Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments On The Atelier Version Of The Main Text

Southofwatford 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I propose that we go section by section on the atelier version so that we can separate what is agreed from those points which have not been agreed or where users see omissions that need to be dealt with.

I have gone through the first section this evening - the description of the bombings - and am prepared to leave the question of the unexploded devices if it gets us moving forward. We can leave the description with the 10 devices that did explode, and hopefully that puts an end to one obstacle. The rest of this section was written by me anyway so perhaps its not surprising that I have no problems with it :). I also have no problems with other users suggesting changes if they feel something is wrong with it.

The aftermath section that has been removed raises significant issues - I don't think it is reasonable to omit all mention of the AVE bomb (is this event disputed?), and the Leganés explosion. These are events that are very significant to the narrative of the bombings and I think we have to seek a wording which allows them to be included in the main article without any intent to go beyond a simple description. Otherwise the main article is not serving any real purpose, because it would only (Southofwatfordbe a partial description of what happened.

The issue of the political aftermath between 11th-14th March, and the judicial investigation, needs to be addressed in association with the article on the aftermath of the bombings - to avoid having parallel accounts of the same events which with successive editing can go in completely unpredictable directions. I have toyed with the idea of trying to combine both articles once the controversies page is set up, but my current preference is to maintain the main article as an account of significant events on the day and in the period immediately following the bombings, and the aftermath article can deal with any subsequent issues. The cut-off point of the main article needs to be decided.

Larean01 11:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) I found this in the NPOV FAQ page:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Where it says majority, put "authoritative" in the sense that there is a "version" supported by a judicial investigation, which has not been disputed by unbiased experts.

Thought it might be a useful guideline for the controversy page.

Southofwatford 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Certainly worth bearing in mind. It is clear that the two things are not equivalent, any account of the conspiracy theories requires an account of the judicial investigation because these theories do not stand on their own - at least until some positive evidence is produced in favour of the conspiracy, at the moment it is all negative. On the other hand an account of events and the subsequent judicial investigation does not have any dependency on anything else - it stands on it's own merits. Anyway, we have not yet reached the point where this discussion has any real meaning - first we have to get to the stage where the controversies page is created.

Southofwatford 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Moving on with the review of the Atelier version. The entire responsibilities section has been removed, this seems to me to be a bit extreme - in line with the comments I made yesterday about finding a way to describe certain events which does not favour any version of what happened. Perhaps the solution could be a short Aftermath section containing this basic description of key events and a resumen of the responsibilities debate - together with links both to the full aftermath article and to the controversies page. That way we avoid too much risk of conflict with what we have now in the aftermath article, and also point out clearly that the issue of responsibility is disputed. It seems fair to me, what do other users think?

Southofwatford 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I am away from home until Monday, I will continue reviewing the rest of the atelier article then. Any feedback is welcome on my suggestion above for dealing with the aftermath issues.

Here is another hypothesis that should be discussed before atelier version [1] thanks

Southofwatford 07:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) If you were to mix your comments in this way together with Randroide's, you would be in trouble - I'm just going to separate it out from mine. Looks to me like another hypothesis we can discuss after the atelier version.


Southofwatford 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Continuing review of the atelier version

Reactions -> Social - this section does not read properly anymore. The removal of all reference to the arrests makes the part about the demonstrations on the day following the bombing lose its meaning. I suggest either this is rectified in the short aftermath section I suggested above, or that something sufficiently neutral is inserted here to restore the coherence.

Reactions -> Political - I simply don't understand the need to remove the last paragraph from this section, I know it touches on controversial issues but it does so in a way that does not imply any conclusion or specific interpretation. I think, perhaps with some slight rewording, it can quite easily be left inside the main account. I also think that perhaps this section should go before the Social section as much of that refers to the demonstration which was convoked as part of the political reaction. To me it reads better to have things in that order.

Southofwatford 18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Ok, I have reviewed the final two sections in Reactions. The International section has had paragraphs removed where they could easily just be reworded. Removing Castro's criticism for example is removing simple facts, whether or not you agree with what he said. It's a common theme on almost all the sections removed that they could be reworded so that they are not seen as an interpretation of the events.

I hope that when we create the new controversies page that we can remove the classification of the links based on whether they are for or against the conspiracy theories - such a distinction has no place when those theories are not even being dealt with in this article. It was always an imposed change anyway. It would be good to have some feedback on these comments, if none comes I will begin drafting rewording of those sections where I think the removal of all information is not necessary - then we can discuss the final version prior to creation of the new page.

Randroide 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Sorry for the delay in my responses: I destroyed my keyboard in a coffe spill accident and I had no spare.

If you think that a rewording can maximize the noncontroversial data contained in the main article, please go ahead and try that rewording.

For the sake of clarity and completeness of essential content, the main article could also include a minimun of controversial data (i.e., the "islamist" trail), but in that case "the other side" (i.e., published data disputing the "islamist" trail) should also be cited in the main article.

Key word here: Minimun.

Removing Castro's criticism for example is removing simple facts

Of course, Southofwatford. An you also blanked simple facts I added about the 13th bomb. The issue is that Castro took side in one side of the controversy. That material should be restored, with the 13th bomb text, in the "controversies" section.

Golden rule adding information to the main article: If you add controversial information to the main article, the other side of the controversy should also be cited. I think we won´t have any problem if we follow this simple and logical rule.

Larean01 wrote: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such

I think that you are talking about this Wikipedia policie, Larean:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. (taken from WP:NPOV, bolds added by me).

Of course what we have no diplomated "experts" in the 2004 Madrid bombings and we do not known how many spaniards believe the the Official version is true and how many have doubts. But we know something: Spanish Popular Party has doubts about the official version, and that party had 38% of the votes in the Spanish legislative election, 2004. That´s not, by far, a tiny-minority.

Where it says majority, put "authoritative" in the sense that there is a "version" supported by a judicial investigation, which has not been disputed by unbiased experts.''

It says what it says. It says majority, NOT authoritative. I am afraid that you and me could argue endlessly about who is an authority on the Madrid bombings and who is not. Wikipedia policies save us from that headache: If it has been published in a newspaper, then it is kosher for the Wikipedia.

