Talk:Basque conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

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

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

What is DRIL? Your reference is not valid (nothing about to Amara station) and this one it is [1]. There is no doubt it was ETA.SantiTNS (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? DRIL means Revolutionary Iberian Directorate of Liberation. See Henrique Galvao. He claimed those bombings. Twice. In late June 1960 and in late January 1961. Begoña Urroz with 100% certainty was not killed by ETA. The DRIL bomber most likely was a certain Reyes Marín Novoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Mikel Buesa's brother was killed by ETA and "Libertad Digital" is a right-wing web. _"" (note: the late Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo so far as I know arrived from Cuba in mid-July 1960, so he had an alibi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is no information but PROPAGANDA[edit]

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

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

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

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

Should the lead say why the term is controversial?[edit]

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

What you're adding is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a group of academics. Why are their opinions more important than say, that of the Associate professor of International Relations at the University of the Basque Country, who is clearly no ETA sympathiser and has no issue using the term "conflict"? The rest is mostly your editorialising since the source doesn't mention "non-Basque nationalist public opinion" or "a distortion of reality" and we need to stick with what the sources say. If you can find other sources which say that that was the reason why it was controversial, we can discuss including it in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you denying the term is controversial in Spain and the reason for which it is controversial? Would you like more sources? No one is denying the term is used, the sources just say it is controversial. The lead already said it was controversial, the source simply mentions why. Where is the OR? It summarizes the content of the source. How is the opinion of the vast majority of the Spanish population and that of a significant part of the basque country (including the civilian victims of ETA the majority of which were Basque) undue weight? We can take this to RfC if you like. You are censoring the content of the source, unless you do not speak Spanish maybe? If you are non-Spanish you may be reverting in good faith out of lack of knowledge, if you are Spanish it gets increasingly hard to assume good faith.

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

Given that it was me who added the fact that the term was controversial to the lead in the first place it's hardly likely that I'd be denying the controversy surrounding it. If you look at my article creations in this area, lack of knowledge of the Basque conflict is also something that it's hard to accuse me of. Very simply we can't give WP:UNDUE weight to one source in the lead (it's already in the main body.) Find other sources which support those claims and we can discuss adding it to the lead. Valenciano (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, you've now made 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, please don't edit war and readd that material while we are in the middle of discussing it here. One of the sources you're adding is not acceptable as a reliable source at all. This one for example is simply a "letter to the editor" and unacceptable both in the lead and main body. Valenciano (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've added mention of the disproportionate number of casualties to the lead, based on reliable sources and without editorialising. Valenciano (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok Valenciano I agree with your compromise edits. Sorry for the tone, I freak out with some of the sources used here. I know the Basque country and its easy to stumble on really dodgy sources. ETA is finished but its ecosystem is still very much there. Anything from the Nationalist party (PNV) or Basque government is fine, but I don't think the abertzale left should be considered as acceptable for Wikipedia. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember that you are not deciding absolutely anything on POV, it will be fine if you just stick to complying with WP policies and keeping it cooperative like any other editor, instead of putting the burden on others. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I do not fully understand [2]. Is he calling the author a campaigner? I should remember Iñaki LL that he is not deciding absolutely anything on POV.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Copycating? (...) That is all you have to say. Other than that, it would be enough if you just kept attention and read thoroughly what other wikipedians have pointed just a bit earlier in the summary line, and keep it cooperative, instead of hurrying to anathematize inconvenient authors. Thanks for not WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Again. How is saying (bear in mind the reliable source is saying it, not me) those authors have divulgated a particular narrative is "anathematize"?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question on sources[edit]

