Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Trains (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.


New section on "police surveillance and informants"[edit]

I've removed the material relating to the police surveillance and informants to a new section. This way that controversy can be fully explored in a section of its own, without implying - as would happen if put high in the article - that the cops were behind the bombing or knew about it and didn't stop it. I would suggest that some good quotes and material be removed from the footnotes and placed in this section, as I did with the Guardian article. --Mantanmoreland 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, the introduction looks much better now. As a follow-up I think the issues of police surveillance and police informants should perhaps be separated - there is no evidence that I have seen that suggests those doing the surveillance were in anyway connected to those in Asturias dealing with police informers. I think the question the surveillance issue raises is why it didn't work. I have one important objection, the Guardian article you quote from is not written by a Guardian journalist, this is an opinion piece written by El Mundo's deputy editor and printed in the Guardian - not the same thing at all and not representative of the Guardian's position. I have argued with Randroide before about this source being wrongly presented and I do not think it is at all legitimate to cite this article without making clear what it's real origin is. As an opinion piece it actually adds no facts. Southofwatford 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The new intro looks good as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with Southofwatford on the separation of the surveillance and police informants as independent and unconnected facts. I also agree that the question of surveillance is why it didn't work, and why intelligence sharing apparently wasn't very well implemented, even almost 3 years after the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the dire need for such cooperation. I see no problem with clarifying the original source of the guardian editorial piece. Parsecboy 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this El Mundo piece printed by the Guardian also makes a completely unfounded assertion - there is absolutely no evidence other than hearsay/wishful thinking that says the Asturians had ever sold explosives to ETA. The Spanish police have said that ETA do not buy their explosives from common criminals, they tend to either steal it themselves or when they cannot do that they have "homemade" recipes.Southofwatford 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above. Please fix.--Mantanmoreland 17:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the Guardian quote from the main text. Unfortunately I had not gone to the Guardian itself and did not know that it was an opinion piece by an editor of El Mundo, and needed to be identified as such and not as being said by the Guardina. However, I think that generally the quotes in the references should be moved up to the main section. The footnotes are too long, and have quotes and information that should be placed int he body of the text.--Mantanmoreland 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the new section to the Controversies page - I think that is where it belongs. It still needs some work but I have put everything under the same heading on whether the bombings could have been avoided for the moment. I have also added new, but brief, introductions to the sub-articles on Controversies and Reactions to the bombings. On the footnotes I think the quotes should be removed so that we use a standard format for all footnotes - whether the quotes should be included in the main article should perhaps be discussed on a case by case basis, some of these quotes are extremely unrepresentative of the article from which they are drawn. Southofwatford 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I can see not having it in the first few paragraphs, but removing from the article entirely strikes me as going too far in the other direction.--Mantanmoreland 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well it hasn't been removed from the article, it has been placed in an appropriate sub-article together with other issues that have provoked controversy. The problem is that otherwise we will be splitting controversies into two, with some issues in the sub-article and others in the main one. The result of that will be to make the Controversies article virtually worthless. I personally believe that there are other issues already in the sub-article that are equally if not more worthy of the attention that the police informers issue has received. These are sections that can expand rapidly and end up dominating the main text, bear in mind that the section on the trial may be small at the moment but also has the scope to become larger as developments emerge. Doing things this way leaves us the possibility of having the main article for relating events, which I think is what most readers would want to see before being plunged into discussion of whether the fact that two people were police informers has any bearing on the case. Southofwatford 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you edit, Southofwatford. See rationale at User_talk:Southofwatford#POV_edit.Randroide 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the section should remain. This material belongs in the article, but in an appropriate place.--Mantanmoreland 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove this section[edit]

The purpose of this section was to remove material concerning the police from the opening paragraphs, in order to not give the impression that there was police involvement in the bombings. However, this section should not be removed entirely from the article. --Mantanmoreland 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will leave it although I continue to believe that it should be moved. I also reject the bogus pretext which Randroide has used for reverting the change - something is controversial if there is disagreement on the interpretation of what it means, and in this case there is clear disagreement between those (like Randroide) who think it "proves" (in the very loosest sense of the word) police involvement in the bombings, and those who do not accept such an imaginative interpretation. That is enough for something to be controversial. On POV, I will happily accept lectures on the subject from those who observe it themselves, Randroide does not even get close to membership of that group. Southofwatford 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was wrong to have stuff about informants and surveillance in the very opening paragraphs, as that skewed the article and gave a kind of innuendo. But surely it is important enough to belong in the article at an appropriate place. Right now it is down at the bottom. Omitting it from the article entirely is overkill. Remember that if this ever goes to arbitration, unreasonable edits get counted against you.--Mantanmoreland 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not omitted anything - I moved it a sub-article of the main article where controversial issues are dealt with. I didn't make any change to the content of the section. Southofwatford 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with removing entire sections to that subarticle, leaving nothing behind.--Mantanmoreland 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately if we don't do that then what gets left behind either expands where the other section doesn't, or becomes a parallel and different version. Also, we end up without narrative flow in the main article, one of the principal problems that it now has. Southofwatford 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a genuine danger, but there are ways to guard against that.--Mantanmoreland 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You can avoid it in situations where there is general agreement on where things should go and the overall structure of the article - we do not have that situation here. Southofwatford 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
True there does not seem to be agreement on anything. But there is actually less edit warring than I would have expected.--Mantanmoreland 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Plase read Wikipedia:Content forking, Southofwatford. Randroide 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This is soooo repetitive Randroide, read it yourself - at no point have I suggested parallel articles on the same subject, in fact my comment is precisely against that sort of thing. Please read properly other editors comments before responding, otherwise it is disruptive of an otherwise constructive discussion. Southofwatford 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, These days and due to Christian holidays I do not have normal accesss to my computer but I managed to grab a keyboard to say something. The strategy of separating "controversial" issues for me was an eufemistic way of creating two different playgrounds: one for conspirationist and another for raw and boring truth. This part of the police neglicence can be documented as truth so I do not see why must be in a separate sub-article.

What must be in a separate article (or better in a "reactions" subsection) is the speculations about "the grand mother of one of drivers of one of the trains spent her holidays in the same hotel than the second cousin of the wife of a traffic policeman who was on shift the day that the hindus -who sold the cell phones to the terrorists- celebrated the wedding of a niece..."

So for me the correct thing would be to say in the "reactions" section that some people reacted crying and some other reacted inventing far fetched stories and then include some examples. Another way -more post-modern and wikipedian- is to set a subsection called either controversial or alternative or conspirationist and let Randroide unleash there his vivid imagination coupled with his no-ending working capacity. Not to say, I prefer the first option but I can live with the second.--Igor21 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Maussili Kalaji![edit]

From being virtually unknown, just the owner of the shop where the people who sold the phones used in the bombs took them for liberation, he has now made a great leap forward and become the subject of his very own dedicated sub-section in the main article about the bombings in Wikipedia. Congratulations Mr Kalaji, you should thank the conspiracy theorists for plucking you from obscurity and making you what must be a key figure in the whole affair. Next, I think we need a section on the manager of the Carrefour supermarket in Avilés where the people who stole the explosives bought the rucksacks which they then used to transport the explosives from the mine. Unfortunately I don't have his or her name, but I'm sure there must be something suspicious there. Southofwatford 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Mr. Kalaji notability has been created by sources. Randroide 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, the editor as robot - "It was the sources that made me do it". Nothing to do with choosing sources that favour your political agenda, no of course not! Southofwatford 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find sources on the manager of the Carrefour, but I do have some on the girl who worked at the cash till - does that mean we are obliged by our sources to create a special section dedicated to her? Maybe we can title it "Spanish cash till girl"? Southofwatford 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion and use of bullet points in "police" etc. section[edit]

I've reverted the recent edits, which turned the text into bullet points. That was unencyclopedic and not proper style, which mandates summary langauge. Additionally, the edits made the section far longer than it deserved to be, and revived the whole problem of undue weight. Additional details belong in the Controversies separate article.--Mantanmoreland 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If you disagree about the format, please reformat the text, but without deleting sourced information, as you did.
  • This section does NOT belong in "Controversies", for the same reasons I gave yesterday to Southofwatford (vide supra).
  • I am open to place the block of text about Kalaji in any please in the article you see as better than the current one. But the reference about Kalaji is NOT "Controverial", for the reasons cited above.