Southofwatford 18:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Ok, I will go ahead and suggest rewording of those events which I think need to be included for the account to be sufficiently comprehensive - obviously I will be seeking concise non-judgemental descriptions of these events. It's impossible in my view to have an account which avoids mentioning controversial issues, it is simply a question of finding a way to describe them without entering into discussion of the issues involved. removing the opinions of those who in the immediate aftermath suggested Islamist involvement also means we have to remove any reference to those suggesting ETA involvement if we are going to maintain neutrality - that won't leave much of an article.

In any case I suggested last week that we could maintain the aftermath section partly as a way of pointing readers both to the new controversies page, and to the longer aftermath page, accompanying these pointers with a one paragraph description to set the context.

I don't intend to enter into the discussion about Wikipedia policy but your attempt to line up all Partido Popular voters as being supporters of the conspiracy theories is a little over ambitious - not even all the PP leadership supports them! Only those associated with those sections of the right wing media that promote them. Even in the best of cases 38% leaves the glass well under half-full.

Randroide 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The longer I think about this article, Southofwatford, the longer I realize that my prior intention of a "sanitized" article is NOT a sound one (the narrative would be incomplete and confussing). I think, that the best option is to include a brief reference to the controversial issues AND (...AND, very important) a brief reference to the controversy.

Something like this: It was announced that unexploded bomb (the 13th bomb) was identified as such in the Vallecas Police Station...bla, bla, bla...islamist trail...bla, bla, bla... the genuineness of the exhibit has been disputed (see controversies).

Southofwatford wrote: your attempt to line up all Partido Popular voters as being supporters of the conspiracy theories is a little over ambitious

All the other spanish parties support "conspiracy theories": Present spanish Minister of the Interior, Alfedo pérz Rubalcaba, said that "La conspiración la protagonizaron ustedes para engañar a los españoles" [2].

It is a official statement of the current spanish government, Southofwatford: The Official Version it is ALSO a "conspiracy theory".

If you wanted to say that some PP voters or leaders believe (or simulate to believe) in the Official Conspiracy theory, you are right. But the same could be said about voters of other spanish parties.

BTW, I am not a PP voter and I have serious doubts about the Official Version about what happened. I know PSOE and IU voters with the same doubts.

The important thing is: PP leadership (Mariano Rajoy) voice doubts about the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Moreover: The second spanish newspaper (El Mundo) and the spanish catholic church owned radio station (COPE) also voice serious doubts.

The bottom line: Doubters of the Official Conspiracy Theory are clearly a "significant minority", not a "tiny minority".


Southofwatford 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't agree with your suggestion Randroide on handling the controversies. I specifically want to avoid a situation where we have to put a link to another article every time we touch on a controversial issue. In my opinion, all that will do is turn what should be the main reference source on the bombings into a billboard for the controversies article. I think what I suggested previously is a reasonable solution, we can have an explicit reference to the existence of the controversies and the new article, in the context of an aftermath paragraph that summarises what these contentious issues are. In addition there is of course the See Also section where the new article could also be referenced. I find it hard to believe that we cannot reach agreement on a neutral wording that recognises the existence of an event without attempting to make a judgement about it.

On the Official Version. The attempt to combine the verdict of a two year judicial investigation, a parliamentary commission of enquiry, all government statements on the issue, and all media reports that do not question the results of the investigation into something you call the Official Version is entirely bogus - they are separate from each other and consequently do not coincide with each other on all events - I've said it before but your Official Version is an artificial construct that simply does not exist.

Likewise, the attempt to seek an equivalent standing between the results of the judicial investigation and the conspiracy theories can only be valid when the conspiracy theorists start to produce evidence for their theories that matches the level of evidence from the judicial investigation, and when the same standard of proof is applied to these theories. At the moment neither of these applies. The conspiracy theorists make accusations about the bombings being a conspiracy and coup d'etat without producing a single piece of positive evidence for these accusations.

Let me give an example, if I propose a theory that the origin of our galaxy is the result of a chemistry experiment on the planet Zargon that went badly out of control, then I cannot use as the basis for my theory any deficiencies in the more commonly accepted theories, even though there are many gaps in our knowledge - I have to be able, at the very least, to establish the existence of the planet Zargon if I want my theory to be taken seriously. The same applies with the conspiracy theories on the Madrid bombings, if you want to allege that the 13th bomb was planted then you have to provide names, places, and supporting data, just as the judicial indictment does for its accusations - finding gaps in the indictment is not evidence in favour of the accusation that it was planted. In the same way, you have to apply a standard of proof to the accusation of the bomb being planted that is equivalent to the standard of proof you demand of the investigation, at the moment all we have is faith based acceptance of it being faked. There is the problem, the conspiracy theories do not stand up independently, whereas the results of the judicial investigation do stand on their own merits. Equivalence means equality of treatment in all aspects, and the conspiracy theories don't reach the standard of the judicial investigation.

Randroide 13:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Sorry if I write something wrong: Now my computer display is malfunctioning, and I almost can not see what I am writing.

1. We are not discussing here the credibility of the Official Conspiracy Theopry or the credibility of the sources disputing that theory. The disputers wrote their arguments in what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources", so those views should be included. Please stop that discussion, now, you are wasting your time, that should be used providing an alternate text for consensus.

2. I provided links to news about Official Spanish Police reports expressing doubts about the genuineness and the chain of custody of the 13th bom.You blanked those links. If, after thta, you still insist in writing lines like the conspiracy theories don't reach the standard of the judicial investigation, I must say you with all due respect that you have a serious problem dealing with reality. It´s your problem, not mine not Wikipedia´a. What the hell. This is not the issue any longer. Forget this. The issue now is to reach a consensus to split the article and comply with Wikipedia size rules.

3. I provided the Officialist POV about the 13th bomb, as you asked for. I created the atelier with my proposd text, as you started to ask for an alternative text.

Where is your work?. Where is your proposed text?, please provide us with that text and stop talking about side issues. The issue now is to make this article compliant with Wikipeduia rules about article size.