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

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

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

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

The question is not whether the source is dubious which is at issue, it's that it violates WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. WP:LEAD states that the lead should not introduce material covered in the main body. That's exactly what this edit does. What makes his views and opinions more notable than countless others who have written on the subject? That's where WP:UNDUE comes in. There are further problems with these two edits which don't come close to the neutral tone that we aim for and also steer into editorialising territory. Commentary like >>>is known for inflating the death toll in this so-called "side"<<< is what I'd expect to see in a blog, not an encyclopedia article and also is contrary to our manual of style (see WP:SCAREQUOTES for why so-called is unacceptable.) I have absolutely no doubt that there are sources which question the Euskal Memoria foundation list, but it would be good to include more than one and to present it a neutral way, as alternative opinion, rather than fact. Finally, can we avoid commenting on other editors, please? Valenciano (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
a) Valenciano I get, for starters, that we can include the deleted content from the lead in the body, right? What makes his views and opinions than countless others? I don't know which are the others. Maybe it has been included in the lead because the work has has been reviewed, it's state of the art (2016) and is already cited as an important progress on the scientific understanding of the issue, unlike so-so links to the NYT et. al??--Asqueladd (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
b) According to you, if the scientific source cites:

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

— Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla (2016) pp. 52-53
is it a fact or an opinion?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
c) If the issue 1 of the journal of Euskal Memoria proclaims the aim of Euskal Memoria Fundazioa is:

