubts on the DRIL were the bombings in Madrid in February 1960, 4 months earlier, not to the bombings in San Sebastián in June 1960!_"" (año: 1960, número: 3189, page 2, lower left corner)
February bombings:"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Another catchphrase regarding Begoña Urroz is that the 1960 authorities blamed no specific group for the bombings on 26, 27 & 29 June 1960 -but just a blurred reference to foreigners, commies and separatists-, and that initially it was not clear which group was reponsible for the bombings. That it is at least poor researching. If not, a wilful blatant lie. Aside from the story published by "Le Monde" on 29 June 1960 (United Press International, Madrid_ Pour le police espagnole...,etc.; see Xavier Montanyà's already mentioned article) , the Guipuzcoa Civil Government 1960 Record (Memoria del Gobierno Civil de Guipúzcoa, 1960) blamed the DRIL. And official memo, by the way (black letters are mine): Como sucesos más importantes del año 1960 que han afectado a los órdenes público y político deben reseñarse los siguientes [...] El 27 de junio explotaron en las Estaciones de Ferrocarriles Vascongados y Norte [...]escasos daños materiales, si bien es de lamentar que como consecuencia de la primera explosión falleció una niña de corta edad [···] Este acto de terrorismo fue planeado y llevado a cabo por elementos del DRIL (Directorio Republicano [sic] Ibérico de Liberación) . (=This act of terrorism was planned and committed by DRIL members)
"" (essay "Control social y represión en la dictadura franquista, 1951-1962", by Manuel Ortiz Heras, page 24).
Note: The Civil Government or Governorate (Gobierno Civil) was under the command of the Gobernador Civil (Civil Governor), a high official more or less like the departmental prefects in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Adjective terrorist in the first phrase[edit]

I suggest to include the adjective terrorist in the first phrase of the definition: ".. is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization, considered as terrorist by most of the western world". I understand EU, US, Canada, ... include "most of the western world". Any suggestion will be welcomed. --Jlbezares (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think they are millions, if not billions of people who would be justifiably annoyed at their exclusion from the "western world" you speak of. There is also the small fact that the European Union, United States government and Canadian government have not implanted mind control devices in the brains of citizens, and that people disagree with them quite often. O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian. You are right. If you prefer them, I would propose another words: as "by most of the world" or "by most of the western countries" (meaning government instead people). --Jlbezares (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Words to that effect are already in the lead. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This word is not in the first phrase of the definition. If most countries understand this group is terrorist, we should highlight and underscore this adjective. The very first definition should include what most countries think it is. --Jlbezares (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"Most countries" do not class ETA as anything, so thank you for admitting the first sentence is fine. O Fenian (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, any suggestion for the sentence? I think it could be better: "by most of the western countries". --Jlbezares (talk) (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It is fine as it is, without pointless duplication that is not even correct. O Fenian (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't strongly agree about it is fine as it was. I have taken the liberty to include this change in the article. ETA is mainly a terrorist organization by most of the western countries. Therefore, a neutral encyclopedia should include this fact in the article leading. Actually the adjective "armed" (for ETA and already included in the leading) is clearly a euphemism. This is my reasoning why the article should show the definition terrotist as the same level as armed, basque or separatist in the very beginning of the article. To keep the neutral point of view, it's fine to include the sentence "cosidered as terrorist by most of the wester countries" in the article leading.--Jlbezares (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Spain, France, Canada, USA and Britain does not equal "most of the western countries", it has has and never will. "Armed" is factual, are you suggesting ETA are not armed? "Basque separatist" is equally factual. "Terrorist" is Spanish (and others) point-of-view, not fact. O Fenian (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Fenian. If you check the article western countries in Wikipedia, you can see that, for example, for the political scientist Huntington, the western countries are formed by Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand and the western european countries. It is a fact that all of them have designated ETA as a terrorist entity. Therefore, if we say "ETA is considered a terrorist organization by most of the western countries", it is not very far of the truth. Therefore, this sentence is neutral, verifiable and sourced. --Jlbezares (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My God, is this tedious! All of this stretching to find a definition of the "Western world," so that you can add the unnecessary word "terrorist" to the lede. It's pathetic. And, to be quite frank, fuck Samuel Huntington, who is "widely" regarded as a bigoted, reactionary, pseudo-scientist whose "clash of civilizations" hypothesis has been shown to be bogus. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if we take Huntington's definition of "the western countries are formed by Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand and the western european countries" your statement of "It is a fact that all of them have designated ETA as a terrorist entity" is quite demonstrably not true. The Australian list is here and does not include ETA. You have also not provided a source that shows ETA is designated in "the western european countries", since the EU is not in itself a country. Finally I agree with RepublicanJacobite's second sentence, especially considering you are a single purpose account virtually dedicated to attempting to impose a non-neutral point-of-view on this article. O Fenian (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian. I am going to try to answer your points. Effectively I am a single account since I am a single person, but I'm not trying to impose anything. I just try to improve wikipedia. I am not writing that ETA is a terrorist and criminal organization, instead that most countries considered it as it. I think I keep a neutral point of view. I understand it is a real fact that most western countries have designated ETA as terrorist group. We can talk about western world, western countries or what sentence you prefer. My main point is that this is a very important issue in order to include in the lead of the article. Regarding Australia list, you should check the Australia - Consolidated List see pdf. Regarding EU, it is the union of the european countries. Therefore, these countries are representated by UE. On the other hand, I am not saying "all" the countries, I am saying "most" (for example, I don't know what Switzerland says about it). To be honest, I think you are trying to impose your point of view and deny that most of the western countries understand it is a terrorist group (that is, these countries understand ETA systematically uses terror especially as a means of coercion). Finally, I wrote in your personal article and you undoed me. This was your place, I didn't try to offend you. I don't know why you undoed me. I just try to improve these articles in an open way. --Jlbezares (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The consolidated list is produced by the United Nations, not by Australia. The organisations that Australia has designated are on the list I provided, the consolidated list is not produced by Australia. O Fenian (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