4. OK, no link to the "Controversies" artcle in every disputed fact, if you prefer that presentation, but mention should be made to the condition of "disputed" of the disputed data remaining in the main article. This is a sine qua non. You can not give the status of "undisputed facts" to arguments that had been seriously disputed in reliable sources. That would be a violation of NPOV.

5. Another option: The page is way too big, and we are going nowhere (because you are not providing us with a text for consensus. Another option could be to create a new article Reactions to the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings with the content of thast section. That would be enough to split the text and make again an article with the size required by Wikipedia rules. Do you agree?.

Southofwatford 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Something of a bad-tempered response. If you don't want to discuss the issues which I wrote about yesterday, then the best thing is not to raise them in the first place. You made what I considered to be hugely exaggerated claims about the audience and importance of the conspiracy theories, and I responded on those issues.

Now you are suddenly concerned about the article size, since when has this been the main issue? Until a couple of weeks ago the only issue that concerned you was increasing the size of the article. In any case the article has not experienced any recent increases in size, and given the discussion that is well underway on this page, there seems to be no reason to suspect that we are not going to find a way to reduce it

On your point number 4 there is no issue, I have made it very clear that I agree to the inclusion of a statement which points out the controversial nature of some of the issues in the article, and indicates where the reader can find further discussion of those issues - my suggestion of a brief Aftermath section includes that.

On point 5, we are not going nowhere. On the contrary, I finished reviewing the atelier version this week, and next week I will present my proposed amendments to that version. We discuss those, look for a consensus, and if we are successful we could have the new controversies page up and running by the end of next week. That doesn't seem to me to indicate a lack of progress.

Randroide 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)I am glad to read that you are going to present your alternative text in the next days, Southofwatford. Very glad.

Southofwatford wrote: Until a couple of weeks ago the only issue that concerned you was increasing the size of the article

Yep, increasing the article with sourced statements. I am very proud of that activity. The article is much better thanks to my work. Anyone can check thatfact.

Southofwatford wrote: You made what I considered to be hugely exaggerated claims about the audience and importance of the conspiracy theories

For the benefit of the casual reader, I will recite you the pure facts about the audience of the UNOfficial Conspiracy Theories. No "exaggerated claims", pure hard-as-nails facts:

The UNOffcicial "Conspiracy Theories" about the 2004 Madrid bombings are supported and/or voiced by:
  • The Second Spanish political party: Partido Popular.
  • The Second spanish newspaper: El Mundo.
  • The Radio Station owned by the spanish catholic church: COPE. Implicitly, the spanish catholic curch.
  • On eof the most important digital spanish papers: es:Libertad Digital.
  • The es:AVT..
The irony is that I am not a catholic, nor a PP voter, nor a El mundo reader. Have a nice weekend.

All these "seconds" are politically on the right. If you don't vote for the PP, I wonder who you do vote for

I vote for no one. I am not for compromise in basic values, and I found innacepptable traits in all the spanish parties. I only vote in referendum, when you are only required to say "yes" or "no": I voted NO in the NATO (YES won the refernda) 1986 referenda and NO in the 2005 European Treaty referenda (again, YES won the referenda).
Moreover: The frame of all the spanish politital life is the 1978 Constitution, a collectivist Horror that is only attacked by those parties who regard that Constitution not collectivist enough. It´s a nightmare.
Just a recent example: I am against ALL military adventures in other countries, name them "Arabian Gulf" (Felipe González sent there soldiers in 1991) "Iraq", (Aznar in 2003) "Afghanistan" (Aznar and Zapatero) or "Lebanon" (Zapatero). I have no party to vote for this simple and rational demand: Some weeks ago ALL the spanish parties supported the Lebanon adventure.
Ah, "EL Mundo" is NOT "rightish": The paper opposed all the foreign military adventures since its year of foundation, 1989, and is pro "Homosexual rights" and legalized abortion. A good thing about this paper is that it is not sectarian: Left wingers like Francisco Umbral and right wingers like Federico Jiménez Losantos write there. BTW: I do not like the general line of the paper. I always say that "El Mundo" is a bad newspaper, and, at the same time, the best nerwspaper in Spain. All the others are just crap.Randroide 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Randroide attempts to present El Mundo as an independent centrist newspaper in an attempt to give more credibility for his main source for the conspiracy theories. The reality is now somewhat different; whatever the paper may have been in the past is no longer relevant. El Mundo is in head to head confrontation with ABC, previously the main conservative paper in Spain – and this confrontation forms part of the backdrop to the promotion of the conspiracy theories, as they are being supported strongly by the COPE, Libertad Digital and the right wing faction of the PP leadership. What kind of independent journalist would ever get hundreds of PP members flown or shipped out from the Spanish mainland to Mallorca to demonstrate in favour of his illegal swimming pool? Yes, I know it sounds bizarre – but it is completely true. Pedro J Ramirez, the director of El Mundo, is that journalist. He has repaid the favour by appearing recently at a couple of PP conferences, where he faithfully backs up the PP’s political positions. We should distinguish between formal independence (no party card), and real independence. Those who disagree with the new orientation of El Mundo are either leaving voluntarily or being pushed.

In his list of those supporting the conspiracy theories, Randroide omits the connections between them; it’s really quite a close family. Pedro Ramirez is a regular guest on the COPE radio show run by Federico Jimenez Losantos, incidentally a show where Losantos spends most of his time insulting anyone who disagrees with his far-right political positions. In turn, Losantos has his own column in El Mundo. Libertad Digital has as its editor…..none other than Losantos. Where does Luis Del Pino, the high priest of the Black Pawns sect, publish his blog…..on Libertad Digital! This is not a case of different media groups independently arriving at the same conclusions; it’s a political and commercial operation, with close collaboration between the different players

Incidentally, anyone who regards the Spanish constitution as a “collectivist horror” presumably rejects the PP because they are not sufficiently right wing?

Randroide 09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Totally off topic, Southofwatford. Where is your alternative text?.

