Talk:ETA (separatist group)

ETA V

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--194.38.144.2 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bump. This should be reviewed. --MarioGom (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

ETA was a terrorist organization, not just a separatist group. 136.173.162.129 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph says quite clearly "ETA is classified as a terrorist group..." Maybe that should now read "ETA was classified as a terrorist group..."? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Following our manual of style (MOS:TERRORIST) the article describes the group as terrorist with in-text attribution: ETA was classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the European Union. This convention was followed by a plurality of domestic and international media, which also referred to the group as "terrorists". --MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA killed 850 people, and people all over the country were always potential targets of their bombs. Children or adults. Simply labeling them as "separatists" is Orwellian. 83.33.227.157 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is a contentious label and its use is very limited as per Wikipedia rules. There is already an in-text attribution, but we as Wikipedians are supposed to represent a neutral point of view.

As for the 850 people, I am sorry if this topic upsets you - however, this appears to be an emotional argument. The definition of terrorism is not "killing 850 people". Home Army for example killed 10 people per day in Warsaw alone, yet nobody had ever called this organization terrorist. Brat Forelli🦊 22:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but as MarioGom stated that "Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the European Union" classifies it as terrorist group. Reparare (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Quote from Der Spiegel

Any objections to this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ETA_(separatist_group)&diff=852795421&oldid=852551709 80.111.16.75 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote is from March 1974 -- 44 years ago: [1]. The exact quote (translated into English) is "Our relations with the IRA are good, very good." This adds nothing to the information already in that paragraph in the Wikipedia article, which already says:

ETA is known to have had 'fraternal' contacts with the Provisional Irish Republican Army; the two groups have both, at times, characterized their struggles as parallel. Links between the two groups go back to at least March 1974. ETA purchased Strela 2 surface-to-air missiles from the IRA and in 2001 unsuccessfully attempted to shoot down a jet carrying the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar. It has also had links with other militant left-wing movements in Europe and in other places throughout the world.

References

Therefore at best a direct link to the Spiegel article could be used as an additional citation for "Links between the two groups go back to at least March 1974." Quoting the article directly would be redundant. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Use it as an additional citation. 'Good, very good' sounds closer than 'fraternal' (in day-to-day speech), so it adds something. I'd put a one-sentence direct quote in the reference rather than in the body of the article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

ETA was a terrorist group, not only an armed band

I do not know why my edit referring to ETA as a terrorist group is being removed by a biased user. ETA has been classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the European Union and many other states. Hiding this fact is biased and poorly informed. It should appear in the title loud and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRectificator (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

TheRectificator, rationale: Talk:ETA (separatist group)#Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018. --MarioGom (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Omiting terrorist here would be an attempt to launder the organization and would constitute censorship. Truthslover (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Our content is based on this Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not the Spanish Wikipedia's. The relevant ones are WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring facts to whitewash a terrorist group is awful. These assassins and kidnappers committed murders, bombings, extortions, and threatened thousands of individuals for political gains. They were (are, as the disbandment was never confirmed by truly independent consultants) a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.94.235 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The emotion of your response is a good example of why terms like 'terrorist' are best avoided in an encyclopaedia. No one is denying the beastly nature of ETAs activities, however, Wikipedia is designed to describe, not to judge and describe it does. Virtually every such article whether it's on Al-Qaeda, the IRA or indeed ETA will list the various notable institutions that have proscribed them as terrorists. This is to my mind a much better system than having an emotional response. The near unanimous use of the term 'banda terrorista ETA' in Spanish media is much like the term 'IRA-Sinn Féin' used by Northern Irish Loyalists. Irrespective of how accurate such assignations may be, they come from a partisan position and are best avoided as a term of description by a neutral narrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.224.166 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

With this logic we can't call any group a terrorist group since no group is solely formed for the purpose of creating terror, but these terrorist organizations employ terrorist tactics, effectively giving them the definition as terrorist.

By this definition ETA was a terrorist organization first and foremost. Reparare (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these are the Wikipedia guideline and if we are to abide by them, then you cannot present the word "terrorist" in an objective way.

