Talk:Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 6 December 2014 by reviewer Darylgolden (talk · contribs).

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iñaki

(Personal attack removed) Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion in the ANI referring to this personal attack by Asilah1981, and to others found in Talk:Basque conflict. The above comment will be removed once the discussion if over. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias

Article written by a phantom user Adam Ci who seeemingly deletes his/her account after each edit - possibly to avoid potential criminal charges under Spanish law. It is written in a tone which justifies and glorifies a proscribed terrorist organization, defines the "basque conflict" and ETA as a necessary reaction to Spanish oppression of the basque people attempts to portray convicted terrorists as prisoners of conscience, claims as fact that Spanish authorities systematically use torture, provides a detailed list of every single convict in Spain carefully ommitting what they were convicted for or who were their victims... a long etc...

Outrageous and illegal in the real world, contrary to Wikipedia policy in this platform.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I a rewriting the first paragraph, making it mirror the MLNV article which seems to be neutral and without ETA advocacy. The initial section is the most problematic in terms of NPOV, the rest can be slowly improved and ETA sympathetic language and bias slowly corrected.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The systemic bias claim is not what you mean, there is nothing that points to a systemic bias in the Spanish or world press or the WP altogether in favour of Basque prisoners or ETA whatsoever.

2. Your claim above is not very collaborative, but fairly accusatory: "phantom user", "ETA advocacy", "criminal charges", glorifies terrorists (where?), "carefully omitting", "outrageous and illegal", "contrary to the wikipedia policy", and is generally out of the WP building process.

2. Your POV is fine, but it is POV, point to specific problems in a way that can help build a better article.

3. Your changes were made all in a row when this important subject involving you in ANI was being discussed (I have not checked them, but I am interested in regular WP building)

4. I still consider that a number of violations (both confirmed and allegations) by the Spanish state of international treaties on human rights and prisons are still not addressed.

5. Please use regular edit summaries and discuss relevant changes. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL I was about to remove my (perhaps hasty slightly unfair) comment in Spanish as an act of good faith towards you, but I see you have already done so. I say we give this a week to both cool down and both engage in a constructive manner here after that. Listen we are both in Spain and we can't pretend not to be on two sides of a political divide. Nevertheless, we can perhaps come to a consensus here. I ask you to understand why some of us are touchy with this topic. Its not about having an authoritarian streak but about refusing to allow murderers to rewrite history after 40 years murdering. I haven't touched much this article, except the opening paragraph I just pretty copy pasted it from the article MLNV, which was hardly written by Fuerza Nueva. Please read carefully how the opening para. was before. Surely you understand why it was upsetting?

Also, I think it would be best if we talked frankly rather than being excessively pharisaic in our speech and arguments.

Best, Asilah1981 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time now to deal with this, so I will check in time everything is in place per WP policies for a balanced, accurate article including legitimate and relevant information to the topic if needed. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to ease traceability for other editors, please proceed in this sensitive article as follows per WP rules: for all the changes you do, I suggest you work first on your sandbox then add it altogether or in a couple of edits to the article, do add clearly the edit summary, see also here, as I pointed above, like every proper editor does. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self reverted.Iñaki LL Asilah1981 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People tortured by GAL operatives

Yesterday I added a new case to the 'Specific cases and convictions' section. I now believe I made a mistake because although Lasa and Zabala were kidnapped, tortured and killed, they were never really prisoners in the sense that all other people mentioned in this article are or were. I think adding this example was a mistake because it blurs what this article is talking about, and merges it with GAL, which to me is really different. For me this article should be about people in custody, on remand, or jailed by a judge. What do you think? I'm going to delete that bit now, but if people object it can be put back. Adam Cli (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I find the style and aim of this whole article extremely dodgy, even though at least your attitude is positive. And yes, I agree that there should be a distinction between an entirely criminal enterprise such as the GAL and mistreatment which may occur within the normal process of police arrest and interrogation.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French police