After one month, my post didn't receive any answer. Anybody has any comment? Can I understand that everybody agrees with my suggestion to include the sentence ".. is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization, considered as terrorist by most of the western countries, ..." in the lead of the article? --Jlbezares (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As has already been said, the proposed sentence is not accurate. O Fenian (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ETA is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department of the United States. (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, and that's already mentioned in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

About Sortu Zueilen (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)3-3-2011[edit]

I listen news from Spain every day. Sortu in an attempt to fulfill legal requirements had renounce to the violence, but literally said that they are against the FUTURE violence!!

Because of course they do not want to recognize that what they have been doing since 1978 was wrong.

Well, future has come more people of this organization has been arrested on March 2 of 2011 (yesterday). And they were arrested in possession of MORE OF 400 POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES... We didn't hear anything rejecting violence from them!

By the way I cannot believe that in the Section of Humans rights there wasn't any comments about international observers were requested by ETA in attempt to manipulate in their favor. Observers reported a lack of freedom in the "Country Basque" because of ETA extortion and threatening lives of citizens, stealing and storing material for terrorism acts. They saw a little bit of everything in between two groups: the group that can do their normal life and support independence and the other that really has look every day at the bottom of their cars when when want to go anywhere, just in case there is a bomb.

All these forms of activity goes against humans rights. Spain is democracy, politicians sometimes are not good, but don't forget that you cannot defend your ideas killing and threatening people's life.


I have added <but ETA declared anothers ceasefire in 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2006, and ETA restarted killing again.> to the text <In 2011 ETA declared a "permanent, general and verifiable" ceasefire with the expressed aim of ending its campaign>. Is it not true ?. I think that it is very important to remark that this is not the first ceasefire. Errico2 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is true. It is also true your edit insinuated that ETA's current ceasefire is not genuine. O Fenian (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't find the correct words. Perhaps this ceasefire is genuine; perhaps don't; I don't know. My intention was to explain that there wer anothers ceasefire in the past. Hopefully, this ceasefire is the last one. The others ceasefires ended, and ETA restarted again.Errico2 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "expressed" already covers that the ceasefire may not be permanent, at least in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of saying whether it is permanent or not (who knows?). Just added that there were others in the past, which unfortunately were inconclusive.Errico2 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok to include the information about the past ceasefires? Errico2 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


The text <Unlike predecessor parties, Sortu explicitly rejects politically motivated violence, including that of ETA> is not true. Sortu clearly explained that only rejected the future violence of ETA, but that had nothing to say with what has been done before. So I think that my change was accurate. Why did you remove it ? Errico2 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should a new party apologise for the past? I have read a translation of the source cited, and it does not appear to contain the addition you made. You also do not appear to understand the meaning of the phrases "without equivocation" and "unequivocally", which would prove the previous text correct. O Fenian (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It is as if a former Nazi create a political party, said that he is against murders of Jews.
  - Alls?
  - Not, only the future ones