Conversely, I could argue that ETA are freedom fighters. Their purpose was indeed fighting for national liberation, so that checks out. And were their actions completely consistent with the organizations that are generally considered freedom fighters, such as the Home Army? Yes, they were.

Heck, I could even present sources that indeed call ETA freedom fighters:

• ETA, on the other hand, were forced to defend Basque rights militarily as a result of broken democratic institutions and encroaching tyranny. Therefore, ETA remain freedom fighters.
• Weapons proliferation tends to be a multi-stage process; once abandoned by a primary user such as the Bosnian Serbs of the mid-1990s, arms return to circulation and “migrate” to new users such as ETA freedom fighters.

See what I mean? Clearly the 'freedom fighter' term is more accurate, since it was not only their actions that made them such, but also their goal - as opposed to "terrorism" which could only be an assessment of their actions.

But we cannot do that. And we cannot use the label of "terrorism" either.

References

Brat Forelli🦊 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this article does a good job of capturing ETA's actions and stance in its detailed section, but I think it's still let down by its summary that describes it as a "separatist" organisation. They were not mainly known for advocating separatism, but for killing people to accomplish it. This is made more difficult by the fact that many people's opinion on whether ETA's violence was justified or not changed radically after Spain's transition to democracy, as it's easier to justify resistance to a regime widely viewed as illegitimate. In the context of a liberal western democracy, where the Basque Country had achieved official status for its language, as well as its own parliament and police force, there is no way to describe a group that murders civilians in order to achieve ideological ends as anything other than terrorist. The very definition of terrorism in our own Wikipedia article is "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims". This same article even uses ETA as one of the three examples on the usage of the term "terrorism" in its third paragraph. I am all for discouraging loaded language, but the international consensus has always been that ETA was a terrorist organisation since at least the end of the dictatorship. Keeping in mind the Manual of Style section on Contentious Labels, can the first paragraph be re-written to reflect this?

The end of the first paragraph describes the situation as it originally was: "It engaged in a campaign of bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings throughout Spain and especially the Southern Basque Country against the regime, which was highly centralised and hostile to the expression of non-Castilian minority identities.", but this fails to account for its change over time. In the first 16 years of ETA's existence, Franco's regime can be accurately described like this, however, the democratically elected institutions of the last 33 years of ETA's existence cannot, and I would argue that describing them as a "regime" is itself NPOV and uses loaded language. I am using here 1959–1975 as the period of dictatorship, 1978–2011 as the period of democracy, and leaving out 1975–1978 altogether (transition). I'm not sure how to best re-word the paragraph but I think it is suffering from bias in its current wording. MFdeS (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna is the official name, ETA is well known shortform. Correctly the tite has to be Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Pleas change this. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Outdoor-Bro: I have opened a move request below. --MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, with consensus leaning against the proposed move. BD2412 T 02:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ETA (separatist group) → Euskadi Ta Askatasuna – Rationale:

• The article should be moved to provide natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, WP:ACRONYMTITLE: Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation [...]. One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation.)
• Background: ETA is the abbreviation for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. The abbreviation is overwhelmingly more used in routine press coverage both in English and Spanish, but the full name is still used in the press. In recent years, I've seen the full name increasingly present in the press, since now the press tends to do in-depth articles rather than routine coverage.
• Search test: Note that a search test is futile, since the high ambiguity of the abbreviation ETA.
• Note that both Spanish and Basque Wikipedias use the full name (eu, es). These Wikipedias have different policies though, so I'm just noting this as context. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Why don't use English name of the terrorist organisation like ETA. According to WP:USEENGLISH because it is English Wikipedia, this name should be called in English. According to me, the English name of ETA is "Basque Homeland and Liberty". I would support it to moved to that English name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.95.122 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline here is WP:COMMONNAME. Absolutely no one on earth uses the name "Basque Homeland and Liberty" to refer to the group. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Translations to English are sometimes used, but they are very uncommon and there is no consensus on the exact translation. For example, the United States Department of State sometimes used Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) ([2]) but also Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) ([3]), the Britannica starts is article as ETA, abbreviation of Basque Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (“Basque Homeland and Liberty”) ([4]) and the BBC has used different forms, for example ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Freedom ([5]). So English translations are usually Basque Homeland and Freedom, Basque Homeland and Liberty, Basque Fatherland and Liberty... none of them is really common. When the full name is used, it is usually the original Basque form (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna). --MarioGom (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support move to Basque long form name as Euskadi Ta Askatasuna to provided natural disambiguatoon of the page. But i Oppose someone who suggest change the article to English name as Basque Homeland and Freedom, Basque Homeland and Liberty because no consensus what exact the translation name to used in English Wikipedia while there are different names in English to that organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.239.17 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom's arguments. I looked through the archives as well and it appears that there's only been one discussion about this and I didn't find the arguments against Euskadi Ta Askatasuna terribly convincing. Nole (chat·edits) 00:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose ETA is WP:COMMONNAME for this organisation in English language publications.Andrewgprout (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