Incidentally: Spanish right wingers are ALSO collectivists. Just as spanish left-wingers, they support a collectivist monstrosity as the draft (la "mili"), compulsory insurance ("Seguridad Social") and handouts from productive regions to unproductive ones ("solidaridad interterritorial").

I am not a right-winger, I am a student of Ayn Rand´s philosophy. But this is also off-topic.

Southofwatford 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I said it before Randroide, don't raise a topic in the first place if you don't want people to respond on it. Everything I have said here is in reply to your comments above - if it's not off-topic for you to raise issues, then its not off-topic for anyone to respond on them. What you don't like perhaps, is some factual background being provided about your supposedly independent conspiracy theorists.

I will work on the alternative text this evening, when I have time to do it. In the meantime I am as free as you are to discuss issues of my choice on this page that are relevant to the subject matter - and I will continue to do so.


Southofwatford 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I have begun work on a short combination of the sections on aftermath and responsibility which have been removed in the Atelier version. This is not my final proposed version, there are some things I want to think about, and I will finish this section tomorrow. However, this is more or less what I have in mind for the structure - it contains links both to the proposed controversies page, and to the extended aftermath page. The description of events is intended to be basic, concise, and using sources which have no involvement in the controversies.

Great job, Southofwatford. FCongratulations. At last we can move on. For the sake of expediency I shall make my noncontreversial additions directly in the text, and I will write in RED CAPITALS my commments in the controversial points.Randroide 08:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A SuperConspiration.

Extreme-Right media: Had invented a big conspirative-theory.

This theory would imply the collaboration of: judges, PSOE, National Police, Guardia Civil (a national militar policeman organization), National Intelligency Agency, Interpol, AlQaeda(who claims the terrorist attacks), and ETA (a basque terrorist organization).

A big conspirative theory, performed by a very different kind of groups (some of them big enemies such us ETA ang Judges,Police or Guardia Civil). Executed perfectly to take appart Partido Popular from Government.

This conspirative theory has been rejected for the majority of the Spanish Parliament and for the majority of the society. Only the most-right wing of Partido Popular, the ultraconservative catholic media, and the pro-nazi parties (with no parliament representation) support it.

10:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)El Mundo extreme-right media?. I wonder if you have been smoking something very, very powerful: "Extreme right media" (whatever it is) does not support Homosexuals right to marriage, El Mundo does [3]. You should also read the corrosive (and well deserved, IMO) editorials written in "El Mundo" against the foreign military adventures initiated by George W. Bush and José María Aznar.

This conspirative theory has been rejected for the majority of the spanish Parliament and for the majority of the society.

The first statement is true. But it is also true that the majority of the spanish parliament supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, and the majority of the spanish society (justly, IMO) rejected the invasion. You see?: The parliament is not always tuned with "the street". In 1986 almost half of the population voted "NO" in the NATO referenda, and only less than 15% of parliament members were for the NO.

The second is not: We do not know if the spanish society gives more credit to the Official Consopiracy Theory or to the doubters. A hint: El Mundo now sells 6% more newspapers than 1 year ago. ABC, the right-wing supporter of the official theory, sells 20% less. The left-wing supporter of the official theory, EL País, also goes down. [4]

If the spanish people is voting with their wallets, the doubters of the Official Version are gaining ground, an supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory are losing ground.

Only the most-right wing of Partido Popular, the ultraconservative catholic media, and the pro-nazis partys (without parliament representation) support it.

The pro-nazis stuff if very interesting, indeed. Could you please be kind enough to illuminate our ignorance with relevant links to substantiate your statement?. Or did you simply invented that "pro-nazi" stuff to smear to the doubters of the Official Conspiracy Theories (and I am one of them)?. Your response (or lack of it) will make us know.

Randroide 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)No "pro-nazi" presented by the unregistered user so far. Seems it was just an smear with no fundament.

Southofwatford 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Probably you'll tell me that I'm not allowed to respond, but I'm going to anyway. There is no evidence to suggest that all El Mundo readers support the conspiracy theories, or that their increase in sales is related to this. Of course, conspiracy theorists do not require evidence for their assertions! What is beyond doubt, see my comments above, is that El Mundo is being moved sharply to the political right and is trying to compete directly with ABC for right-wing readers, the fact that its past positions have been more liberal does not change this.

As for pro-nazis, anyone who passes by Luis del Pino's blog and reads some of the comments can soon find evidence of those who regard the PP as being dangerously moderate - which political space do these people occupy if it is not the extreme right?

Randroide 11:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Of course that your are free to do what you want with your time, Southofwatford. But, according with my own personal standards, it is unpolite to engage in dredundant iscussions while you have not yet presented a consensus text. I did my homework 2 weeks ago, you blanked sourced information. I made my proposal, your proposal is not here yet. If you have time to engage in well trodden issues but not for work on a consensus text to allow us to move on, comply with the Wikipedia size rukles and re-integrated sourced data blanked by you, that´s your choice of values.

There is no evidence to suggest that all El Mundo readers support the conspiracy theories

No, and there is no evidence neither to suggest that all El País readers of PSOE voters support the Offcial Conspiracy Theory. In fact, we do not know. Readership of different newspapers and political support of different parties gives us only a rough estimation. But we do not know, I agree with you in this issue.

Interventions in a blog show nothing: Blogs are full of trolls. I could write right now an apology of Stalin in a blog supporting the Official Theory, and that wouls show nothing. You know that and I know that, so, please, stop that nonsense.

Your "argument" about everyone regarding as "moderate" the PP being a neo-nazi is not good even as a joke. Please think something better. BTW, nazis were national-SOCIALISTS, they were not "right-wing".

Southofwatford 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) If the discussions are redundant then why do you raise the issues? Or is it only redundant when somebody replies? It is not as easy a job to write new text as it is to remove old text, I have been reviewing the issues over the last two weeks and this week I intend to make proposals. If you are going to continually repeat your complaint about me "blanking" information I will start cutting and pasting the (endlessly repeated) perfectly sound reasons I had for removing your undiscussed, non-NPOV, imposed changes.

