Talk:Basque conflict/Archive 2

A biased title
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 (talk • contribs) 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
, 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
, 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 wsws.org: 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 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)