ETA is the most common name, as stated in the initial rationale. However, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna is also used in English language publications and provides natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). I would say the usage pattern is similar to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and, maybe to a lesser extent, the Irish Republican Army (IRA). --MarioGom (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrewgprout. In the unlikely possibility that consensus would coalesce around Basque Homeland and Freedom or Basque Homeland and Liberty, the English forms of Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, in the same manner that consensus coalesced around the main title header Irish Republican Army [with The IRA redirecting to it], or coalesced around the main title header Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, rather than Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC, both of which redirect to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, I would support move to the English forms. However since, as has already been pointed out above, the English forms are rarely used, the acronym ETA (with the parenthetical qualifier) must prevail per WP:USEENGLISH.
  In seeking a path to WP:NATURALDIS, I would also support main title header ETA (separatist group) → The ETA, analogous to The IRA, since "IRA" redirects to the Ira disambiguation page in the same manner that "ETA" redirects to the Eta (disambiguation) page which, with 40 entries, has a letter of the Greek alphabet as its never-discussed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, again, while "The IRA" is a frequently-used form, "The ETA" or, for that matter, "The FARC", do not appear to be, thus leaving the same non-analogous-use dilemma. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I have never seen The ETA in English. Also, using non-English names is also common practice when the English translation is too uncommon (e.g. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham/HTS or about any jihadist group with the notable exception of the Islamic State). --MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Roman, there's a difference between IRA and ETA. The first is an initialism (we pronounce it letter by letter) whereas the second is an acronym (we don't pronounce it letter by letter, but as one word.) In English, the default is that we use the definite article ("the") with initialisms ("the BBC", "the WHO", "the USA" etc) but not with acronyms (UNESCO and NATO, not "the UNESCO" or "the NATO".) ETA and FARC are in the latter category. Valenciano (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valenciano, I am grateful for the clearly-detailed explanation and, in response, will withdraw my offered support for the form "The ETA" and will strike the second half of my !vote which examined the reasoning behind my then-support. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The traditional name in English language sources has been ETA/Eta, not Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. This has not changed in recent years. I draw users' attention to the BBC and Fox News in 2019, and Financial times and New York Times in 2017. Valenciano (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the linked pieces at Fox News and The New York Times do include the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna clarification in the body. The BBC routinely does this too ([6], [7]). --MarioGom (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they explain it in the body, but note the main use:

BBC: leader of Eta Basque rebels

Fox: ETA's bloody history

NYT: the group ETA

That's exactly what we should do (and are doing now) the "headline" as ETA, with clarification of the long form in the body. Valenciano (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support moving to Euskadi Ta Askatasuna written in their local Basque languages, per above to provide WP:NATURALDIS in the page. I oppose someone who suggest move to English name because IMO, There was no consensus whether English name of ETA, so long-form name in local languages is prefferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.93.47 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

36.77.93.47: Adding the same vote as an anonymous user (or recently registered user) is not going to make any difference. --MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE, and I hope that is not your opinion of the contributions of IP editors – or recently-registered users – in general. However, in this instance the two IP addresses are provided by the same ISP (PT_TELKOM_INDONESIA) so perhaps are the same anonymous user. (My IP changes frequently but I try to remember to state if there is a chance of confusion where I am or not the same IP as before.) 85.238.91.68 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Not the same IP as above.