Plase rewrite the text in a form you consider appropiate, or I will have to do myself. Thank you. Randroide 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide: The facts are not controversial. What is controversial is the undue weight you are giving to some of the facts.
Everybody: I want to sugest that we stop speaking about controversies and start we speaking about conspiracionist. The things that must be placed in a sub-article are the conspirationist (or alternative) accounts of facts. I think two articles (main and conspiracies) should be enough.--Igor21 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, the section was fine before you rewrote it. Bullet points are not acceptable Wikipedia style as the entire content of a section such as this, and you added (and overemphasized via the bullet points) excessive detail that gave undue weight to minor personages. Thus your changes were entirely unacceptable and were a nonstarter as POV pushing. The issue is not that what you added was "sourced" but that it was excessive, was POV pushing and unnecessary detail that belongs in the separate article.
I opposed removal of this section entirely, as was done previously, as overkill [1]and the same description applies to your edits.--Mantanmoreland 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We are dealing with an editor who simply refuses to engage in proper, reasonable discussion about this article, and whose only response to anyone who disagrees with his partisan use of this page as a propaganda platform is aggressive misuse of Wikipedia templates to try and intimidate other users. It is tiring and unreasonable to have to deal with someone who behaves in this way. An editor who behaves in this way is not entitled to make demands of any others. The section is completely POV and it is even arguable now whether it is fit for the controversies page - NPOV also applies there. Southofwatford 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
To Mantamoreland: Please check the whole range (left, righ, center, Spanish, American...) of different sourced facts you deleted. Please: Do it.
No, no: Stop reading and do it.
You did it?. Right: You deleted NOT minority views, but mainstream sources. And lots of them.
Moreover: Current section is a mess of sources without facts, with no order, no hierarchy and no nothing. Maybe acceptable for the introduction, but not for a sub-section.
I do not want to engage into an esterile edit war, so, please, improve the section in a way you like, but do it, and using the sources you deleted.
You also deleted information about two indicted for the bombings: Names, what they (allegedly) did, biographical tidbits... just in case you failed to notice.
Please take a careful look at your deletion, because I think that you are not really aware about the kind of bad, bad edit you did.
I am awaiting for your proposed text. Randroide 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We keep talking past each other on this. The point is not the sourcing, it is the content. You added excessive details on specific police informants, highlighted in boldface and bullet point. The amount of detail about each of these informants (one was "schizophrenic") was absurd, and was blatant POV-pushing.
You were also told that your first section was comprised entirely of bullet points, and as you also were told, summary style is preferable. Using bullet points gives undue weight to facts that are secondary and in some instances utterly trivial. The fact that the sources of those secondary/trivial facts is reliable is beside the point. Read the policies and stop violating them. I am not going to keep repeating myself.--Mantanmoreland 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine: Delete the bullet points, delete boldface, write it in a format you like.
The notability of this man being a schizophrenic has been stablished by sources, not by you or me. We do not decide about notability.
Do you think that those facts are "trivial". OK, sources think otherwise, and sources call the shots here.
Do you think that giving the name of the Indicted and what they (allegedly) did is trivial?. Sources think otherwise.
You deleted a lot of sources, and blanked a lot of facts. I am waiting. Randroide 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding biographical detail on a couple of the accused does nothing to make the section NPOV - such details do not belong in this section - these people are not just police informants. I will (reluctantly) accept keeping this section in the main article provided that it is not abused as a POV section on attempting to insinuate police involvement in the bombings without providing necessary proof of such involvement. I await a convincing argument on why the cashier from Carrefour should not be alongside "the Spanish policeman" - after all I have sources too, I just resist using them as a pretext to push my opinions. Threats are not an acceptable substitute for argument Randroide. Southofwatford 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. The section is a compromise, and either expanding it or eliminating it would constitute POV pushing. The details requested by Randroide belong in the separate article that was created, so long as it is fairly presented and does not constitute a POV fork. The mental state et al of the police informants definitely does not belong in the main article. --Mantanmoreland 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The details blanked by you are NOT controversial, so they do not belong to "Controversies". Please understand this now to avoid troubles in the future.
I invite you to write your alternative text for this section. If you choose to do not do it in 24 hours, I will rewrite a new section with no bold text, no bullet points, a summarized text and no mention to Trashorras mental illness, if mention to that fact is such big problem. Randroide 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First, don't refer to my editing as "blanking." I removed material that did not belong there. Secondly, I see no need for alternative text. Thirdly, let's not get into semantics over the Controversies article. If you don't want to put it there, it is your prerogative. Trivia about the police informants does not belong in the main article.--Mantanmoreland 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
1. The confidents were key perpetrators in the attacks: It is a sourced fact.
2. Editors do not define what is trivia and what is not: Sources do it.
3. You edit certainly was "blanking", but I am not the one to be arged about this point.
4. Thank you for your fast response about you not going to write the alternative text.Randroide 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In your text, you cite one Spanish-language source to substantiate that Trashorras was a police informant. You then build around that the other, largely irrelevant details. Your use of the phrase "necessary cooperator" could confuse an English-language person to believe that he was described as such because he was informant. "Cooperator" is a synonym for "informant" in the English language. I trust this was an innocent error. The CNN report that used that language did not refer to Trashorras as an informant. The amount of detail you are laying in there is such blatant POV-pushing that it requires no further scrutiny, but I am not at all convinced that this "informant" stuff is properly sourced, at least insofar as this defendant is concerned. As this is a living person, and since "informant" is perjorative term, extra care must be taken. WP:BLP.--Mantanmoreland 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote some constructive criticism. I will source better the "Confident" claim ASAP.
"necessary cooperator" are not my words, but CNN´s (see source 79 84 after the addition of new sources). That's the reason for the commas.
I am not at all convinced that this "informant" stuff is properly sourced, at least insofar as this defendant is concerned. As this is a living person, and since "informant" is perjorative term, extra care must be taken.
The same can be said about the "Islamist" condition of many individuals, sir.
The CNN report that used that language did not refer to Trashorras as an informant.
So what?.Randroide 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Just added 5 new sources sourcing the confident condition of Trashorras. Randroide 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide: What you must source is that the fact that he was an informant is relevant, and that this was the reason for him to be involved in the crime. The terrorists selected him as supplier because he was a miner and they did not know that had leaked thinks to police time to time. So he being an informant is relevant for the police negligence section but is not central for the article. Moreover, during the time he was gathering and suplying the explosive he did not act in any way as an informant. So he was not a puppet of the police as you are trying to show. Your game of proving that 1)he did important things for making the bombing posible and 2)that he had leaked things to the police to induce reader to think that 3) he was a kind of undercover agent organizing the bombing, is a classical example of non sequitur. 1 and 2 are true but do not imply 3 and your attempts to create this reasoning by puting false emphasis are a violation of undue weitght rule. --Igor21 10:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Sorry for not puting blue ink in "non sequitur" and "undue weight" but I am in hurry and you know were to find the links.