Hi, Asilah1981, in the Torture section there is a paragraph about the French police. Yesterday you added some text and a reference. I don't know if it is just me, but what you wrote seems to imply that the reason people were not tortured by the French police is that French civilians and security forces were not targeted by ETA. This may or may not be true, but I don't think the reference mentions torture at all. The reason for the supposed absence of torture by French police could be because they do not leave prisoners 'incommunicado' for so long, and there are many other possible explanations. But I don't think either of us know yet what that reason is. Can you see what I'm saying? I know you want to add the context of the French situation to the paragraph, but I think it needs to be done in a different way, or with a different ref. Adam Cli (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cli I'll edit it down, but not being party to a conflict is sufficiently evident causality to not engage in violence. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly with references (WP:VER), and summary line, as per WP:Etiquette. POV or unsourced material may be challenged with no delay. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is against WP:Etiquette "[libel removed by Iñaki LL (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)]" to do so again.Asilah1981 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations from and about usertalk. Collapsed by Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The discussion followed in Asilah1981's talk page. It has been brought here because it affects this article's editing. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 15:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are understanding what WP is about. I thought you would after all stick to constructive editing, but I am not so sure. This is nobody's courtyard, WP is not about point illustrating, it is about building a better article. I tried to help you out if you did not know the rules of the Wikipedia by adding relevant links to is policies and guidelines, like the one about the summary line, you have not followed them. You have also removed verified information. Do add maximum detail and accuracy in your interventions, and please refrain from citing me linked to your offensive personal comments or views against me. I add a link here for you to further understand what personal attack is. Will take a close look to your changes when I have time. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL you are editing in bad faith, which is what gets me angry. Deleting the paragraph referring to the subject's victim for not having a source knowing full well the information is true (you are from Guipuzcoa). That is bad faith. I know there are ETA sympathisers in the country or people who think it was a "morally balanced conflict". I can't demand they not learn english or refrain from editing wikipedia, but at least you can so in good faith. I am accepting Adam Clii s edits even though he has largely the same views (or worse) as you, because he is currently editing overall in an acceptable way. I'll keep away from the article for now, it gives me ulcer to read some of your edits.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Stick to good faith and constructive editing, that is all we need to do. We do not need censors, or POV editors, the more relevant and accurate the information you can add, the better. Pinpoint exact problems, I am not here to follow all your sweeping comments or personal views or derogatory remarks, WP has its own mechanisms to deal with irregular behavior, and you are not free of that. Adam Cli and any other WP editor is free and encouraged to add whatever s/he sees necessary to improve the article as long as it sticks to WP policies and guidelines, do you understand?

Stick to civility, do not use again my name next to slandering comments of yours in the summary line, like here and here. By the way, please do not revert again, it is stating just what the source say, that he was tortured (clear), evidence provided, and his death, plus you removed citation needed tags. It will be taken as WP:disruptive editing, and any further undue comments as harassment, that may ultimately result in your blocking. I hope I do not have to come back again to this. Will check your edits again when I can. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS For better traceability of the thread by other editors, please add WP:INDENT. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LLI was talking about the removal of reference to Alósegui who was murdered by Elejalde. What reason could you possibly have for editing that out? Its messed up... If I leave you guys to your devices I know what this is going to look like... [libel removed by Iñaki LL (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)] I concede some of your edits / corrections may have been ok and I removed them by mistake. But Iñaki, for me to remain civil you have to [inappropriate comment removed by Iñaki LL (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)]. If your edits are strictly NPOV and use credible sources, I wont be able to accuse you of anything.Asilah1981 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL By refusing to answer my question, you answer it well enough and simply confirm the veracity of everything which you claim to be a personal attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Iñaki got me blocked for removing an irrelevant link to my talk page and is now removing every word in my argument he seems to dislike. Wikipedia is not censored, he has no right to censor my arguments and consider everything he dislikes to be "threatening" or a personal attack. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the words "Bambi vs. the Nazis" threatening or intimidating?