• Support per above. Long form local name in Basque is preferred. 182.1.53.135 (talk), 7 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.63.225 (talk)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH. The acronym "ETA" is the common, well-established name for this organization in English. For if not, it wouldn't be an acronym. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, ETA is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, and I think the current title disambiguates in a clear enough way. I don't think moving the article title would help the average user who is looking into the organization.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Western media commonly use "ETA" as the group's name, perhaps occasionally spelling it out for informational purpose, but is never used in everyday discourse here. wp:commonname and wp:useenglish, as noted by others, applies. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, ETA is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME in WP:ENGLISH. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. ETA is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

English pronunciation

How is this pronounced in English? I've always heard it as English: /ˈeta/ like Spanish: [ˈeta], but I could see that others might pronounce it more like /ˈi:ta/. We have Basque and Spanish prononunciations but not English, which is a bit odd. Wktionary doesn't give pronunciations for any language. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Collins Dictionary proposes /'ɛtə/ for British English ([8]). --MarioGom (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also how CNN pronounces it [9], have added it. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ETA was a terrorist gang, not just a separatist group

I can't see why is ETA called a "separatist" group as it is clearly a terrorist gang: they killed innocents, threatened people, kidnaped to get money, were involved with drugs and arms trafficking... They used terror in every possible way to continue to exist, so they must be called terrorists. If you want facts to support this, you can just review newspapers and TV news since 1960. We, the Spanish people who have grown up in the period in which ETA was active, have not a a single doubt regarding their condition of terrorists, murders and criminals.

A separatist group it's a group of people who have separatist ideas and may even fight for them. That's not the case with ETA; at least not since Spanish democracy was stablished (late 1970's) and allowed separatist political parties (PNV and many others) to defend their ideas without murdering people. ETA is just a terrorist gang, same as FARC (who also started with political ideas, but evolved to become something very different).

PD: Here you have your cite to prove ETA is a terrorist gang: it's enough to search in google "ETA considerada banda terrorista" [ETA+CONSIDERED+TERRORIST+GANG] to get 460.000 results from a variety of Spanish and foreign newspapers, including also the public Spanish TV (RTVE), the CNN and a lot of media (). And these are only the results to a search made in Spanish language. In English language I may cite your own wiki because you do recognize they are terrrorists in the contents of the article, although not in the title: "ETA was classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France,[15] the United Kingdom,[16] the United States,[17] Canada[18] and the European Union.[19] This convention was followed by a plurality of domestic and international media, which also referred to the group as "terrorists".() As you very well know, wikipedia is often cite and it's used as the main source of information by many people (most of people, in fact) all around the world. Other sources which may be called "more reliable" by some just copy your words. You have a great responsability and you SHOULD call "terrorism" what is so; otherwise you are helping to spread a lie and to justify the existence and actions of an organized gang of criminals. Other cites in English: "Basque terrorist group Eta to be dissolved in weeks says mediator."; appeared in october 2019 in The Guardian (). "Spain's ETA Terrorist Group is Dying" appeared in 2012 in ScienceDirect (). I could go on, but I think it is enough to anyone who doesn't have a bias point of view about this subject. M 08:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The terminology in our article is not determined by Spanish or any other media, it is determined by MOS:TERRORIST. The current lead is compatible with this. Any variant of "ETA was a terrorist" would not be compatible with this, as the guideline requires in-text attribution which that variant does not have. FDW777 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also you have misrepresented the Guardian's output. I have looked at the last four articles tagged as relating to ETA.