I agree. As I said previously, there is an innuendo to this "police informant" stuff that is inappropriate and is in danger of skewing the article. It needs to be mentioned, but should be placed in the proper perspective and not given undue weight. It is clear from the weight of sourcing that this was an Islamist plot, not a police plot.--Mantanmoreland 11:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The innuendo, if any, it´s in the sources.
  • With all due respect: It is clear that you need to read more sources, Mantanmoreland. That last line of yours shows that you have not had enough hours of reading about this subject. Being able to read Spanish also helps to see the whole picture. Randroide 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Related articles[edit]

I ran a "linked to" search and found several articles related to the bombings, including lists of victims. They should be noted at the top of the article or in a disambiguation page. Also, the Controversies and Reactions articles need to be highlighted at the top of this article and in the respective sections.--Mantanmoreland 10:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the article?. Could you please show us your idea?. I do not visualize it. I would like to see also that highlight of the sections. Please, show us, Mantamoreland. Randroide 07:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to link José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the 2004 general election, maybe only from Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. What do you think?. Randroide 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks provides a good model of what I am talking about.--Mantanmoreland 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about that nice column at the right?: "Timeline, Victims...". Randroide 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not specifically. I was talking about the disambiguation links throughout the article.--Mantanmoreland 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ehrrr...those "see also" "main article" links?. Yes of, course that could be a good idea for 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly that.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yes, you are right: Visually is much bettewr now. Randroide 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eliminitating inuendo and non related facts[edit]

I have modified the police section to stop it from vulnerating undue weight and to follow the be bold rule. Apart from detailing the context that is given by the sources regarding the surveillance, I have removed the fact that the hindus who sold the cell phones bring it to unblock to a shop owned by a former police because at the time this was done the phones were just cell phones and nobody can know that they will eventually be used as detonators. --Igor21 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Due a technical problem on my side I have been unable to post this comment before. Thanks Randroide for reminding me but you should not revert. Next time just tell me and I will post the comment in the talk page.

You are applying wrongly WP:Undue Weight. The facts have been cited by external sources as related to the bombings. Any removal of this material will be treated as what it is: Vandalism. Randroide 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK everybody. Randroide has restored the inuendo twice today. He is calling me vandal and threatening me. If I remove inuendo once again I will go into 3R. If I do not, the article will continue being skewed as it is now. Any ideas? --Igor21 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets deal with the easy bit first - either Randroide provides a specific sourced allegation showing that Kalaji is something more than just the owner of the shop where the phones were taken to be liberated, or Mr Kalaji has to lose his celebrity status and the references to him in this article. Because he is otherwise just one witness in almost 700 involved in the case and there is no rational basis for him to appear anywhere else than in a list of those witnesses. I have already had to deal today with one example of Randroide imagining Kalaji's involvement on the AVT article - I'm afraid we need more than imagination to maintain him here. The rest is more complicated - can we make this section more rational without extending it too much? There are clear signs emerging in the trial of some police incompetence - the Guardia Civil handling of the leads on the explosives issue - this can be sourced from the accounts of the trial. This mixing of all issues to try and insinuate something bigger than incompetence or lack of resources either needs to be properly substantiated - or dropped. Southofwatford 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that we have a lawless editor imposing himself by force as he has shown today. In this context there is not any "easy bit". Who will remove Kalaji? Who will remove the inuendo? How are we going to enforce wikipedia law in this corner? It remembers to me the film The man who killed Liberty Balance.--Igor21 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kalaji notability in association with the bombings has been provided by the source linked after the block of text. Ditto for the block of text about the police informers. Randroide 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Even in the case that this subject would have had any relevance, his inclusion in this section is clearly undue weight in itself since he is not a police neither he participated in any surveillance nor was him an informer. You are including him here as part of the inuendo.--Igor21 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Solved: I segregated Mr. Kalaji from the section. Are you happy now?. Randroide 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes we know you have sources Randroide, I have sources mentioning the cash till girl at Carrefour. Now, without using your imagination, answer the simple question - what is his involvement in the bombings beyond being the owner of a shop where some telephones were liberated? Southofwatford 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the fact that he personally liberated the phones (please read the sources) is established by the sources. Do not ask me, ask to the sources. Randroide 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, lets keep asking - why is it important if he personally liberated the phones in the business that he personally owns? Southofwatford 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask the sources, not me. The same questions could be asked by me about the Qranic tape at the Kangoo, but I do not enjoy wasting other persons time: I know perfectly that the notability of that tape has been established by the sources. Randroide 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are responsible for giving him prominence in the article - you chose the sources and the text that has been inserted. Sources do not place themselves in the article and you have still not explained why Kalaji is important - giving him his own section is simply ridiculous. If you cannot provide arguments beyond "I have sources" then the section should be removed. Southofwatford 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the reason I have, and I think it is a bulletproof reason. Remove the sources and the facts and I will treat that edit as what it would be: A removal of sourced content. Eventually, an administrator would tell us who's right. I think I am right. Randroide 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So you cannot give any reason except that you have chosen sources which mention him, because you did select those sources - thats it? On that basis there is no problem with removing it, if you refuse to discuss rationally the reasons for its inclusion. Removing irrelevant sourced content is not vandalism Randroide, you should be aware of that fact. Southofwatford 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is provided by sources, not by editors, and sources regarded the facts as notable. An administrator would eventually tell us what is vandalism and what is not. Randroide 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, sources are selected by editors - you have your reasons for selecting specific sources on Kalaji and you refuse to give those reasons. Arguments and reasoning, not threats please - you have been asked specific questions on material you have introduced. Southofwatford 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguments: Sources regarded the fact as relevant, and I want all the relevant information in the article. Wikipedia aims to be "the sum of human knowledge". If you drop Kalaji, the article would not be the sum of human knowledge. Randroide 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd, we are not here to register every single source on the Madrid bombings, this is an encyclopaedia article - not an inventory of all possible sources on everything. So I ask again, why is Kalaji important for understanding what happened on March 11th 2004? If he is not important, why does he have his own section in the article? Southofwatford 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is absurd within the context of Wikipedia is to pretend the deletion of sourced facts. You can fit the text about Kalaji in another section, if you want: I created the section to avoid Igor21´s criticism. Randroide 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can we call the admin right now? I have amazing things to show in my talk page and in today edits. Basically your usual staple of vulnerations of wikipedia is not a soapbox, undue weight and wikipedia is not an unestructured amount of garbaged information plus some threads on behalf of Wikipedia using their templates improperly. It has been for you in fact a nice day of massacre of wikipedia laws with this final show of cheekyness of saying that you have done something to avoid my criticism after having reverted me twice in a raw and having accused me of vandalism for removing the inuendo you are forcing again and again. --Igor21 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As first step of the first phase to remove inuendo against Spanish police I have removed the absurd section about Kalaji. --Igor21 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide: Stop restoring inuendo. Try to read the following rules that, amongst many others, you are breaking most of the time: wikipedia is not a soapbox, undue weight and wikipedia is not an unestructured amount of garbaged information. Stop threatening me by improperly using wikipedia templates in my talk page. --Igor21 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What you call "innuendo" are sourced facts, Igor21. Plase stop deleting sourced facts or you´ll be blocked. And please read WP:CENSOR. Randroide 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Maussili Kalaji[edit]