As for joke arguments, calling the Nazis left wing because they had "Socialist" in the title of their party is a very good joke - so Franco didn't join the Second World War because he thought Hitler was a dangerous left-winger - yesssss, of course. My argument was that there are plenty of people on Del Pino's blog who are clearly very right wing indeed, and who see as their objective the use of the conspiracy theories to provoke a political crisis which they think will bring down the government. Pro-nazis, I don't know...democrats, certainly not.

Randroide 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) There is not a barrier to register in Luis del Pino blog. Anyone can register there, even you.

A believer in the Official Conspiracy theory, for instance a PSOE carnet-holder, could register as an "Agent provocateur" and write "¡Viva Franco!, ¡Arriba España!". Of course that that proves nothing about Luis del Pino. I´ve seen obvious examples of trollism in that blog being tolerated, or maybe just unchecked, due to the enormous traffic and relative openness of the blog.

Luis del Pino´s blog is NOT like El País blog, where you are required to give your National Identity Card (a.k.a. as "D.N.I.", "Documento Nacional de Identidad") and where there is a small army of censors overlooking the disccussions.

Another issue: I went to the public library to check if es:La Razón (España) is among the "voicers of conspiracy theories". They are: The 2nd and 4th spanish newspapers express doubts about the official conspiracy theory supported by the current spanish government. Ah, yes, "La Razón" can be called, with all property, a "conservative" and "right wing" newspaper.

To sum up, this is the positioning of the 4 more popular spanish newspapers:

Randroide wrote:

I think that you are talking about this Wikipedia policie, Larean: (policy quoted here)

Of course what we have no diplomated "experts" in the 2004 Madrid bombings....

Wrong. We do have experts. Judges and attorneys are experts in Criminal Law. Tedax (bomb-deactivation brigade) are experts in bombs. GEOs (SWAT teams) are expert in conducting an assault and assessing the conditions inside the Leganés flat. Forensic chemists are experts in explosive detection. Analytical chemists in general are experts in techniques such as Thin Layer Chromatography.

Currently the vast majority of experts support the conclusions of the Del Olmo investigation. For example, the Audiencia Nacional (the competent court) has voted unanimously to uphold ALL indictments and to reject ALL defense objections. They are experts in indictments. Thus, their opinion should be taken far more seriously than the opinion of a journalist, and one with strong political views to boot.

and we do not known how many spaniards believe the the Official version is true and how many have doubts.

We do have a recent "Pulsómetro" saying about 60%-25%, with the majority supporting islamist authorship, but as I will argue in a minute, this is immaterial.

But we know something: Spanish Popular Party has doubts about the official version, and that party had 38% of the votes in the Spanish legislative election, 2004. That´s not, by far, a tiny-minority.

This is a tremendous fallacy. As noted by Southofwatford, not all PP voters necesarily support conspiracy theories. But worse still: this is a form of argumentum ad populum. Even if a majority supported conspiracy theories that would not make them true or subject to the same consideration from an NPOV.

Let me put an example. In the US around 40-50% of the population are creationists. That does not mean that Wikipedia should give Intelligent Design roughly the same weight it gives to Evolution Theory. EXPERTS in biology overwhermingly support the latter and reject the former. Laymen's opinions are immaterial here... as they are too in a criminal investigation.

Concerning your other (journalist) sources, it is very clear that Spanish investigative journalism is not up to standard. The Spanish press in general is very political, not objective, very prone to make uncorrected mistakes, and sistematically ignores deontological codes and best practices.

I can show any time how El Mundo and especially Luis del Pino in Libertad Digital make tremendous mistakes and outlandish claims. They are not a reliable source.

PS: And calling El Mundo a centrist newspaper nowadays is a bad joke.


'Randroide 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user wrote: 'We do have experts. Judges and attorneys are experts in Criminal Law.

Yep. The same judiciary folks that made NOTHING to prosecute the GAL, even with blatant lines of investigation open to them. Nothing until "EL Mundo" started his campaign of muckcracking.

Again, and again, and again:Separation of powers in Spain is a fiction. Former PSOE Vice-President, Alfonso Guerra, said in the late 1980´s that "Montesquieu ha muerto" ("Montesquieu is dead"[5]).

'Unregistered user wrote: This is a tremendous fallacy. As noted by Southofwatford, not all PP voters necesarily support conspiracy theories. But worse still: this is a form of argumentum ad populum. Even if a majority supported conspiracy theories that would not make them true or subject to the same consideration from an NPOV.

I agree with you 100%. But...

1. We were talking about public support to "conspiracionist" views, not about the veracity of those views. Not argumentum ad populum at all. I was using PP number of votes as a rough aproximation to the support to the UNofficial "conspirationists".

2. Conversely: The same cargument ould be applied about not all PSOE (or IU, or CiU, or PNV...) voters supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory.

'Unregistered user wrote: Laymen's opinions are immaterial here... as they are too in a criminal investigation.

We are not talking about "opinions" here, but about FACTS against the Official Conspiracy Theory published in major media.

Unregistered user wrote: it is very clear that Spanish investigative journalism is not up to standard. The Spanish press in general is very political, not objective, very prone to make uncorrected mistakes, and sistematically ignores deontological codes and best practices.

That´s your personal POV. I respect that, but it is a POV, not a fact.

Unregistered user wrote:: Tedax (bomb-deactivation brigade) are experts in bombs. GEOs (SWAT teams) are expert in conducting an assault and assessing the conditions inside the Leganés

Your examples are ironic:

  • TEDAX chief, Sánchz Manzano, asserted that he has not an expert in explosives, after his gigantic gaffe with the Nitroglycerine issue.
  • GEOs failed to cut cell pfone communications, against their own official Rules of Engagement, even when they said officially:
Sumario 20/2004: FUNCIONARIO DEL C.N.P. CON CARNÉ 81.743 (10 de junio de 2004):Se había cortado el gas y el teléfono. Que otros compañeros había ¡do con un aparato inhibidor de ondas, cree que con el objeto de que no utilizaran el teléfono móvil.