But I'm going to search a source.Errico2 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

English source says they "explicitly rejected ETA violence", and "the sponsors said they rejected ETA violence "without hesitation" and assured that they would not be "swallowed up"" and "via exclusively peaceful and political channels" and rejected "categorically and without hesitation" all violence "including that of ETA". Those are the facts. I am sure you will be able to find some biased source that points out they did not apologise for the past, but I am not particularly interested even if you do. Your question shows you clearly do not understand the phrases "without equivocation" and "unequivocally", as both of them mean only one possible meaning can be attributed to the phrase they are attached to. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well...... It's possible that my text is not "without equivocation" and "unequivocally", of course. But to say that Sortu explicitly refects violence is not "without equivocation" and "unequivocally", because you can find that information and the opposite. I think that it is very complicated, but I think that a court decission is the biggest source. Errico2 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither you nor I can say that DSK is a rapist. Only a judge can. But if a judge said that DSK is a rapist, then you and I can say that DSK is a rapist. Do not you think? Of course, I'm a rookie, and please correct me if I'm wrong Errico2 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


This has been added to the lead sentence several times and is problematic for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's already covered in paragraph three, so this seems unnecessary duplication. Secondly ETA isn't a criminal organisation in many countries so in a worldwide encyclopedia it's inaccurate and it's far better to specify (as we do in para 3) exactly in what ways they're considered criminal per WP:V. Valenciano (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The word criminal is not in the paragraph three, so there is not any duplication. With the "criminal" adjective is more descriptive of the activities of ETA: bombs, kidnapping, killing... In the next paragraphs can explain deeper about this. --Piculo (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok I concede the point that the word "criminal" isn't literally there in the 3rd paragraph but it seems overkill. But it's clearly labelled as terrorist etc which to clearly entails its activities are not legal. It's like saying that an elephant is a mammal and then going on to state it suckles its young.
That aside, given the nature of this page and the politics involved, if you want to make a case for adding something like that, I strongly suggest you find a reference and add it. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
@Piculo... criminal is vague. Have a look at the lead of similar groups like Provisional Irish Republican Army, Ulster Defence Association, Revolutionary Organization 17 November or New People's Army. None of them say that it's a criminal organisation for the reasons I've already stated. Stating criminal in an unqualified manner is unacceptable. ETA generally don't engage in selling child porn, drug dealing or the like, racketeering etc is for political motivations rather than for pure financial gain like traditional organised crime groups like the Mafia. It's far better to specify what "criminality" they engage in and that's done in paragraph three: "terrorism", kidnapping etc (include racketeering there if you wish.) Valenciano (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I can make a reference to this article itsself to emphasize that is a criminal organization. Why basque is allowed in the first paragragh and not the word criminal? The word criminal is pretty definitory --Piculo (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
@Valenciano, as you said before that is already specified in the third paragraph.--Piculo (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you're asking why Basque is allowed in the first paragraph? Do you, or anyone else for that matter, dispute that they are a Basque organisation? In contrast, supporters of the group would certainly dispute that they are "criminal." Others, like me, would argue that it's a vague term and that specific instances of criminality are better per the articles on the groups listed above and WP:NPOV. As for referencing, wikipedia can't reference itself. Valenciano (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Many members of ETA are not Basque. What is sure all the members are criminal. I know the term criminal is too vague for murders, etc. if you have any other word u can proposse here. --Piculo (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the lead doesn't claim that all their members are Basque. It says that the organisation is Basque nationalist, which is true and undisputed. I've generally preferred "violent separatist organisation" as "armed nationalist organisation" sounds like a gun club run by the PNV and doesn't cover the essence of an organisation best known for acts of bloody violence, but others will probably disagree with that. Valenciano (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be done with rigor, and objectivity. Not to please others.--Piculo (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
But articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and content added must have consensus and your "criminal" addition does not. Valenciano (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is not done only by you and Akerbeltz. Much more people expressed in this article discussion in the same way than I do. --Piculo (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Who else supported the addition of criminal to the first line? Valenciano (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I say under very neutral point of view that the organization is a criminal one. And there is a total consensus about that.--Piculo (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(deindent) No there isn't. Supporters of the group would not consider it a criminal organisation. It isn't proscribed as such in many countries. Again, this article was stable for a long time and no one has supported you in adding to the first sentence material already covered later. Similar articles do not have such descriptors in the lead sentence. Valenciano (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Killing innocent people is proscribed and criminal in the entire world. If supporters of the group do not agree they could use this discussion to expose those ideas. --Piculo (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
That last post doesn't make sense Piculo, except that I'm getting the feeling you're pushing some personal agenda here. This isn't a research forum. And the suggestiong we remove "Basque" from the lead is nothing short of ridiculous. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
@Piculo, this is not a forum and the purpose of this talk page is not to "expose" anyone's ideas. Now as your revert earlier does not have consensus and broke a longstanding consensus version would you care to suggest an alternative wording before I remove it altogether? Valenciano (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Valenciano, you say Wikipedia not a forum and then you said i dont consensus. You do agree with me that they are criminal but you dont agree to put in the wikipedia. I am not speaking about anyone ideas (you were the one who said about the supporters ones), just to write the neutral true in the wikipedia. For me the term criminal is ok but i will think for a more accurate one. --Piculo (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly, I agree with you that their activities should be detailed, and that includes the racketeering, kidnapping, killing etc but simply saying "criminal" doesn't cover that. It's too vague. It needs explained and put into context i.e. do they break Spanish law for the sake of it, for financial and personal gain or for political motives? Valenciano (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Piculo, I've temporarily removed your % in the human rights section. 2 reasons - one is that it would be more appropriate in the Activity section which discusses targets, tactics and number of attacks etc. The second is that there is no reference. This is a very tricky subject and you'll notice that almost everything is referenced. I'm *not* against your addition, but it it's going to stay, it needs a reference. I hope you understand why. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again. This line: "showing the violation of human rights by ETA in relation with the civil and political rights of the Basque society" is pure POV commentary/original research. Also the figure is not stated in the ref and doesn't seem to be accurate anyway. I count 19 politicians out of 92 ETA killings, which isn't 27%. Valenciano (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights[edit]