Dispute about wether sourced references to a Spanish policeman, Maussili Kalaji, should be in the article or not (neutralized statement per [2])

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • All the sources took as a whole say that was a bombing perpetrated by Islamist extremists. User Randroide thinks that was the Spanish police who organized the bombing and is using cherrypicked sources out of context, outdated or both to push his ideas in the article. He has destroyed the section about police negligence and created a new one about a third rank character loosely linked with the bombings (one amongst 700 witnesses called in the trial) --Igor21 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite repeated requests, Randroide refuses to give us his reasons for insisting on giving Mr Kalaji a prominent position in this article. Kalaji is just one of several hundred witnesses who have been callled to give evidence in the trial, he has not been accused of any participation in the preparation or execution of the attacks. Randroide has already been forced to rectify the completely false accusation that he armed the bombs in another article , yet still insists for reasons unknown that he should be given prominence in this article. In my opinion, Kalaji should not appear anywhere except in a list of witnesses - should it ever be felt necessary to have one. The attempts to mix together Kalaji together with other information on police informants and surveillance does nothing to clarify the issues - but then we are dealing with attempts to insert conspiracy theory material suggesting that the police were somehow involved in the bombings, without of course any solid evidence backing such an accusation ever being provided. Southofwatford 15:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Spanish police was negligent in many ways and this must be commented but has become imposible because Randroide is forcing by brute force his conspirationist theories. --Igor21 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Randroide (the "defendant")

  • The notability of Mr. Kalaji is stablished by ten sources with him as a centerpiece. Please see the section under dispute.
OTOH, I think that a separate section for Mr. Kalaji is excessive. I think that the sourced data about him was much better integrated in the "Police surveillance" section (see old, IMO better, version). I segregated Mr. Kalaji into a new section [3] due to Igor21´s (the "plaintiff" for this issue) protestations [4]. I am open to suggestions about where to place the chunk of data about Mr. Kalaji.
    • Not a single "conspiracy theory" in the article. Not a single one. Igor21 is lying. Plase ask him where are the "conspiracy theories". There are only facts. Uncomfortable facts, if you wish, but only facts.
    • Not a single unsourced statement in the article.
    • Editor's thinking about this and that is irrelevent, only sources count. Igor 21 does not get this basic fact.
    • The section about the third rank character was asked for by Igor21 [5], and now he groans and moans about this man having his own section. That's chutzpa man!!!.
    • To name Mr. Kalahi a third rank character is Igor21´s peculiar POV. Sources talked a lot about this individual (see sources at the section). Please read what Igor21 said about NPOV:
"Open your eyes, Wales is objectivist and takes Rand´s crap as a coherent philosophy. It is sad, but revealing about where he finds his epistemological rubbish about his definition of NPOV" SPANISH
This is the Wikipedia's foolishness. It is clear that some sources are more credible than others, but NPOV won't allow to remove lying sources and forces to publish them with the others. SPANISH

Randroide 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Message for user Randroide : Stop destroying the format. This is not your playroom. RFC is an official wikipedia issue and everybody must respect the established format. Thanks. --Igor21 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for cleaning up the destruction you have previously created.--Igor21 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many people (probably thousands) are mentioned in sources concerning the Madrid bombings, what is it that makes Kalaji especially important? I still have no answer to that question. Southofwatford 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go again with the same old, tired, trite question. Again, my answer: The reasons provided by Randroide over and over, and, over again (see above in this page if you, gentle commenter, have enough patience): Mr. Kalaji is cited prominently by many sources related to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The question might be tired, by repetition, but that is because you never give a satisfactory answer - so I will reword it. Why does Randroide feel that Kalaji is more worthy of mention than the many other witnesses mentioned in sources about the bombings? You picked these sources from many, many others - why these? Let's see if you can answer properly without avoiding the question this time. Southofwatford 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not satisfactoy for you, Southofwatford. If the argument "it has been widely commented" is not good enough for you, it´s not my problem. Randroide 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You chose the sources, you chose to highlight Kalaji without any explanation - you refuse to answer the question....noted. Southofwatford 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is boring, Southofwatford. Again: Mr. Kalaji is cited prominently by many sources related to the 2004 Madrid train bombings Randroide 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are those sources important enough to be included - what do they bring to the article? What do they explain to the reader? Enlighten us, please. Throw some light on your reasoning - try to give an argument to back up your claims. Southofwatford 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not established by editors, but by sources. Compute that simple fact and we´ll be much better. If you want to leave some sources out, you fall into WP:CENSOR Randroide 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources do not talk - as you know yourself in your highly selective use of them. Only Randroide takes a source attributing the bombings to Al-Qaeda and picks only the parts from it that point to ETA involvement. No Randroide, editors make use of sources - good ones to enlighten readers, and bad ones to distort and misrepresent reality.Southofwatford 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are not "good sources" and "bad sources". You do not understand NPOV.

And please present a single diff of me adding an unsourced statement. Randroide 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My reference was to good and bad editors, not sources. I don't accept lectures on NPOV from editors who misrepresent the content of sources. Southofwatford 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide: your heinous policy of spreading brainless conspirationism in Wikipedia while lecturing honest editors and mendaciously psalmodyings the Rules, is so abonimable for the honourable people that at some point, one admin will spend the time necesary to undersand what is going on here and will get rid of you forever. Enjoy your funest realm of lie, libel and shame because it will not last much more. --Igor21 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Illegal" lead section[edit]


The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

"Controversies" should be summarised in the lead section.

I invite Southofwatford to write that summary. He made a great job witht he introduction to "Controversies". Randroide 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I've had a bit more practice than you in trying to write neutral material - but in this case I would need clear guarantees that you won't use it as an excuse to reintroduce the police informers issue or any other of your pet topics into the opening paragraph. Whats's there at the moment isn't illegal, it's just not very good - but certainly no worse than the rest of the article. Southofwatford 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no. No details. Only a general mention to the controversies, something like the impeccable piece you wrote for the "Controversies" summary...something like this:

The authorship of the bombings remains controversial in Spain. Additionally, there is also controversy over the events immediately following the bombings and preceding the general elections that took place three days later and about the police investigation.

Randroide 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Spain the authorship does not remain controversial anymore. It was done by islamist extremists and not by the police as you are forcing the article to say. In the trial everything has been made clear.