Unregistered user wrote: We do have a recent "Pulsómetro" saying about 60%-25%, with the majority supporting islamist authorship

A note for the non-spanish reader: The "Pulsómetro" is made by the Cadena SER, which is the exact ideological opposite of the COPE. The SER is "progressive" and pro-PSOE, and the COPE is "conservative" and por-PP. I suppose we all agree on this point.

This is a very interesting piece of information. Could you please provide us a link?. What´s the meaning of about 60%-25%?. If that can be sourced, it should be included in the article. nregistered user wrote:::I can show any time how El Mundo and especially Luis del Pino in Libertad Digital make tremendous mistakes and outlandish claims.

Show us, please. If you can source your rebuttals, those rebuttals should also be included in the main article. Thank you.

Unregistered user wrote: And calling El Mundo a centrist newspaper nowadays is a bad joke.

Could you please tell us, with some fundament, which is the political leaning you ascribe to "El Mundo"?. Please remenber that this is the newspaper that is pro gay mmariage, that opposed (and uncovered) the PSOE GAL death squads, the 1991 PSOE involvement in the Gulf War and the PP involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Go ahead and tell us, please. Randroide 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Southofwatford 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Randroide, I have already given you clear evidence above of the switch in El Mundo's politics - the expensive use of hundreds of PP members to support Pedro J Ramirez in what should be his private defence of an illegal swimming pool - perhaps its a service available to anyone? His appearance at PP conferences? The circulation war with ABC, aided by Losantos - a strange operation for a centrist newspaper. By the way, the assertion that El Mundo unveiled the GAL affair is very controversial - indeed I remember an excellent BBC documentary on the affair from many years ago, and I have seen references to other Spanish papers taking it up before El Mundo. Are you sure about this?

Can we trust the spanish police?

Randroide 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Un registered user wrote: We do have experts. Judges and attorneys are experts in Criminal Law. Tedax (bomb-deactivation brigade) are experts in bombs.......EXPERTS in biology overwhermingly support the latter and reject the former. Laymen's opinions are immaterial here... as they are too in a criminal investigation..

Sorry, enough is enough: I am fed up with all this flatus vocis (read: Nonsense) of "experts" and "professionals" that, as medieval catholic theologians , should be faithfully trusted by the ignorant (and sinful) "layman".

I will provide a non-exhaustive florilége of blunders, showing total incompetence (or, still worse, negligence) commited by the spanish police with the 2004 Madrid bombings:[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12].

The most graphic example in this anthology of bad police work is this: [13]. The composers of the Official account of what "really" happened used twice the same picture to illustrate the Goma-2 that alleguedly appeared in the Renault Kangoo (other policemen say that the Kangoo was empty) and in the disputed exhibit known as "Mochila de Vallecas", i.e., the 13th bomb. SAme picture to illustrate two different objects.

Some disputers of the Official Version, seeing this mess, said that it was time for a romanian judge to start an international invstigation (a lot of romanians died in the bombings).

Southofwatford 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Devastating stuff Randroide, the pictures got mixed up!! What does that prove, if anything? There I go again, asking for evidence - when will I ever learn?


Your favourite conspiracy theory newspaper, El Mundo, also gets things mixed up - like when they manipulated the answers from the parliamentary commission on the Kangoo, and then suggested that their manipulated answers showed it was empty. The difference is, of course, that El Mundo never rectify their "mistakes".

Randroide 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)That proves that the spanish police is incompetent, and that their work should be taken cum grano salis.

'You', Southofwatford, think that it is acceptable to mix up the allegued picture of the allegued unexploded bomb that allowed the detention of the allegued perpetrators of 191 murders.'

I strike that because Southofwatford wrote: I will ignore the offensive accusation which you have invented about what I think is acceptable or not - invention is the conspiracy theorist's speciality
It was not my intentio to be "offensive", but I apologise anyway. But you, Southofwatford , wrote the pictures got mixed up!! What does that prove, if anything?. It seems that´s not very important for you.

I think that that´s unnaceptable.

On the other hand: Provide us with a link to that accusation you made against "El Mundo", please.

Southofwatford 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I will ignore the offensive accusation which you have invented about what I think is acceptable or not - invention is the conspiracy theorist's speciality. I will give you two links on El Mundo's manipulation of answers in the Parliamentary Commission. Firstly, what El Mundo claimed:

En Alcalá nadie vio nada en el interior del vehículo. Así lo atestiguó de forma clara el jefe del grupo de Policía Científica de Alcalá, el inspector Luis Martín. En el Congreso, la diputada del Grupo Mixto le insistió: "¿Puede usted certificar que allí no había nada a la vista?". "Lo certifico total y absolutamente", le contestó.

my translation:

In Alcalá nobody saw anything in the interior of the vehicle. This was made clear by the head of the Scientific Police in Alcalá, Inspector Luis Martín. In the Congress, the deputy of the Mixed Group insisted "Can you certify that there was nothing to be seen?". "I certify that totally and absolutely", he replied"

Thats El Mundo's version -[14]

Now for the version taken directly from the documentation of the Commission:

"La señora BARKOS BERRUEZO: Por tanto, estaba más que en primera fila. Entonces, ¿puede usted afirmar -lo ha hecho, pero yo digo en calidad de responsable de la custodia de la furgoneta-, puede usted certificar que allí no había nada a la vista?

El señor INSPECTOR JEFE DEL GRUPO LOCAL DE POLICÍA CIENTÍFICA DE ALCALÁ DE HENARES (Martín Gómez): Nada que nos llamara la atención.

La señora BARKOS BERRUEZO: Evidentemente; cuando hablamos de nada sabemos de qué estamos hablando, de esos famosos detonadores de los que hoy hemos podido leer en la prensa y ayer en algunos informes. A ese nada me he referido y nos hemos entendido perfectamente. ¿Lo certifica? Entonces, en el momento en que se abre la furgoneta, no estaban a la vista?

El señor INSPECTOR JEFE DEL GRUPO LOCAL DE POLICÍA CIENTÍFICA DE ALCALÁ DE HENARES (Martín Gómez): Lo certifico total y absolutamente."

my translation again:

The Deputy BARKOS BERRUEZO: "So, you were more than just in the first row. Then, can you state - you have done so but I mean in the capacity of the person responsible for custody of the van - can you certify that there was nothing to be seen?"