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

— Euskal Fundazioa 1 (2010) last page. cfr Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla (2016) p. 52
is it a fact or an opinion?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
d) Mentioning that Euskal Memoria Fundazioa tries to impose a particular narrative and is linked to the abertzale left is the fringe opinion of a loony or rather a well stablished view?[3][4][5][6][7].--Asqueladd (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll answer your points in turn. a) yes, mentioning it in the body as fine, but it should ideally be qualified "Gaizka Fernández Soldevilla argued that...." for example. You speak rather dismissively of the New York Times source, however, the author of that piece is not some clueless American, writing from afar about topics which he has no knowledge of, it's Paddy Woodworth who's been writing about Basque topics for 40 years and has published at least 2 books on the subject. b) it's a claim and needs to be presented as a claim c) counterpoints or disputes about the accuracy of that source can be made in a neutral dispassionate way. Language like "including here an alleged bias from the academic historiography), is known for inflating the death toll in this so-called "side" " is not that neutral and dispassionate way. d) Some of those, especially the ABC source, are exactly the type of criticisms of the Euskal Memoria source which I was suggesting we seek and which can go in, bearing in mind the WP:NPOV issue I mentioned in reply to point c. Valenciano (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Valenciano But how can someone seriously state that the "Basque Conflict is a taboo" in Spain when it was the main topic of the news and political discussions for nearly three decades in Spain. Perhaps he was just trying to say something else and it came out wrong? The statement is inherently stupid. Its like saying discussing World War II is a taboo in the UK. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The comments above are inflammatory, including (again) a personal attack/attempt at misrepresenting me (above, removed by me) e.g. this (what the hell are you talking about, "devastated"...), and straight POV considerations, conspicuously Manichean in their claims. There is a problem with the total inability of Asilah1981 to engage in constructive editing (2 years now), and keeps attacking editors he does not like (reiterative). I do know Asqueladd only slightly, but he seems to be in the same path, requested by Asilah1981 to come here, to nothing constructive really but WP:BATTLEGROUND. What we get is anger and rage, and on these grounds they seem to claim they are just right, so let's anathematize inconvenient authors with absolute lack of nuance, slogans and headlines, well done. Btw, you may use that dubious book, I will not refute it, I wonder what lies really behind the big words, I have seen too many official versions. Ironically enough, the Spanish government refused its participation in a Truth Commission (with international witnesses) on all events related to the conflict some years ago, the solution backed by the Basque society, very telling. Let's create a demon (taboo). In the same way that it rejects United Nations recommendations on torture, and on and on and on... Indeed very hurtful topics all of them.
Both for Asqueladd and Asilah1981, Do not put the burden on me, be responsible for your own editions and smooth editing. Clear cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT include [8] and this (Asqueladd), after my summary line, and this (referenced information), this (misrepresentation of sources), reiteration of misrepresentation of sources, misleading summary line,POV based summary line/misrepresentation of sources. I am at a loss really. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, care to explain why it is a dubious book, Iñaki LL? The reviews I have read about it do not claim that, but the contrary. Again, you are not deciding absolutely anything on POV (your words). "And avoid commenting on other editors, please" or something like that?--Asqueladd (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Good reviews from where? Obviously, it is a mirror of the official version according to the statements made by high-ranking officials of the Sp Govt about what official truth must be. For a start, did they cross-examined their data with Euskal Memoria to know their view? I strongly doubt, although I have to say I have not read neither Euskal Memoria's report, nor that book. However, that is not the central contention point. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I am perplexed. It is the central point of this "thread". You have questioned the book, and I have asked you why. I'll bring you the reviews in a hurry, don't worry.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Are you talking for yourself? You are "shocked" / "devastated" (sic) and all the drama you can add. I did not tell you to prove the source is reliable, that is your own conclusion. I put the burden of proper editing on you, you conspicuously reverted edits without even reading community input added before, eager as you were to rush into your revelations. As I told you if you read it above (again, take the pain of reading others' comments as I am taking the pain to read your's), these readings are absolute quarantine for me but you may use them, cause I am not wasting a minute more with that. I have been attacked and misrepresented again by Asilah1981 and that is my obvious concern. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Again. You said the source is dubious here. The title of this section is "question on sources" (as a source has been questioned... by you) and the purpose is to discern if that claim holds any water, and not to make a rant of your problems with Asilah1981, which you can deal with elsewhere. I get I have proved you the source is reliable, despite your earlier bold (as you haven't actually read it) claim.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Still did not read the links I provided? With re to the sources, I told you those works are, personally, straight quarantine as far as I am concerned, per my own experience, and they make very good headlines for some media. Now WP is not a WP:FORUM, and this is going nowhere. You may use them as far as I am concerned, I won't waste a minute of mine more on the matter. But I dearly recommend you to keep your rage for yourself, if you are unable to control yourself or engage in verbal incontinence, I urge you to have your own webpage, failing that go back to where you come, the ES:WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, happy to know your views because your own experience (whatever that means) means zilch as far as we are concerned. I think you are projecting yourself. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Good job. I've no argument against any of those changes. I think also we could remove the mention of the taboo topic from the lead, since that's not in the main body. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, after all..., sorry I strongly object to removing the taboo mention, it puts the reader in the right framework of what is being said in the published, government subsidized corporate press in Spain, very relevant indeed. May I remind, I did not add the source. "According to" is fine, it remains important for a balanced view in a topic so polarized in Spain. The aim of contributions is to make a better article, not suit anyone's personal political orientation or replicate Spanish official messages. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you find other sources which make the same claim? Valenciano (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The taboo topic? I do not need, it is in the reference. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the taboo topic. The point is we have multiple refs saying that it's controversial and the controversy is covered in the main body. So adding the Woodworth/NYT source to those is fine, that meets WP:LEAD. However, we only have one ref which says it is taboo and nowhere do we say so in the main body, so that doesn't meet WP:LEAD and is getting into WP:UNDUE territory, since other sources don't support that claim. Valenciano (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, where does it say that there needs to be more than one source? The statement is not gratuitous in that it gives the reader a compelling approach to what the topic's treatment is in Spain, not so much in the Basque Country, where different and nuanced views on the matter live together, not black and white. For a solution, I would settle on a "the issue has been referred to as a taboo in Spain". Iñaki LL (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it is a particularly compelling/informative phrasement at all (raising the issue of a conventional two-side war conflict would often meet outright rejection or attempts to silence in the rest of Spain could be a more "compelling" and "informative" way to insert what I interpret the author means -of course, that is OR, just as like the opinion of Iñaki about the statement giving a compelling approach to the topic's treatment in Spain- but you need quality sources to make it to the lead. Anyways, per Valenciano, the thing is the statement is violating WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Those problems could be easily solved removing the statement from the lead and including "According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict was nearly a taboo issue in Spain." in the body.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you mean "quality sources" published data leaked straight from police bodies and information lacking any cross-examination with all the parts involved. Anyways, for compromise, I should agree with According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict is nearly a taboo issue in Spain.. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah 1) Again, no one here gets to "quarantine" reliable sources per his/her own experience 2) The According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict is nearly a taboo issue in Spain should be included in the body, not in the lead, because it fails to meet WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Iñaki LL, "According to Paddy Woodworth raising the issue of a Basque conflict was nearly a taboo issue in Spain" is fine in the body. However, unless other sources also make that claim it can't go in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi. We are all here to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. I am planning to eventually (no hurry) discuss some tweaks of the lead in this talk page according to the already cited sources and this very recent English-language one:
Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The list of 829 victims (currently of 823) by the Spanish Interior Ministry (Home Ministry)[edit]