Southofwatford: Randroide now is in his sheep mode because he is worried about what Durova is going to do when appears here. He wants to simulate that he has only problems with me and that he is a model editor. If Durova spends the proper time, Randroide is going to have big problems (as big as his misdoings).--Igor21 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Please visit these links [6] [7] and go to the newsstand to buy "El Mundo" (do not read only the online version) to see how wrong you are. The debate about the Madrid attacks is here to stay, Igor21. Accept this fact and stop wishful thinking.
You are wrong also about me and Durova, but, sorry, there´s no linkable source for that. Randroide 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This two links do not lead to any pice of news saying that "the authorsip is controversial" in any way. This trick of the links not saying what you say that they say is one of the most heineous of your repertory. You did not mislead Mantanmorelan and when time goes by more people will catch you and then your days as rogue user will be over. --Igor21 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course they do, if you spend five minutes navigating in those sites. For instance (aired yesterday) or the gargantuan list [8]. Try also the section "Juicio 11-M" on the column the right, whre the "Official Version" (their words) is doubted.
...this text was in the front page:
Es verdad que este hombre [Gómez Bermúdez] es y parece un juez decente, pero queda mucho juicio, y vamos a ver si se atreve a encausar a todos los que han sembrado de pruebas falsas el sumario, han cometido perjurio al por mayor y han mentido en sus narices
And, please, read WP:CIVIL Randroide 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are just conspiracy theory sources - it has always been clear that there are people who will not accept the trial unless it gives them a result which fits their political agenda. Losantos and Pedro Jota are in that group, it's nothing to do with the evidence or the progress of the trial and it's naive to think otherwise. These people have immunised themselves against reality and cannot be presented as representative sources. Southofwatford 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Southofwatford. All the sources you disagree with are "conspiracy theory sources", and all the sources I disagree with I could call them "officialist liers".
The crucial issue is that both fields are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Randroide 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we still have pending issues to deal with before moving onto anything else. Southofwatford 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which pending issues?. What about the wikipedia rules-compliant text for the lead?. Randroide 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Southofwatford: Durova is going to do nothing as Randroide correctly guessed and Mantanmoreland is bussy with better things to do. So we are alone with the alien in the spacecraft again. Do whatever you feel correct. For me all this is pointless. The evil realm of Randroide is going to last a lot more than what I thougth. Sorry for having you make trust in wikipedia mechanisms. This is a lawless country and only the most rogue can survive (i.e. Randroide)--Igor21 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

The whole issue of the treatment of police and informers in this article has not been resolved. There are many other issues I have with this article too - but bit by bit. Southofwatford 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been solved: It was moved from the lead to a section, and trimmed by Mantamoreland. What else?. Randroide 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Your shot, sir.--Igor21 21:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:NPA, Igor21. Randroide 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Before lecturing other editors, please comply wiht honesty.--Igor21 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the opportune link, Igor21. The only point I failed (out of my ignorance about its existence) until now is this:
Does not hide their personal point of view in order to pretend they don't have one. Conflicts of interests can only be assessed when users are honest about their motivations.
My POV about the bombings: There are shady and unclear issues around the autorship and the police investigation.
Now I comply with WP:HONESTY. Can we move on?. Randroide 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I was asked to look into this article as a linguist and fluent reader of Spanish (especially Castellano) and already I can see that there is disagreement regarding the sources. If someone could summarise the debate I'd appreciate it. Also, the advice to read El Mundo is spot on -- it is Spain's equivalent of the NYT (in terms of prestige). In fact, I followed the bombing and its aftermath through El Mundo (as well as [ Monde], el Periódico, Diário Digital and other European news outlets). Anyway, this really should be a pretty straight-forward article but apparently nothing is ever as easy as it should be. •Jim62sch• 09:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is one of sources only in the sense that there are some sources who do their utmost to discredit by any means the investigation and trial of those accused of the bombings. Unfortunately, El Mundo is one of those sources - those who do the hard pushing of conspiracy theories to suggest the bombings were carried out by the Spanish government or ETA or little green beetles from Pluto fortunately don't qualify as reliable sources. This does not seem to have prevented some of them being introduced as sources in the article. In short, the disputes that occur on this page are between Randroide, who supports the conspiracy theories although he occasionally chooses to hide that fact, and other editors who do not believe that these theories belong in a serious encyclopaedic account of what happened. We have had long debates going back months but we are now in a situation where Randroide considers if he has inserted his interpretation of a source in the place where he wants it to go then noone can possibly touch it. I could write 20 or 30 pages more but it's probably better if you just ask questions. In my view this article is a very poor account of what happened and the principal reason for that poor quality is the dispute I have described here. Southofwatford 09:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about El Mundo discrediting the investigation, but then I might have missed a few articles. Right now I'm going over the French, Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese articles to see if they suggest a way to improve this article.
As for the Spanish gov't being involved in the bombings, that's just the 9-11 "grassy knoll" nonsense in a different guise. Give me a little time to ponder this and to gather facts, and perhaps we can all band together to improve this article. •Jim62sch• 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Igor21 and Southofwatford think that any source voicing doubts about the conventional "exclusive Islamist, everything clear, no more questions" explanation is not a good source, and should not be used, because it is a "conspiracy theory" source.

I, Randroide, think that all newspapers are good as sources, and that all the debate about the (alleged, lets be NPOV even in the talk page) unclear issues surrounding the attacks should be in Wikipedia. My motto is: Present all the facts, let the reader decide. Randroide 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate summary:

The facts in itself are very simple. An islamist fanatic gathered a group of minor criminals (hashish smuglers) and converted them in religious fanatics. They share barbecues, they watch together indoctrination videos and Bin Laden speeches. It happened to be that they were in contact with a small mafia in Asturias one of which members was a former miner. They bought dinamite stolen from a mine from this mafia in exchange of hashish. They learn how to s in websites. They put the bombs in the trains. They try a couple other bombings but failed. Police surrounded them in Leganes weeks after the bombings and they commit suicide by blowing themselves up. Here is some background about the modus operandi of islamic cells de/international /world/0, 1518,476680, 00.html

The reason these simple facts internationally known by everybody cannot be explained in the article is that we have here Randroide.

His strategy is to make the issue imposible to understand to maintain conspirationism alive. For instance now he wants this Kalaji to be in the article because he wants the word "police" to appear as much times as posible (he things police was the real perpetrator). So he says that is sourced but in reality what is sourced is that this guy did nothing relevant.

Because nobody can see were is the relevance of Karaji, some people things that the issue is very complicated but is not: Karaji is nobody and this is the reason is dificult to understand his relationship. In retrospecive it was found that the police has been very negligent since some of the members of the islamist cell were under surveillance and some of the members of the Asturias mafia were police informants but we cannot say this simple thing because Randroide wants to show that the Spanish police killed his own compatritots. Since it is imposible to say so, now is embarked in introducing an inuendo against Spanish police in the article. This is the point we are now, do we explain what the sources say? or do we put sourced facts engineered in a way that mislead the reader to think that there was something very dark hidden (a conspiration)? --Igor21 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason these simple facts internationally known by everybody cannot be explained in the article is that we have here Randroide.

You can paste the Narrative you cited in the artticle, Igor21. If it is sourced, it´s OK. Please present here a diff of me opposing the inclusion of sourced facts: Such a diff does not exist.

Because nobody can see were is the relevance of Karaji

I wouldn´t say that. Media thinks otherwise: Just a googling [9]. Randroide 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Randroide, any of the many witnesses who are appearing in the trial can produce a significant number of Google hits - many, many more if they happen to be a favourite of the conspiracy theorist web sites. What does that prove? Are you seriously going to tell us that this is your criteria for insisting on including Kalaji in the article - because I don't believe that to be the case? Perhaps you haven't yet fully recovered from falsely naming Kalaji as the person who armed the bombs in one of your multiple content forks from this article? The only clear thing about your inclusion of him in this article is that you refuse to reveal your criteria or justification for highlighting him and not highlighting all the other witnesses in the trial. Just what is it about Kalaji that makes you so interested in him that you even ended up defaming him in Wikipedia? Southofwatford 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten articles with Kalaji as a centerpiece, Southofwatford. Is that good enough to establish notability?. I think it is.

Your continuos citing of my error on Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo [10] is bordering of breach of WP:AGF. Randroide 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok Randroide, read your sources and then present us with a paragraph detailing Kalaji's involvement with the bombings (concrete facts please) and why that makes him important enough to merit so much attention in the article about the train bombings. Perhaps in the process you can help to explain why he has featured so very briefly in the trial. Quality not quantity should be what matters here and unless you have something specific to include about him in the article then the question has to be asked on why you bother spending so much constructing the "bunker"? Southofwatford 13:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What was Kalaji's role in the Spanish police before and at the time of the bombings? Was he in an anti-terrorism unit? --Burgas00 13:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not your secretary, Southofwatford, so I kindly invite you to do that job yourself.