Inspector Martín: "Nothing that drew our attention"

The Deputy BARKOS BERRUEZO: Evidently, when we are talking of nothing we know what we are talking about, the famous detonators about which we have read today in the press and yesterday in some reports. I am referring to this nothing, and we have understood each other perfectly. You certify it? Then, when the van was opened they were not visible?"

Inspector Martín: "I certify it totally and absolutely"

Open manipulation of the answers by El Mundo to try and suggest that he said the van was empty, the real statements do not say that at all - the detonators were found underneath the front seat of the van. They also manipulated the testimony of Sanchez Manzano to try and suggest that he saw the van 3 minutes after it arrived at the police station - also not true, he testified that it took him 3 minutes to arrive after he was informed of what had been discovered there.

The link [15]

By the way Randroide, since you like talking about photos, do you think the pictures that El Mundo have printed more than once of an empty Kangoo and a full Kangoo are genuine photos of the van in question....or faked?

Randroide 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Southofwatford wrote: do you think the pictures that El Mundo have printed more than once of an empty Kangoo and a full Kangoo are genuine photos of the van in question....or faked?

What a funny question, Southofwatford. I will answer you with a equivalent funny question: 'Do you think the footage of Julio Cesar being stabbed that was presented in that nice History Channel documentary uses genuine footage of Julio Cesar....or faked?'

And , of course, the answer is...NEITHER. The footage is not "genuine" and is not "faked". It is called A RECONSTRUCTION. I wonder where is the IQ point where someone can start to think that the pictures of the Kangoo are "the real thing". I suppose that that poor soul maybe thinks that the Julio Cesar footage is also "genuine".

"El Mundo" never, never, never, tried to pass those pictures as "the real thing". Pedro J. himself talked about the pictures as a reconstruction. A very funny divertimento, Southofwatford. Now, please, move on to serious things.


Southofwatford 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC) So you don't regard manipulating the answers given in the parliamentary commission as a serious issue? On serious papers journalists get fired for that sort of thing. In El Mundo's case they would have to start by firing the director.

Randroide 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I do not see any manipulation, Southofwatford. I see a simple editing to achieve a concise message. I see no dishonest intention in the editing: Nothing essential was left out.

The Kangoo was not, obiously "empty" in the sense of "containing nothing", it was "empty" in the sense of ""Nothing drawing the attention of the policemen". A bag with detonators would be a powerful call of attention to the police in the circumstances of that day.

Anyway, thank you for the work done by you collecting and linking textes and making a translation. This is (IMHO) a very weak criticism against "El Mundo", but if you find a source to this criticism, you can add this stuff to the controversies page if you want.

Southofwatford 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Well let me explain it to you, as you are having difficulty. El Mundo claims directly in the article that nobody saw anything in the van - there is no reference there to the detonators, and it uses the inspector's testimony to back up that claim. Anyway, you know that the conspiracy theorists claim that the van was completely empty on arrival and this is what the article tries to suggest. But here El Mundo can only suggest this by taking the answer to another separate question about the detonators and claiming that it was really the answer to the first one. Because if it printed the whole exchange it becomes clear the inspector was only talking about the detonators. It's not edition, because it changes entirely the interpretation of the response. The entire story is based around misrepresentation of the answers given in the Commission, because if they print the real version then they have no story about the van being empty. The weakness, Randroide, is in the original article - so much of El Mundo's coverage depends on a selective and misleading presentation of the data. We can add the references to the commission testimonies if we ever reach the stage of having a section on the Kangoo in the controversies page.

--Larean01 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An apology. The "unregistered user" was myself, one of the authors of Desiertos Lejanos. My answers to Randroide:

'Randroide 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered user wrote: 'We do have experts. Judges and attorneys are experts in Criminal Law.

Yep. The same judiciary folks that made NOTHING to prosecute the GAL, even with blatant lines of investigation open to them. Nothing until "EL Mundo" started his campaign of muckcracking.


1) Not exactly the same. 15-20 years have elapsed. In the meantime, the PP has conquered power and named dozens of judges.

2) That being said, it was the Spanish Judiciary which tried and imprisoned the people involved in the GAL scandal.

Again, and again, and again:Separation of powers in Spain is a fiction. Former PSOE Vice-President, Alfonso Guerra, said in the late 1980´s that "Montesquieu ha muerto" ("Montesquieu is dead"[16]).

A declaration by a politician decades ago, with 8 years of PP government in the middle, is not what I would call proof of such a serious charge. Can you substantiate it with evidence?

'Unregistered user wrote: This is a tremendous fallacy. As noted by Southofwatford, not all PP voters necesarily support conspiracy theories. But worse still: this is a form of argumentum ad populum. Even if a majority supported conspiracy theories that would not make them true or subject to the same consideration from an NPOV.

I agree with you 100%. But...

1. We were talking about public support to "conspiracionist" views, not about the veracity of those views. Not argumentum ad populum at all. I was using PP number of votes as a rough aproximation to the support to the UNofficial "conspirationists".

2. Conversely: The same cargument ould be applied about not all PSOE (or IU, or CiU, or PNV...) voters supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory.

But nobody is making claim 2. At least I am not. I am basing my opinions on experts, not on what people say.

'Unregistered user wrote: Laymen's opinions are immaterial here... as they are too in a criminal investigation. We are not talking about "opinions" here, but about FACTS against the Official Conspiracy Theory published in major media.

1) There is no such thing as "the Official Conspiracy Theory"

2) We are not definitely talking facts. Nobody has proved, for example, that the Kangoo van was empty or that the Vallecas bag was "planted".

3) Finally, "major media" cease to be so when they blatantly incur in yellow journalism, as can be readily proven.

Unregistered user wrote: it is very clear that Spanish investigative journalism is not up to standard. The Spanish press in general is very political, not objective, very prone to make uncorrected mistakes, and sistematically ignores deontological codes and best practices. That´s your personal POV. I respect that, but it is a POV, not a fact.