That list doesn't include the some 30 people killed by the Comandos Autónomos Anticapitalistas. The list of 858 and that of 845 include them.


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

A biased title[edit]

I do not think the name "Basque conflict" is neutral. Spain is a peaceful democratic country since 1978. In addition it is a highly developed country and, in particular, the Basque country is one of the most developed regions within Spain. If we talk about conflict we are supporting the point of view of ETA propaganda that depicts 40 years of bombs and killings as a sort of conflict when, in fact, there are a armed group who perpetrate these crimes. There are not two sides that can be compared. It is not the Government vs ETA or Spain vs ETA. The article should be re-named or delete it. A possible, more neutral name might be "Basque separatism problem" or "Basque nationalism problem" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrisolia (talkcontribs) 14:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Have a quick look at previous discussions on this point (link here.) Conflict does not imply that one side is right or wrong or that both sides are equal, it simply means there is a disagreement between two sides. Valenciano (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
ValencianoI proposed an edit but it was reverted as OR (look in history of article). I thought it would lay this matter to rest and kind of solve the eternal "conflict" conflict. Basically I think its a linguistic issue. In Spanish "conflict" has much stronger connotations, (it implies armed conflict) than what it might be in English. I think this is the basic issue. Im not saying this should be explained in detail because that indeed would be OR but somehow it would help to state somewhere in the lead that people objecting to the term are defining it as an armed conflict - this is true as can be inferred from the arguments given in sources which object to the term, they say its not like Northern Ireland, Palestine etc... meaning they are objecting to the concept of an armed conflict not to the concept of a political conflict which evidently no one in Spain denies (Spain is an ocean of political conflicts, even within each political party). My edit was in good faith, this edit warring otherwise is going to draw out into the next century. Inaki hates me quite intensely, maybe with good reason since I was hard on him in the past and is also convinced Im engaging in sockpuppetry, so he reverted me, but I really think this is a solution to move forward on this rather annoying circular debate. It will never end otherwise. Inaki, I also seek your opinion on this in Good Faith. We both speak Spanish to a native or near native (in my case) level so it is worth discussing openly. There are other more important topics we are likely to clash on in the future and this one is a waste of energy for everyone. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Asqueladd Could you find a source which could support my above proposal? It would really help, otherwise Spaniards (Basque and non Basque) are going to continue complaining on the talk page of this article ad infinitum.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Asilah1981. The point you bring is already "somewhat" (read the source) dealt with in the body Granja Saiz, Pablo & Mees 2011, p. 431 (not necessarily fitting 100% your OR personal view). The changes I was going to propose above are more in the line of mentioning in the lead the basque conflict is also dealt/understood as metanarrative, issue which is already dealt with in the body using academic sources (plus the English language one mentioned above and not used yet). As I have said I am not in any hurry and invite everyone to read the new English language one, before getting into it. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) PD: I do not think bringing your beef with Iñaki (or a beef with you) here helps in any matter
Ok cool. Regarding Inaki, I was just trying to make a parenthesis in the beef to solve the matter, see if we can all come to an agreement and forget the past hostile environment, at least to tackle this. I dont think Inaki should disagree, he is a translator by profession so he knows the subtle differences between English and Spanish in use of certain terms. I won't add any more. Just leaving the suggestion open for discussion. Inaki, again, I apologize for past hostilities. I have no sockpuppets and we should let bygones be bygones. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you're probably right regarding the root of the problem being the different meanings of the words conflict and conflicto in English and Spanish, but this would need reliable sources to back it up before we can add it. I can also only echo what Asqueladd said: staying focused on the content and avoiding commenting on other contributors' motives is the best way to move forward. Valenciano (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Valenciano Ok Just one last thought. The issue of WP:OR is definitely there, I don´t deny it and I doubt there is a source explicitly discussing the subtle different connotations between "conflict" and "conflito" in this context. However, modifying the sentence to something on the lines of the term "Basque Conflict" (normally understood as an armed conflict) is controversial in Spain..." I think wouldn't violate policy. Current sources do support those 6 extra words om the sentence. Its a simple solution and doesn't require drawing complex intellectual arguments into the lead which are going to be contested - I suspect Asqueladd and Iñaki won't come to an agreement on a text describing how wrong the meta-narrative of Basque conflict is - at least in the lead. (btw, regarding Iñaki, I wasn't having a go at him. Its a spillover from a discussion he is currently having with my mentor regarding possible sockpuppetry on this article - just wanted to reassure him.).Asilah1981 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained edits[edit]

