Talk:ETA (separatist group)/Archive 3

message: :This archive covers a flurry of discussion that preceded a move toward an attempt at dispute resolution via mediation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I deleted that paragraph in a wider edit of the Context section. 
I did because it's totally bad explained and surely misplaced. Aralar is a recent break up of Batasuna and is a minor party with one seat in the Basque parliament. It could be justified to mention but it's more proper of the articles Batasuna, MLNV, Basque nationalism or some other. It's not really relevant here, specially as there are other much bigger Basque nationalist parties such as EA and PNV that do reject ETA's means. 
:Nafarroa Bai is not a party: it is a colaition of Aralar, EA and (I think) PNV. It's not even markedly left-wing. It's just that all those nationalist parties have little support in Navarre and joined forces. 
You are mixing things and including suff where they do not deserve to be. I am also undoing this. --Sugaar 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other Nationalist parties that have the same goals as ETA but openly reject their means: they are: EAJ-PNV, Eusko Alkartasuna, Aralar and, in the Northern Basque Country, Abertzaleen Batasuna. Additionally a number of left-wing parties such as Ezker Batua and Batzarre also support self-determination but are not so markedly in favor of independence.
I think this comprises well the other parties that may share some of ETA's goals, while rejecting violence. I doubt that Nafarroa Bai, being a coalition of some of said parties deserves a mention here. 
I take the supression of the term anti-repressive as potentially valid. Yet most readers won't know what the article talks about unless a minimalistic explanation of some sort is given. That'w why I introduced the term, as I can't imagine anything as sort and self-explaining.
For the record, Askatasuna (formerly Amnistiaren Aldeko Batzordeak, best known as Gestoras pro-Amistía) is an organization that, along with others as Senideak (relatives), Gurasoak (parents), etc. helps ETA and other "political" prisioners of the BNLM, as well as their relatives, they make regular demonstrations to demand their relocation in the Basque Country, to denounce torture and abuses of the prision system, etc. Hence "anti-repressive" may be POV but also defining and the term themsleves use. --Sugaar 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CONTEXT

message: I've restored the previous version. It's a major edit without discussion and really, I don't think it helped the least. You could at least have kept the basic structure that was discussed before. Mass-editing this way you make things difficult for review. 
"Unionist" is not any BNLM's tag. They don't use that normally. It's my own adition to make things understandable for English speakers, as it compares well with the Northern Irish conflict. The only alternative term I can think of is "Spanish nationalist" but this possibly even less of your taste. "Unionist" seems much more neutral. 
These parties like to call themselves "non-nationalist" but they are obviously Spanish nationalist. 
I'm for keeping the tactics section as I wrote it. The rocket lanuchers may be "anecdotical" but in a time was very common and the article can't ignore it. The commuications is part of ETA's modus operandi and hence should be in the tactics or maybe in other section. In any case it must be mentioned. In my POV, it is a tactic of non-military (political, propaganda...) nature and it is often related with attacks, so it is relevant. 
I've also moved a comment on ETA stopping targetting politicians in 2005 to the corresponding line mong the tactics, where it belongs (it was misplaced in the middle of nowhere). --Sugaar 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TARGETS

message: Again you have done more than you admit: you have retouched the previously disputed sentence without discussing it in the section I opened for it. The quotation marks are possibly wrong because we don't know for sure if such exact sentence was made. Can you source it? I'm deleting those quotetion marks until proper source is given. --Sugaar 10:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POLITICAL SUPPORT

message: I have archived one page from this one, since it is getting quite long. Not sure whether I proceeded observing wikipedia guidelines in the matter: feel free to revert or fine tune. Thanks Mountolive 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you archived very well. Even with excess of prudence maybe: the last archived comment (if I'm correct) was of April 1. --Sugaar 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There were some comment series ending in October 2006. You may have seen only the first comment from 2004, but there have been recent additions. I haven't checked whether they are relevant. --Error 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. You must be right, since I just copy pasted en masse roughly half of the talk page, without paying attention at the particular edits dates. How are we supposed to put the recent comments back? because they may make no sense without the previous, older, comments. As I said at the time of archiving, feel free to restore completely. Mountolive 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You archived well. If something archived needs to be brought back, the best thing would be that the interested person quotes what was said or makes a reference link to that section along with a summary. Now and then it is a must to archive crowded discussions as this one for mere navigability. Archives are there and can be used for reference as much as needed. --Sugaar 12:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving talk page

message: It stated that ETA's goals are "socialism and independence as such". I've placed the main points of the Democratic Alternative (already 11 years old) instead with two online references. 
I know this is under discussion but it was so contraditory with the "Aims" section (and reality) and it's so well documented that I couldn't do less. --Sugaar 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewed the intro