1. 30 October 2019 is the letters page, so irrelevant.
2. 16 September 2019 describes them as "now-dissolved armed separatist group Eta", and only uses the word "terrorism" when referring to criminal charges
3. 16 May 2019 describes them as "Basque terrorist group"
4. 6 November 2018 describes them as "Basque separatist group"

So out of the last 4 articles relating to ETA published in the Guardian, 2 out of 3 relevant articles describe them as a "Basque separatist group" with only one describing them as "Basque terrorist group". Yet for some reason "separatist" is unacceptable, why? Is anyone suggesting they were not "Basque separatist"? Is that not a wholly factual description? FDW777 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not restricted by MOS:TERRORIST, simply a guide for words to watch, because this group has reliably been labelled a terrorist group, specifically the United Nations as well as several others. "December 2001: The European Union declares Eta a terrorist organisation - the first time all 15 member governments have labelled Eta as such, in a significant diplomatic victory for the Spanish Government." I will make the change in the article accordingly. MartinezMD (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the second paragraph of the article before adding duplicate material. FDW777 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. When I saw this subject on the talk page I thought it was not included in the article and somehow overlooked it. MartinezMD (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

French designation tagged as failing verification

This reference does not confirm French designation. The page is quite long, so search for "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna" to be taken to the relevant point. If you scroll up past the "PERSONNES" section above that you will see the European Council press release. Although it's from 2004 you can see the similarity when comparing the "PERSONNES" and "GROUPES ET ENTITES" sections with the EU list from 2009. Obviously some people and groups don't appear on both lists, but it is clear they are the same list, just from different years. So as the French website is only giving the EU list, it does not confirm ETA are designated in France. It is quite possible they are, which is why I will only be tagging the information at present rather than simply removing it. FDW777 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

SHAME

No suggested changes to the article, no point letting the whining carry on. FDW777 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a section with no future, will surely be removed very soon. I opened it in order to publish contributions of French and Spanish people who feel ashamed of this article. Like me. ETA´s definition in English Wikipedia (In French the article has been redacted by an user called Artapalo... the main chief of ETA!) is offensive. An armed group that commits murder (including 22 children) against democratic countries is a terrorist group. Shame on you, Wikipedia.1PLL (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Instead of suggesting the English Wikipedia should follow the Spanish Wikipedia's lead when it comes to neutrality and objectivity, if you took a step back and looked at things fairly you'd realise it should in fact be the other way round. FDW777 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Could I look fairly at things like this: "An armed group that commits murder (including 22 children) against democratic countries"? Of course: a fair thing called terrorist group. UK, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, USA and the UE looked at things fairly. 188.87.201.244 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC) That would by why the lead says ETA was classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the European Union. FDW777 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST.....again

MOS:TERRORIST does not say "that the term can be used if there are strong sources for it", this is a truncated version that misses the entire point of it. What it says is unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (my emphasis). Since there is no in-text attribution in the short description (and neither should there be, since it's suposed to be short, it is a violation of the guideline and WP:NPOV to have Armed Basque terrorist group as the short description. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In-text attribution becomes pointless when literally everyone designated them as terrorist. It already states that "ETA was classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the European Union" In addition, the UN Security Council called ETA a terrorist group: [10]. You are insisting on a WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Pudeo (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change to the guideline, this is the wrong place to do it. FDW777 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also your UN reference says Unanimously adopting resolution 1530 (2004), the Security Council expressed its reinforced determination to combat all forms of terrorism, and condemned today’s attacks in Madrid “perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA”. At least 190 commuters were killed and more than a thousand more wounded after simultaneous bombings targeted rush-hour trains in the Spanish capital.. The 2004 Madrid train bombings weren't perpetrated by ETA. See also this article regarding that statement. FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiction Novel

ETA is mentioned quite a bit in Craig Johnson’s Death Without Company. Specifically chapter 11 and in another chapter before. The book is about Basque immigrants and is a detective series set in Wyoming. 2600:1700:1D52:4020:15A8:A3CE:B61F:DA68 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist

ETA was a terrorist gang, not separatist group, no cherleader group, no cualquieridiotez group. Terrorists. Kises :-) 90.167.95.103 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is discussed already. If no change has been made in 10 years maybe you’re wrong 2600:1700:1D52:4020:517:6731:3FFD:976A (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it still should be considered what it was, a violent, terrorist group that murdered, extorted, threatened and had a lasting and terrible impact on the Spanish society to this day. 79.148.83.232 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)