Conversations from and about usertalk do not belong here. Please discuss article-content only here, and do not copy conversations from usertalk. I am collapsing this section. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/chr60/56add2AV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate edit summaries

Asilah1981, your edit summmaries for the past 24+ hours on this article [1] have been inaccurate. You were not "adding sources", you were adding convictions (along with citations). Going forward, please use accurate edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender Sure no issue. Since the column is called convictions, I thought it would be redundant. I'm primarily adding sources.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are adding convictions. Please stop misrepresenting what you are doing. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say I'm filling in and sourcing the convictions section. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove List of current prisoners section

I think this section should be removed altogether. It's too much detail. The average reader isn't interested in the fact that Iker Lima Sagarna is serving time in Huelva, they're interested in the overall picture. The list as stands seems like a violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Instead, we should have a paragraph briefly mentioning the more notable people. The Etxerat source is already an external link and those who wish to get the exact names can go there. Anyone disagree? Valenciano (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If it's deemed to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT it should become a stand alone list article. As to whether it has value as an independent spin off is another discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting information, especially since some of the prisoners have stand-alone wiki articles. On that account alone, the information should not be completely deleted. I also think that since many of the convictions are for multiple murders, that information should not be WP:CENSORED. I think size-wise it could be forked off into a stand-alone List article. Alternatively, the information could be summarized (with the most notable convictions and prisoners) in text. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be for a fork as it doesn't include past notables who have served their sentence, were found innocent, etc. There's actually substantial information omitted. This would leave us with a brief summary and a hatnote to the main list article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing it. It also now includes the context and rationale behind imprisonment of each prisoner which is the overall theme of this article and of much interest to the reader, providing context and much needed information. So why ask to remove it now? Asilah1981 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, Valenciano, that Etxerat is a non-credible and partisan pro-ETA source. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it's all about the reader, and the average reader doesn't come here to learn the exact names of everyone currently imprisoned. It's a violation of WP:LISTPEOPLE. I've created articles on two of the people in the list (David Pla Marín and María Soledad Iparraguirre) but I wouldn't bother with most of the others. At least 90% of them wouldn't qualify and any such articles would be deleted on WP:BLP1E grounds. I'm not suggesting the info be censored, just that it be replaced with a shorter summary of how many people are in each country's prisons, the notable prisoners (ie those with Wikipedia articles) and the more notable convictions. People can follow the external link if they want the exact info. Asilah1981, you say the Etxerat source is a non-credible one, so why then to you want to maintain a list based on a non-credible source? Valenciano (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ValencianoThis relates to why I launched the AfD in the first place: The article having massive WP:SYNTH issues. I still don't know what the MNLV is... Does it include ETA or doesn't it include ETA? The article is not clear. Because the focus of this article (even the lead) is on those elements which are not strictly speaking ETA members when referring to the background or profile of people in jail (Otegi and the like - a tiny fraction) but when it goes to numbers, treatment, location it brings in all the convicts for violence - suddenly MLNV is ETA again - it extrapolates to the hundreds in jail conveniently hiding why they are in jail. If I was a reader who knew nothing about the subject and came across this article I would think that there are hundreds of political prisoners in Spain, belonging to an outlawed grassroots political movement called MNLV and would think of ETA as something of a side-show. It leaves the reader clueless. This is where I see this article as NPOV and inherently flawed. I have to say I have edited this article quite a bit, you should have seen the original version. Any instance of balance you find currently, don't bother mentioning, its probably me who has incorporated it. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the list to be forked off into a stand-alone list article and replaced with a brief paragraph. I did not realize the list went against any Wiki rule, but I can see it does not conform with WP:LISTPEOPLE and so most people on it will need to be deleted. It would be good to keep a list that links people on the list who are notable, and as Iryna Harpy says the list has omitted lots of information that could be interesting, such as past notables. They could be added. To be honest it has been quite a task to keep it updated because there is a constant movement of prisoners around the two systems, and because Etxerat expels those who join the 'Via Nanclares' it has been very difficult keeping track of who has left prison and who is still inside but has been ostracized. A simpler stand-alone list sounds perfect to me. Adam Cli (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just created a draft stand-alone list. Its here: Draft:List of Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners. Any thoughts? Is it too short to make it worthwhile? There are plenty of such people with Spanish language entries so we could include those as a guide to notability. Adam Cli (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this draft stand-alone list as it stands is very similar, although not identical, to the Category 'ETA (separatist group) activists'. Unless a way can be found to easily identify which other MLNV prisoners are notable then I'm not sure that it is worth creating. We could instead simply delete the 'List of current prisoners' section and replace it with a 'Notable prisoners' section which would be a simple list of all prisoners, past or present, who have an English language wiki page. Any thoughts? Adam Cli (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So long as their current status is clear (free or in jail) and the period for which they were in prison and what they were convicted for.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove High Profile Prisoners Section

