Talk:ETA military

How about changing this into a redirect to ETA? Rick Block 01:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm against that, and also against the merge proposal. For a (brief) time it was an entity distinct from ETA as such. Someone could need to look it up, especially if they ran across a reference to ETA(m) and were trying to understand it. It would be buried in the other article, because it sure doesn't belong in the lead section. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This distinct period was so brief that a simple redirect, with perhaps a separate chronology section in the main article, should be enough. The same could be applied to ETA (pm) or other names or branches of the group --if that article exists. Cvalda 01:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • If you can work out a way to do this so that it won't get lost in the main ETA article, fine, but keep in mind the lay reader trying to look up ETA(m) or ETA military. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)