Southofwatford wrote: ...the question has to be asked on why you bother spending so much constructing the "bunker"

Sorry but I can not understand why you ask such a (IMO) superfluous question. The answer is (IMO) obvious: Because you want to throw that data down the Memory Hole.Randroide 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So the bunker remains without any justification beyond "I have sources so that's it". No use asking Randroide to discuss what content should or should not be in the article, he refuses all invitations to do so. Southofwatford 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That´s it, sir. No further justification is required: Sources think Kalaji is notable, no more argumentation needed.

No use asking Randroide to discuss what content should or should not be in the article

There´s nothing to discuss, Southofwatford: If it is sourced, it can be into the article. This simple rule is also a benefit for you. Otherwise Wikipedia would be a nightmare of editors saying "prove that it is notable". Randroide 08:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you guys would sign your posts. Re sourcing: There are a host of other factors to take into account, particularly for this article the question of "undue weight." That has been the main issue here. I am glad that a Spanish-speaking editor not previously involved in this article has weighed in on this.--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, the idea of editors collaborating in deciding what information might be relevant and useful to inclue in the article is a nightmare for you. Wikipedia as a random, unstructured and selective source inventory as opposed to Wikipedia being an informative, coherent, well written resource that people might feel like using. Southofwatford 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: the idea of editors collaborating in deciding what information might be relevant and useful to inclue in the article is a nightmare for you

You wrote the sunny side of your intentions, Southofwatford, now take a look at the dark side:

editors collaborating in deciding what information might be throwed to the Memory hole. Randroide 08:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the government lied[edit]

This source is quite useful.

--Burgas00 21:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Add the data... but that data belongs to Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings#Accuracy_of_government_statements... if the government lied or not is a Controversial issue, as I suppose you know.

It is in fact the only real controvesial issue.--Igor21 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact you are wrong. Please see the sourced controversies in the aforelinked page. You may regard the controversies justified or NOT justified, but by Jingo that the controversies exist. Randroide 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There exists. In one side is Randroide with a handful or political motivated Spanish fanatics and the other side the rest of the planet including police, judges, secret services, main media, academic experts, etc...--Igor21 08:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Read about the groups voicing doubts about the Official Version to see how wrong you are, Igor21. And I kindly suggest you to get outside The Matrix, for a change. Randroide 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I read it quickly and will read it in more depth later, but my initial reaction is "Roswell meets the Grassy Knoll". No offense, but some of it just seems ludicrous. •Jim62sch• 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a right to have an opinion, sir. Please check for grammar/spelling: You are a native English speaker.Randroide 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, stop with your nonsense paranoia with Prisa. I showed you 20 worlwide sources saying the same that PRISA and I can find 1000 if needed. I read you once saying that all the Spanish newspapers (except El Mundo) were written by the same hand. Do you think now that this is worldwide phenomena?--Igor21 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Also the "native speaker" jibe was uncalled-for. This is a new editor to a page who is making constructive contributions.--Mantanmoreland 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested the opposite about Jim62sch, Mantamoreland. No "jibe" intended. Not at all. I only made a bona fide comment about how he could improve an article, even if he thinks it is ludicrous. Randroide 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My point was that if there is a problem with grammar in an edit, just fix the edit. There is no need to leave a comment like this. This page needs more eyes, and having them is not necessarily a bad thing from your point of view.--Mantanmoreland 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, sir: There´s a misunderstanding, and it is my fault, because I wrote an ambiguous message: I meant that "Controversies" needs a general fix (I know because I wrote part of that article) and suggested to Jim62sch to take a look. I was not talking about Jim62sch´s edits. It would be extremely unwise on my part to criticise the grammar or the spelling of a native English speaker.Randroide 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
10-4.--Mantanmoreland 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not supported[edit]

While this swipe at the ETA may be true, it is not supported by the reference: planting delayed-action bombs to kill rescue workers and using booby traps (such as explosives in wallets), as well as also having attempted to attack trains, •Jim62sch• 08:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a source. ETA in the 70s used to rob the car and then give it back to the owner or abandon it as undamaged as they can. In the 80s-90s started to put a clockbomb or a contact bomb (or clockbomb simulating is a contactbomb) in the cars abandoned after the "actions" both to try to kill policemen and to erase traces (fingerprints and DNA).--Igor21 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The bombs in the wallets were an unclear issue. ETA never vindicated those attacks, and ETA sympathetic media still presents those attacks as state actions. Who knows. The line should be deleted, IMO. Randroide 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was about ETA abandoning cars. If the thread is about the attack to a woman who loose the hands in the beach of San Sebastian when she found a wallet (an attache in fact), it was never explained. Police at the time said that was done by certain "Y commands" loosely related with ETA but ETA said that was a para-police action. Experts go for a maverik para-police. I do not know why we are speaking about this. It can be certainly deleted. --Igor21 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure what the point is of this sentence, but it seems to be either a stray thought or a sentence lacking either an introductory or subordinate clause: Bomb-disposal teams had dealt with two of the remaining three IEDs. (see 2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Description_of_the_bombings. Basically, it needs to be developed.•Jim62sch• 11:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence must go out because it is controversial. Plase see Controversies_about_the_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#The_13th_bomb. Thank you for your work reviewing the article. Randroide 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not controversial at all to say that two out of three unexploded devices were dealt with by the bomb disposal teams - it's a well established fact. Southofwatford 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it needs to be developed; as a stand-alone thought it is meaningless. •Jim62sch• 11:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
two of the remaining three is controversial. You moved "controversies", Southofwatford, and this is controversial. Randroide 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vallecas bomb existed, whether the conspiracy theorists like it or not - two out of three unexploded devices is a perfectly neutral description of that reality. I will look later for a source on detailing the desactivation of these two devices. Southofwatford 12:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph was changed to avoid saying that "13 bombs were placed on the trains" because one editor wanted the 13th bomb to be dealt in the controversies section because he said that was a fabrication of the police.
What the paragraph should say to be coherent, truthful and informative is "The terrorists placed 13 bombs in the trains of which 10 exploded and 3 do not. Bomb-disposal teams tried to disactivate 2 of them but exploded. The 13th bomb was inadvertendly collected wiht the lost luggage of the victims. In the evening this bomb was discovered in its rucksack and dismantled. In the cell phone used as detonator was found the data that allow police to identify the perpetrators" (yes, I know my english is a crime).
There´s a controversy about the 13th bomb (a.k.a. "Vallecas bomb"). You may like or not that fact. If you do not accept the moving to "Controverises", you just gave me carte blanche to reintroduce controversies into the main article. Your choice. Randroide 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not give you carte blanche to do squat. Our job is to report, not to editorialise. If you believe that there was some sort of conspiracy, fine, but keep those thoughts out of the article. •Jim62sch• 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote as fact what it is , in fact, a controversial assertion. That´s a POV edit. And the thoughts you are mentioning are "other sources´" thoughts, and you wrote also "some sources´" thoughts. Please, fix the mess. Randroide 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV, a 13th bomb was reported, that is the fact, deal with it. Personally, I have NO POV regarding 11-M, I view the issue as an outsider and am able to step back and look at the actual issues as reported, not as I want to see them.