Who decides which prisoners are high profile? Where is the source? As far as I know none of ETA's most high profile prisoners are discussed in this section. It just discusses a couple of guys who served short sentences for minor crimes and are no longer in jail. Seems to me like POV-pushing (again portraying ETA prisoners as political prisoners)... unless we have a specific source (or methodology) which defines who is and isn't high profile.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Either the section should go or it should be replaced with a section using stricter criteria, say former members of the national or regional parliaments who have been imprisoned. Valenciano (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds good. It looks like this can be replaced by whatever also replaces the prisoner list. Adam Cli (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the MNLV?

Adam Cli Please explain to me what is the MNLV and what are its distinguishing features which set it apart from the Izquierda Abertzale which pursues exactly the same political goals and has the same ideology. Since the article says that this movement is subject to judicial persecution, and the izquierda abertzale is not subject to judicial persecution, it would be good for the reader to understand the difference between the two. Is Bildu and Sortu part of this movement? Asilah1981 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this is how the Spanish Wiki defines the MNLV:https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_abertzale#Concepto_restringido:_MLNV_de_izquierda

Concepto restringido: MLNV de izquierda

Por último, la expresión (izquierda abertzale) se ha utilizado en un sentido más restringido, entendiéndola limitada al sector que acepta la dirección política de ETA militar. Este significado ha sido utilizado en épocas distintas y desde ópticas ideológicas muy diferentes. Así, a finales de los años 1970 y principios de los años 1980, el sector adscrito al naciente MLNV agrupado en la entonces coalición Herri Batasuna (HB) descalificó insistentemente al sector rival agrupado en el partido EIA y la coalición Euskadiko Ezkerra acusándole de traición^[1] y negando su adscripción a una verdadera izquierda abertzale.^[2] Similares acusaciones se repitieron a principios del siglo XXI; procedentes de la militancia de Batasuna con respecto a Aralar, cuando este se creó, y posteriormente hacia el nuevo partido Sortu y la coalición EH Bildu desde sectores críticos como Eusko Ekintza y Askatasunaren Bidean.^[3]^[4]

References

Asilah1981 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilah1981, I can see from your recent edits that you have found that there are different opinions as to what the MLNV is. I think for the purposes of editing this article it would be best to use the broadest definition. As for the difference between it and the izquierda abertzale (IA), that is also a matter of opinion. Some people, such as these ex-prisoners [[2]], believe the leadership of the IA is betraying the principles of the MLNV. Adam Cli (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cli If we use the broader definition it will lead the reader to believe that Sortu, Bildu and Amaiur are illegal and persecuted, which is misconstruing reality considering they are in local and regional government in a number of places, including (in coalition) in Navarra. If we also use the broad definition (belonging to the izquierda abertzale, which has a separate article to MNLV) it creates a false causality. It implies that they are in jail BECAUSE they belong to this end of the political spectrum and not because they have ties with or have expressed public support for ETA. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also (I don't know if you understand Spanish) the article is referring to the restricted definition of the Izquierda Abertzale as being limited to the MNLV. Not vice versa. There is no definition which includes the Izquierda Abertzale as part of the MNLV. The definition on that article is restricted per se.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilah1981, I appreciate you asking my opinion on the definition of what the MLNV is, but I believe this is a conversation that needs to take place on the Talk page of the MLNV article. I am not an expert on what is or is not part of the MLNV. I guess when you say "the article says that this movement is subject to judicial persecution" you are referring to the first sentence. I can see that it is ambiguous, but to me that sentence does state that the MLNV is illegal, but it could be written more clearly. Or are you referring to another part of the article? Adam Cli (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://elpais.com/diario/1978/03/24/espana/259542018_850215.html

[2] ttp://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3428059

[3] ttp://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2016/05/16/paisvasco/1463411101_013612.html

[4] ttp://www.elindependiente.com/politica/2016/11/30/ex-presos-de-eta-criticos-con-sortu-crean-un-partido-para-resucitar-hb/}

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]