To me, it's contrived beyond the acceptable to add a badly worded statement that ETA killings are against human rights. Well, duh, yes of course they are but why does that need pointing out in the human rights section? And the numbers of people killed are covered further down, so what does this add to the topic? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, please read the whole discussion page. There is another section about human rights. Do not duplicate things, please.--Piculo (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That section has nothing to do with this particular issue. You still haven't explained what the point of your last edit is. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the section above, it's pure POV commentary/original research. Piculo have you actually read WP:NPOV? Your contributions history shows that for the last month you've become fixated on adding your own POV into this article, almost to the point of becoming a single purpose account. If you are unable to edit this article dispassionately then I'd respectfully suggest that you take a break from it and edit other articles which you feel less strongly about. If you continue editing in this way, then I'm afraid that a request for comment on you will have to be made as you have repeatedly ignored requests to edit in a neutral way. Valenciano (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, there is another section about human rights in this page. The comments should be done there.--Piculo (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference that you added supports the numbers killed, which is already in the article and doesn't require duplication. It does not support the commentary that you're adding, which is your own POV. Valenciano (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Valenciano, please do the coments in the other section. This is a duplicated one. I did my comments there. --Piculo (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments should be made in this section, since it's a new discussion. I've also reported you for WP:3RR since despite repeated requests to discuss your changes here, you keep adding the same unsourced material. Valenciano (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I did put references to the number of people killed and about the human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piculo (talkcontribs) 11:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No you didn't. You added a reference for the number killed that's true, but as Akerbeltz noted, that's already in the article at least twice so there's no need to triplicate it. The second reference is simply a link to the UN declaration, which doesn't even mention ETA. Please have a read of WP:SYNTHESIS, adding two sources together to reach a conclusion not stated in either of them is unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I just removed the new material also. Taking the number of people killed and a UN resolution and saying that they violated human rights is synthesis. To add a statement that they violated human rights you would need to have a reliable source that makes that exact claim. GB fan (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough[edit]

is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization..

Using empty phrases like that, but extremely politically correct (sic), Wikipedia continues to demonstrate that in certain subjects, it is still a disaster. A place where instead of calling a spade a spade people turn to waste time on stupid syntactic, morphological and other nonsense arguments; where common sense seems to have been lost long ago.

ETA is a terrorist organization.

No doubt there is wikipedia users that support terrorists, their ways of thinking and even their murders. Although I think the main problem in these issues is the most absolute and continuing ignorance. And against the people who do not want to leave their ignorance, unfortunately, little can be done.