Let me put it to you this way Randroide, I have three Featured Articles to my credit, I'm pretty damned sure I have a clue of what I'm doing. You are free to put what you wish (as long as it meets WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V) in the Controversy article, just as has been done in various other articles. •Jim62sch• 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Daoiz y Velarde[edit]

I know who the men were, but not being a resident of Spain, I don't know precisely what Daoiz y Velarde refers to in the article. A city, a neighborhood, a plaza, etc? •Jim62sch• 11:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a local neighbourhood sports centre. Southofwatford 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Southofwatford is right. Here is the googling [11]. Randroide 11:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool, thanks. •Jim62sch• 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing absurd conspirationist section[edit]

Once is clear that is no reason to be for this section other than the inuendo against Spanish police, I proceed to remove it.--Igor21 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that we need to find a solution to the problem of this section and the whole orientation of the section on police informers - otherwise we are stuck in a permanent cycle of removal and reversion. There has been no response on the RFC, so maybe we have to consider a request for mediation on this issue? "Bunkers" constructed to protect contributions have no place in Wikipedia, if we want to write about things in a way which nobody else can touch then Wikipedia is obviously not the place to do that. Likewise, refusing to discuss the reasons why something is important for an article is also out of place in Wikipedia, a collective effort to produce coherent and informative articles cannot function properly in such circumstances. So the only solution remaining that I see is the next stage of dispute resolution escalation. Any opinions? Southofwatford 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important because Wikipedia approved sources regarded the issue as important. I agree with you that now is time for escalation. Randroide 13:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had enough. One respected editor called the article "grass knoll mets Roswell" and this section is the most conspirationist so I revert again. --Igor21 08:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seek the diff and see the context. He was not talking about this article, Igor21. Destruction of sourced data is not tolerated here. Randroide 07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Randroide: I perfectly know the context (and you too). Jim62sch read the article and said this. Stop cheating people with your maneouveurs. You have been caught and you cannot do what you used to do. Please, do not make this more dificult. --Igor21 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

911 days between 9/11 and Madrid bombings[edit]

From this statement that is on the article (when I looked at it):

(Others suggest, however, that terrorists wishing to emphasize a connection with 9/11 would not rely on such an oblique connection as its "2 1/2 year anniversary.")

But, more notably is not the 2.5 year anniversary, but that there are 911 days between the two dates. Don't know if it should be noted in the article, or how, but here is a source for it (and detailed explaination, as you have to be careful with how it is worded for it to be technically correct).

There were 912 days, whoever calculated it forgot that there was a leapyear in 2004. Sorry 3.14 etc 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But it's also possible that the terrorists might have forgotten that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Why is it that tourism figures for Madrid before and after 2004 are very hard to find, does anybody know the figures or where to look? Krummy2 10:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You might find this page useful - it's in Spanish

Southofwatford 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracias Krummy2 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Foreign victims[edit]

There seems to be an inconsistency. The article mentions 42 foreign victims (citing info from the radio station Cadena Ser). The journal ABC mentions 47 foreign victms. This needs to be looked at! 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence[edit]

Under "Description of the bombings":

Bomb-disposal teams had dealt with two of the remaining three IEDs but the third was not found until later in the evening, having been stored inadvertently with luggage taken from the train.

I assume this occurred after the ten explosions, but the context and the word "had" makes it sound like this occurred beforehand. Can someone clean up this sentence by being precise about when this occurred? Tempshill 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It happened shortly after the explosions at Atocha and El Pozo - I've changed the wording a bit to emphasise that the bomb disposal teams acted after the initial explosions. Southofwatford 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Very clear now, thank you. Tempshill 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Spanish nationals who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested."[edit]

I just have to ask, do we really need 15 sources for that statement? Zazaban 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look to the archived discussion to see how dificult is to say the truth in this article. The more evident issue have required months and tones of references.--Igor21 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Is there really a need for literally *fifteen* citations for just one sentence in the opening paragraphs of the article? And then, repeatedly throughout the entire entry, there are multiple sentences that are given WELL more than the necessary number of citations, which really just makes the entire page something of a (excuse my French) clusterfuck to read. President David Palmer (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Edit: I just noticed the above, after I thought I did a careful read-through. There is still absolutely no need for that number of citations, and it is not the only example of it throughout the entry.President David Palmer (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes: You have a point. The reason for that (IMHO) excessive sourcing is that this article was a fierce "battleground" some time ago. I suggest you to (as a sign of courtesy) contact with the editor who added those fifteen sources, User:Igor21 and talk with him about the issue. I am also open to remove some of "my" sources if that´s point is raised. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lead[edit]

Second paragraph needs rewriting; according to most articles the most important immediate political controversy was the Government's insistence on assigning blame to ETA even as the investigation was pointing elsewhere, and that is not mentioned clearly.

In addition, the fifteen citations are all very well, but they can be collapsed into one footnote. Relata refero (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is mentioned clearly:

  • Controversy regarding the handling and representation of the bombings by the government arose...[]...Immediately after the bombing leaders of the PP claimed evidence indicated the Basque ETA was responsible for the bombings, an outcome generally thought favorable to the PP's chances of being re-elected,[27][28] while Islamist responsibility would have had the opposite effect, as it would been perceived a consequence of the PP government's involvement in the Iraq War, a policy already extremely unpopular with Spaniards.[29]...[]...Many analysts coincide on the view that the Aznar administration lost the general elections as a result of the handling and representation of the terrorist attacks, rather than the bombings per se.[37][38][39]

...but if you want to write it still more clearly, please go ahead.

The fifteen citations "collapsed into one footnote"?. That sounds very neat. Could you please point to an example of that kind of "collapsing". Sorry but I ignore what are you talking about. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I might do the re-writing soon. For the footnotes, see the hideously controversial but beautifully formatted footnotes 15 and 21 in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Relata refero (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Affects on the election[edit]

"The authorship of the bombings remains controversial as it occurred three days before general elections and appears to have led to the defeat of the incumbent José María Aznar's Partido Popular (PP), which had been leading in opinion polls."

This is POV. Looking at this [12] I'm not so sure of the affect on the elections if any. The gap between the PP and PSOE had been narrowing in the months leading up to the election, from 10.7% at the beginning of February to 2.8% the day before the bombs. There's no significant difference between the change between 8th March and 10th March and the change between 10th March and 12th March. In the first case PSOE closed the gap by 1.7% and in the second case they closed the gap by 2.1%.

Furthermore opinion polls usually have a margin of error of +/- 3% meaning that any PP lead of less than 6% could still produce a final (real) result where the PSOE won. The PP leads in the 6th and 8th March polls are well within that margin of error, meaning that even on the basis of the pre-bomb polls, a PSOE win was a real possibility. I'm changing the lead to reflect that. Valenciano (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I thought I "combed" all unsourced "facts" in this article, but I missed this one. Well done, Valenciano, and thank you very much for the data hunting and for the extensive explanation to your edit. Randroide (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Hi. I have created a new article which I thought you guys might be able to give me a hand on: Political violence in Spain since 1975, basically trying to list every act of political violence involving casualties since 1975. The main source I am using is the AVT website but the listing they have is far from complete. It should include stuff like this and other similar events, the GAL assasinations etc...