Asilah1981, please explain each of your edits carefully and in detail in an edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Baffling edit summary[edit]

Valenciano, I take your interventions as very valid, while I may not agree with some of them. Sorry to say, this is not the case, and I am lost here. Now let us play criteria based, not based on point of view. This is a fully valid reference for the EN WP, it provides really detailed information, something newspapers often do not.

What is your admonition about really? There comes this previous editor with a gratuituous "Substituting Mickey Mouse Source. World Socialist Website is not serious" (what kind of edit summary is that?). Well, that is POV, WP:OR, or if your prefer, WP:CENSOR. Perhaps that source has been refuted as a reliable source before, and then I have missed that information, since it has not been cited either in the edit summary, you might as well enlighten me. Let us play based on criteria, not on opinions. As long as nothing else is pointed to the contrary, The Socialist is a reliable source. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, there is nothing whatsoever baffling or unclear about Valenciano's edit summary. If you believe it was baffling, please quote it here in its entirety and someone will explain it to you. There is no need to call a clearly worded neutral edit summary "baffling" simply because it refuted your own edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iñaki LL, the question of the reliability of World Socialist Website has been discussed several times. One of the first such discussions I can find is here, with a clear consensus that it isn't a WP:RS. Scanning later discussions, I don't see anything that's changed. This discussion stops short of ruling it out but concludes that it isn't the best source available. From a subsequent discussion: "Regarding BCN, they lie in the credibility category of don't use." This is the latest I can find, concluding that it's an advocacy source which may be a "good source for socialist opinion" but not for other purposes. An earlier discussion had reached a similar conclusion, as an advocacy source, maybe, but better sources can be found. In contrast, it's highly unlikely that similar concerns have been raised about the Guardian, a longstanding reputable newspaper and the fifth most read online English newspaper site in the world. If you believe those conclusions are wrong, you're welcome to seek fresh input at WP:RSN. Valenciano (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Valenciano for taking the time. Ok then, I do not know all the issues happening at the W:RS ANIs. The most important problem lies with the charged edit summary by Asilah1981, an editor that has got us used to his irregular edit summaries (for one) and problems of credibility, and not proper, consistent description. A "Discouraged source replaced" or "Per W:RSN decision" would have done the trick, at least to come and get down to details in the talk page. Yet you did not note that in your edit summary, which is important, and came straight to revert me with a summary line saying one source is better than the other (well...) , without citing the circumstances surrounding that WP:RSN decision. Yes it is a pain, but this is how the EN WP is organized. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)