Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 4

message: I suggest this is unproven and given this sensitive issue ought to be deleted. Best try to stick to Proven links and facts. Over to you guys Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.
:Against. Allegations of ETA presence in Colombia are not unusual. A statement by the Colombian army clears things. An English article would be better though. --Error 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Colombia External Link Be deleted 

message: I was copyediting for clarity and grammar, trying not to change any meaning or content. I found this sentence-
"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace, reaching its peak after the 'Burgos Trials' of 1970, which drew international attention to the organization's cause and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime, and their assassination of Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco in 1973 (Carrero Blanco was appointed by Franco as his successor in the rule of Spain).
I don't want to change content, but this reads really poorly and makes very little sense grammatically. Does this mean-
"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace, which reached its peak after the 'Burgos Trials' of 1970. This trial drew international attention to the organization's cause and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime. In 1972 they assasasinated Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco, who was appointed by Franco do be his successor."
Or this-
"During Franco's era, ETA had considerable public support beyond the Basque populace. The 'Burgos Trials' of 1970, and their 1973 assassination of Almirante Luis Carrero Blanco, Franco's chosen successor, drew international attention to the organization's cause, and highlighted the repressive nature of the Franco regime."
I'm not sure which is the intended meaning, but that chunk of sentence needs to obe broken into readable pieces. back to the copyedit now. 
Resonanteye 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither, actually. I'll reword more appropriately in the article rather than explain here. - Jmabel | Talk 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: grammar and stuff like that

message: We all dislike violence, at least I trust we do, however I feel uncomfotable discribing Eta as this because it is in breach of wikipedia guidlines. I would like to point out that at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words with controversial or multiple meanings we do have a whole section on "Terrorist/Terrorism". Now this is just a guideline and not a policy, but a few quotes from it that suggest we should avoid terrorism here include:
It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person
Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."
So we don't even call Al-Qaeda terroists, All considered I suggest we call them an 'Armed Paramilitary organization'. Mark us street Dec 5th 2006.
:I have a bad network day, so I didn't check the current text, but the idea is that the Wikipedia narrator can't use POV terms, but referenced sources and quotations can. Hence we say that ETA is terrorist according to this and that list. --Error 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Error is somehow right: to say that Spain or (say) Tonga consider ETA a "terrorist organization" is perfectly valid (specially if it's documented, something I'm not sure about right now). Still we (i.e. Wikipedia) must avoid that use of such "power-words" in the rest of the text for the sake of objectivity and NPOV. --Sugaar 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in agreement with you both Mark us street 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer guys to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. You don't have to argue further. Pretty clear. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 09:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling People Terrorists 

message: What is the current status of Batasuna in France?
They are in the lists of terrorists of the European ministers but :es:Batasuna says it is not illegal in France.
According to this 2003 page, it is registered as a cultural association.
Does somebody know for sure?
--Error 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Batasuna is legal in all the EU but Spain. EU never accepted the radical political measures of Spain. In my knowledge Batasuna is a legal political party in France, as much as it can be the EAJ-PNB.  I never read anything about a "cultural association". --Sugaar 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batasuna in France

message: The Universidad del País Vasco is widely known as the cradle of many armed members of ETA. Also known
as the school in which ETA members can get easily their degrees on Law.
  "Easy" means: without ever setting foot on university campus; without ever sitting an exam; without ever
  writing an essay; being illegally immatriculated in a university where attendance is compulsory (how could 
  a prison inmate attend classes anyway? For that you have UNED in Spain). And last: how could you flunk a 
  "student" who is a member of an organization that KILLS people?
:There are also University professors and students threatened by ETA. Don't paint all them the same color. --Error 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Could somebody provide a reference for so? Should I have added the tag "citation needed" on my own? If that is the case, how does somebody add that tag? :P --Taraborn 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  for you. --Error 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for snake representing politics and axe violence 

message: Any justification for the removal of the details on the KAS Alternative? --Error 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see ETA aims section above. Mountolive | Talk 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KAS Alternative

message: Image is going to be deleted. just a heads up. Bawolff 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Looks to me like this part, at the end of the intro 
On March 22, 2006 the organization declared a "permanent ceasefire." ETA broke the ceasefire with a car bomb attack on December 30, 2006 at Barajas International Airport, Madrid killing two Ecuadorians
should be removed, since it is exhaustively treated in the relevant section below. It was justified back in the day when the "permanent ceasefire" was ongoing, also just after it was broken but, at this point, it is redundant and out of place. Mountolive | Talk 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In absence of comments, I have removed it now. Again, the reason is that it is treated in depth in the relative section and it does not belong in the lead anymore, since it has lost factuality and, besides, the most concerned people seem to be expecting a new communiqué from ETA stating their latest stand, which shall replace this outdated one. Mountolive | Talk 03:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing outdated part 

message: :Image:ETAlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ETAlogo.jpg

message: :Image:ETAlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ETAlogo.jpg