Enough is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call them a terrorist group, especially as they have recently declared a permanent ceasefire. I would probably have supported calling them terrorists beforehand; now, I think the current wording is acceptable. In fact, describing them as an "armed" group is probably inaccurate now. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If it lasts, then we'll have to rewrite it anyway to give it a more past-tense angle. I'm not going to waste my breath on the IP comment above. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Keinstein, I have no idea what you're talking about, the IPA-eu template takes me direct to the IPA page, both Wikipedia:IPA_for_Basque and Template:IPA-eu are there. Maybe your browser is buggy or something? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Konferentzia.ogv Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Konferentzia.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 permanent ceasefire[edit]

The current version of this article describes ETA as "an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization". This always seemed fine to me; however, I think it might now be time to reconsider. Since ETA declared its permanent ceasefire earlier this year, referring to them as an "armed" group is misleading. I propose we change this. What are people's thoughts? ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the definition is still OK. They still have their arms — they have just declared that they will not use them anymore. If they surrender or destroy their arms, perhaps the new definition could be "was an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization". --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
They still exist, and they are still armed, at least to the best of my knowledge. Doubtless there may be a lengthy "decomissioning" saga ahead like happened with the IRA.... 2 lines of K303 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


I had inserted the word garret in place of "rooms in attics" or somesuch. I'm not sure if there is an article yet for this term or if deserves one, but it is the most accurate term for a number of reasons. However I realise it may not be commonly used anymore especially in American English so I think I may check to make sure it has an article or that an explanation is provided in the article. I think it is importat to retain the use of this term though, and in any other articles where it would apply. Obotlig (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Javier Batarrita Elexpuru (27 March 1961), the forgotten first victim[edit]

This engineer or entrepreneur was killed by the Francoist police on a road in the nearby of Bilbao on 27 March 1961. Misidentified as a ETA member. In Batarrita's Peugeot 403 there were 2 people more, 2 entrepreneurs that were paying a visit to Bilbao to make a commercial deal. A certain José A. Martín-Ballesteros was crippled by the gunfire. The other passenger survived unscathed. Although I haven't checked it out, a 17-year-old boy called Miguel Iturbe Elizalde seems to have been killed by the Civil Guard in a similar manner on 9 November 1967 in Zugarramurdi (Navarre). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Two alleged cases of people who died after being some time in prison and released in poor health (likely tortures, or at least rough interrogation): the Venezuelan national María Mercedes Ancheta in late 1961 and José Mª Quesada from San Sebastian on 17 January 1968, the latter victim to Melitón Manzanas (and the former too, it seems). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Act of terrorism[edit]

What they did was a total act of terrorism and i like the fact that wikipedia mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, english Wikipedia is so coward, false and hypocrit that don't want to assume and recognize that ETA is indeed a terrorist organization. It seems that more than 800 killed by ETA aren't enough for them. I guess, how many do you need, english Wikipedia?, 1k?, 10k? 100k?. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Al Qaeda a terrorist group? Yes? So ETA is also a terrorist group. (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a read of the Al qaeda article, you'll see it's described as "a global militant Islamist organization", not a terrorist group. Later, we mention which countries consider it to be a terrorist group per WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. Exactly the same applies here. Valenciano (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, well. Do not use the word "terrorist" lest they offend the terrorists. With the same argument should not use the words torture, dictatorship or genocide, lest they offend the torturers, dictators and genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No, we do use the word terrorist, the key difference between here and Spanish Wikipedia, which is easily the worst of all the major language wikipedias, is that we say exactly who holds that viewpoint. Here it's clearly stated who considers ETA to be terrorist. The key difference is that we leave it up to the reader to judge and I think the statement in the lead here that ETA is "responsible for killing 829 individuals, injuring thousands and undertaking dozens of kidnappings" would lead most people to a certain conclusion without us having to ram it down their throats. Valenciano (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ETA V[edit]

According to the article:

"Nationalists who refused to follow the tenets of Marxism-Leninism and who sought to create a united front appeared as ETA-V, but lacked the support to challenge ETA.[59]"

Afaik, it was exactly the opposite - "modern" ETA is ETA-V; it was ETA-VI (the winners of the VI Conference) that dissapeared, merging with the Trotskyist movemement-- (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ETA's consideration as a terrorist group in first paragraph[edit]

Hi. I did some modification by adding ETA's consideration as a terrorist group just at the very begining of the article, in the first paragraph, because I think it is an essential part of ETA's nature and as consequence consensus exists to define ETA that way among mass media and many governments, the Spanish and French ones included. But some editors for some reason keep reverting that minimal change. I don't know why because admin Mark Arsten kept my change before protecting this article due to persistent willing to revert it for no reason by editor "Valenciano" and some other IP's.