I cannot find any equivalent listing anywhere on the internet either in Spanish or in English so it is hard to compile the information by myself. I thought it might be an interesting project, if you want to contribute. --Damam2008 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories[edit]

I think more attention should be given to the conspiracy theories. The strength they had in rightwing media, the gravity of the accusations, the deep fracture they caused in Spanish society and their ultimate contribution (it seems now) to the crisis in the Spanish right are all worthy of analysis and, in my opinion more interesting than the events in themselves. I see there has been alot of arguing with conspirationists in this article. Parting from the basic premise that these theories are all rubbish, there should be no problem in expanding upon them. --Damam2008 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it was that argument that led to the creation of the controversies page related to the Madrid bombings. I agree that the issue deserves attention, but I'm not with you on the argument that they should be more prominent than the events themselves. The question is how to present the issues concerned without having all articles associated with the bombings ending up structured around conspiracy theory arguments. I think they are rubbish too, and even many of those behind them have now abandoned the fold. As a political reaction by sections of the Spanish right to their electoral defeat following the bombings it is legitimate to portray the issues - but I don't think it goes beyond that. Southofwatford (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit undoing[edit]


Reasons for the undoing:

  • The radio station it is not called officially "La COPE". The official name is "COPE" (please check [14])

I think that sticking very closely to what sources say is the only way to go, Damam2008. Please do it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Randroide (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more discreetly has to go..., but don't delete the whole edit!--Damam2008 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edits are A-OK. Thank you Randroide (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor[edit]

I read the article, and couldn't find the answer to one of the most basic questions for the naive reader: why did they do it? The answer should be in the lede, and if nobody knows, it should say that nobody knows. If it's disputed, it should say that it's disputed, and then there should be a section on motivation. Just throwing that out there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are touching a can of worms. The issue is highly disputed Randroide (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspected I was, but my point still stands. There should be a section dealing with the notable theories on the motives, and the issue should be dealt with in the lede. Take for example the 7/7 London bombings, in which the motive is addressed in the second sentence of the lede and receives an entire section (with two subsections) of coverage. When compared with that article, this one looks more like an article dealing with the scandal the attacks caused in Spain (which was clearly huge), rather than with the attacks themselves. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The (purported) perpetrators (purportedly) recorded a video tape voicing their (purported) reasons. That would a good start for that section. BTW, do you understand Spanish?. Randroide (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Which is why one reason why I'm not particularly qualified to do this work myself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest you to try this search. Please createt the text yourself (my english is nor perfect) Randroide (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

A section on the motives?[edit]

I think the article on Islamic terrorism already discusses the general motives of Islamic terrorism. However, this article only makes a slight mention of the more specific motives on the Madrid train bombings. I really think that this topic deserves an entire section or subsection, even if there is still only one or two sentences that can be said about it like the unpopular policy of going through with the Iraq War. Don't you guys also think that the 'why' is important? I don't know much of the details about the Madrid bombings and would like to know more about it. Thank you! (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I said! (previous talk section) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well why not write it? This article would benefit from wider input from those who have no axe to grind on the issue. The issue of precise motives becomes a little tricky when most of the perpetrators are either escaped, dead, or just not talking about why they did it. You have the issue of the video tapes they made but little else in the way of public pronouncements. It's similar to the case of the London bombing in 2005, do we really know what made four people blow themselves up on buses and underground trains in London? There's a background of general grievance that feeds Islamist terrorism which then gets an additional impulse from specific issues such as the Iraq war. It's really not that controversial to suggest that Spain's involvement in Iraq increased its profile as a target, but from there to saying that was the specific motive of the bombers is a bigger step.Southofwatford (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Spains withdrawal from Iraq in ANY of the articles on Spains modern history[edit]

Not a word about spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq as a consequence? On 18 April, 2004 "Spain's new prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has given orders for Spanish troops in Iraq to be brought home in "as short a time as possible". (BBC) and stating so already in March: Nunamiut (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in consequence of the attacks, but in fulfilment of an election pledge.AdeMiami (talk)

Scott Atran's opinion[edit]

Atran is misrepresented as casting doubt of Islamist authorship. If one reads carefully the two sources involved, he in fact agrees with Islamist authorship by an autonomous group (i.e. one not organically linked to Al-Qaeda). I propose to rewrite both Atran's references:

In the Trial section (my edit in bold):

Scholar Scott Atran described the Madrid trial as "a complete farce" pointing at the fact that "There isn't the slightest bit of evidence of any operational relationship with al-Qaida". Instead, "The overwhelming majority of [terrorist cells] in Europe have nothing to do with al-Qaida other than a vague relationship of ideology." Atran suscribes to the idea that the authors were an autonomous and anarchic Islamist cell with no formal connections to Al-Qaida, a conclusion that is also reflected in the Audiencia Nacional sentence. [53]

In the Responsibility section (my edit in bold):

According to scholar Scott Atran "There isn't the slightest bit of evidence of any relationship with al-Qaida. We've been looking at it closely for years and we've been briefed by everybody under the sun... and nothing connects them." [54] He provides a detailed timeline that lend credence to this view. [55] He lays out the exact role and relations of the small group of key conspirators, their wider circle of associates and the appalling failures of the Spanish police to stop them. [54]

If everyone agrees, I will make this changes. Also, I find that Fernando Reinares, one of the foremost authorities on Islamic terrorism in Spain, should be quoted with the opposing view (that there was an Al-Qaida connection). I will look up the source. Gandalf57 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 12[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

    • In 2004 Madrid train bombings on 2011-05-25 07:46:01, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 2004 Madrid train bombings on 2011-06-11 08:36:56, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 13[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

    • In 2004 Madrid train bombings on 2011-05-25 07:46:01, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 2004 Madrid train bombings on 2011-06-11 08:37:06, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 14[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 15[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 16[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 17[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 18[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 19[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Image for train station[edit]

Change it, it has been edited and is misleading, put it's original daytime picture back on so the public is not mislead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NATO PLANTED AND DETONATED THESE BOMBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


"Sectors of the People's Party (PP), and certain media, such as El Mundo newspaper and the COPE radio station,[79] continue to support theories relating the attack to a vast conspiracy to remove the governing party from power. Support for the conspiracy was also given by the Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo (AVT), Spain's largest association of victims of terrorism."

What is not mentioned here is that it was the Aznar government/NATO/Spanish Intelligence and United States Intelligence that perpetrated this horrific act of terrorism to gain coalition support for the continuing illegal occupation of innocent masses in Afghanistan and Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it not mentioned? Probably because, like the conspiracy theories that it was the PSOE that did it no one takes such a ludicrous theory seriously. Nor we should we entertain it here. Read WP:FRINGE for further details of why not. Valenciano (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


The article's info box states the assailants of these bombings as al-Qaeda, while the body of the article casts serious doubt about whether al-Qaeda is even connected to the cell that carried out the bombings. This is misleading -- if the article does not establish al-Qaeda responsibility, or even connection, then this item ought to be removed from the info box and the readers can make up their own mind about this alleged connection based on the material in the body of the article (and the same goes for the al-Qaeda box template at the bottom of the article, in which these bombings are listed in the timeline of attacks). Otherwise, if indeed these attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda, then this article lacks in supporting information to establish this.-- (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the reference to al-Qaeda from the info box and from the al-Qaeda timeline at the bottom given the absence of evidence.-- (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A new book published recently in Spain attributes the bombings to a revenge operation planned following the earlier dismantling of an Al Qaeda cell in Spain in 2001. All of this might be arguable but its not the case that there is no evidence of an al-Qaeda connection - Southofwatford (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange phrase in introduction[edit]

the last line of the introduction ends: "experts have repeatedly said that there is no such thing as an intellectual author in Spanish law."

The meaning of this sentence is unclear and it seems out of place. However I'm not familiar enough with the article or the subject to be able to correct it. Can someone who is more familiar edit it appropriately? pomegranate (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)