On the other hand the reference to the ambiguous "Basque conflict" appears as an introductory term before ETA's consideration as a terrorist group. How come? The very consideration of illegal ETA's activity and consequent punishments by the Spanish and French States as a "conflict" is just a non neutral point of view from ETA's supporters and some other extremist nationalist views. Many people, both in Basque Country and Spain do not consider that there is a conflict, either armed or political, but a criminal band like many others, for example Mafia in Italy, yet nobody talks about the "Calabrese conflict". In no way assuming as true the existence of the Basque conflict by citing in the first paragraph that "ETA is the main organisation of the Basque National Liberation Movement and is the most important participant in the Basque conflict" is more objective than saying ETA is considered as a terrorist group, because consensus on both things are different. "Basque conflict" is a term coined by ETA's supporters in the Basque society and some Basque nationalists . They do so in order to relativise ETA's crimes puting them in the context of an armed conflict like a sort of war where there are opponents that kill to each other and also provoke deaths of civilians from time to time. But the truth is that ETA's activity is not matched by symmetric responses from the Spanish state. Judges and Police are not part of any conflict but do the same than in many other countries when they have to face criminal organisations like Mafia, which also has significant popular support. Plus, the Spanish Army never intervened in Basque soil to fight ETA like the British Army did in North Ireland. "Basque conflict" is not a term used beyond the restricted scenario of ETA's supporters and the closest political parties to their ideas in the Basque Country. For example you won't never hear references to the "Basque conflict" in the Spanish media, not even in moderate Basque nationalist media like Deia Newspaper. To put it simple, nobody outside extremist nationalist circles in the Basque country uses the term "Basque conflict". Whereas ETA's consideration as a terrorist group is close to universal due to the list of countries that have included ETA in their domestic list of terrorist organisations and also it is treated that way continually by the Spanish, French and Basque media. This means much stronger consensus exists in relation to ETA's consideration as a terrorist group than about the existence of the "Basque conflict". Then, why is the "Basque conflict" refered to in the introductory part of this article and also before ETA's consideration as a terrorist group?

Furthermore, ETA's motto and symbol appear before its terrorist consideration. Is it that important to cite ETA's motto before stressing it is a band that is considered as a terrorist group by EU countries and US? This shouldn't even be cited at the introductory part but somewhere else.

Also I did notice that in the Alquaeda article and the Real IRA one ,consideration of these organisations as terrorist groups is also place at first paragraph. Then why it can't be done here and even ETA's motto and symbol are introduced before? One of the random IP's that keep reverting changes whenever I place ETA's consideration as a terrorist group in first paragraph even justified its decision by sayng that doing so is not a neutral point of view. Then I must infere that the AlQuaeda page is not neutral as well.

@ "Valenciano": the sole consensus here is not to use terrorist as adjective and nobody did so. You must give some valid reason to not include ETA's consideration as a terrorist group in first paragraph unlike in many other articles about similar organisations like Real IRA and AlQuaeda. Deleting the link to the partisan terminology like "Basque conflict" at the introduction and even before that ETA's consideration as a terrorist group would be also desirable to give this article a more neutral tone and not one supportive of the ETA organisation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickrivier (talkcontribs) 11:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

>>>nobody outside extremist nationalist circles in the Basque country uses the term "Basque conflict".<<< I can't agree with that, sorry. The term has long been used as the main term in English language media. Here's a New York Times article from 30 years ago using the term "Basque conflict." Other major English language media such as the BBC and CNN also use it. You will hear it occasionally in Spanish language media e.g. here in El País, though it's much less common. The fact remains, however, it is the main term used in the English language.
Articles will differ from each other here. I much prefer the way this one is set up. ETA being classed as a terrorist group is precisely because of the people they killed. So it makes much more sense to mention the deaths, then ETA's legal status, than the other way round. I completely agree with you about the motto. That should be moved down, as being of lesser importance. Let's see if someone else weighs in before we change things though. Valenciano (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


The European Union has never supressed ETA from being a terrorist organization. The 2011 document cited in this and other article is just an update of the original list, not a new version. Please check the following link, where there exists the consolidated text. As you can see not only ETA, but also its pupper organizations are included. I proceed to remove the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


>> Thousands march in Bilbao in support of ETA(Lihaas (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).


>> Basque group ETA to put weapons 'out of use' (Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)).

What Roberto Saviano says is nonsense.[edit]

Saviano is by no means an authority on ETA. What's next? Lyndon Larouche? David Icke? Daniel Estulin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)