Look who's talking. The person that two paragraphs above indicted the whole Spanish judiciary, a far more serious charge.

But it is not my POV. We have dozens of instances in which "El Mundo", COPE and Libertad Digital incur in yellow journalism, and I will document a few presently. El Pais does it too, by the way, but in this case to a far lesser degree.

Unregistered user wrote:: Tedax (bomb-deactivation brigade) are experts in bombs. GEOs (SWAT teams) are expert in conducting an assault and assessing the conditions inside the Leganés

Your examples are ironic:

  • TEDAX chief, Sánchz Manzano, asserted that he has not an expert in explosives, after his gigantic gaffe with the Nitroglycerine issue.

I said experts in bombs, not in explosive composition. But OK, I concede I should have been more specific: in bomb deactivation. Happy?

  • GEOs failed to cut cell pfone communications, against their own official Rules of Engagement, even when they said officially:
Sumario 20/2004: FUNCIONARIO DEL C.N.P. CON CARNÉ 81.743 (10 de junio de 2004):Se había cortado el gas y el teléfono. Que otros compañeros había ¡do con un aparato inhibidor de ondas, cree que con el objeto de que no utilizaran el teléfono móvil.

Are you sure? What time is the last call originating from Leganés? Check the indictment. It's one hour before the explosion. But even if you were right, one detail does not deter from their professional judgment of a siege situation, and specifically from the fact that practically all report "several voices" and "shots" coming out of the flat.

*GEOs declarations tal about a to hour shooting with authomatic weapons. Only 5 shells were recovered. See complete references at es:Discusión:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004/Extractos del sumario 20/2004 sobre número de disparos del tiroteo de Leganés.

That is untrue. No GEO present in the crime scene talks about heavy shooting. They all (or most) talk about some shooting. Are you seriously saying they all are wrong/lying?

But more important than the details is the general discussion. Are you seriously maintaining that no one in the Spanish judiciary and no one in the Police forces are experts in their fields? If you do not make such a claim, can you tell us why is it that no real experts (Note: Spanish or foreign) challenge the so-called "official version"?


Unregistered user wrote: We do have a recent "Pulsómetro" saying about 60%-25%, with the majority supporting islamist authorship

A note for the non-spanish reader: The "Pulsómetro" is made by the Cadena SER, which is the exact ideological opposite of the COPE. The SER is "progressive" and pro-PSOE, and the COPE is "conservative" and por-PP. I suppose we all agree on this point. This is a very interesting piece of information. Could you please provide us a link?. What´s the meaning of about 60%-25%?. If that can be sourced, it should be

included in the article.

For me it's not that important. It might be in the sense that it shows that after two years and a half of constant conspiracy propaganda most people have the good sense of not believing it (and that is a relief), but not in any other sense pertaining to this controversy.

At any rate:

http://www.cadenaser.com/pulsometro/index.html?fecha=2006-09-18

Uregistered user wrote:'::I can show any time how El Mundo and especially Luis del Pino in Libertad Digital make tremendous mistakes and outlandish claims. Show us, please. If you can source your rebuttals, those rebuttals should also be included in the main article. Thank you.


Visit www.desiertoslejanos.com. :-)

Now seriously, just a few well-documented cases:

Casimiro García Abadillo claims that a Casio alarm clock was bought by suspected terrorists, and that it is very usual in ETA attacks as a timer. In reality it was a wristwatch, which as you may know is very, very, common (Casio holds a tremendous market share in digital wristwatches). Abadillo has never changed or corrected this claim.

In the same article, Abadillo says the witness described the buyers as "Westerners". The witness did nothing of the kind.

http://www.desiertoslejanos.com/blog/?p=30

Southofwatford has mentioned another infamous case, the "empty" Kangoo van. It is very clear the El Mundo quoted testimony out of context and selectively.

Another case. El Mundo says "La mochila de Vallecas no estaba entre los efectos que la Policía recogió del tren" in its headline (The Vallecas bag was not among the items that the Police gatherede from the train). This categorical claim is NEVER supported by the body of the article, in which the most that can be said is that Inspector Alvarez was not able to identify or recall the bag. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://kickjor.blogspot.com/2006/03/la-mochila-de-vallecas-no-estaba-entre.html

Yet another one:

Concerning the recent "false report" controversy, El Mundo has systematically deleted from its quotes of the "original" or "draft" report the phrase "and [given] that we ignore its real application concerning these facts":

Por qué El Mundo (versión electrónica) sistemáticamente, en la foto del documento original que acompaña a sus artículos sobre la supuesta falsificación, no pone el párrafo anterior en el que dice que también se encontró esa sustancia a Iván Mártinez Gómez?


Y por qué siempre en este párrafo:


"Los tres peritos concluyen en su informe que "dado lo poco frecuente en que esta sustancia [el ácido bórico] ha sido intervenida en hechos terroristas (...) existen varias posibilidades, tales como: conservante de los explosivos de tipo orgánico, enmascarar el explosivo para no ser detectado por los perros especialistas en detección de explosivos, etc., nos lleva a la posibilidad de que el autor/autores de estos hechos estén relacionados entre sí y/o hayan tenido un mismo tipo de formación y/o sean el/los mismo/s autor/es"

Hay unos paréntesis con tres puntos en el lugar donde debía aparecer:

" y a que nosotros ignoramos su verdadera aplicación en relación con estos hechos" (13 palabras)

Again from http://foro.desiertoslejanos.com/viewtopic.php?id=30&p=26 (sorry for so many self quotes)

Concerning COPE, it says that a report from Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that boric acid can be used to "mask" or degrade other explosives. The report actually says that boracitol, composed of boric acid and TNT, degrades faster than other explosives.

Original COPE claim:

http://www.cope.es/ver_noticia.php?id_noticia=212680

Actual Los Alamos paper:

www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00393502.pdf

Concerning Del Pino, two items:

1) His "false suicide" theory, which absolutely defies credibility (See Leganes FAQs in Desiertos Lejanos)

2) The fact that he continuously contradicts himself. A very blatant example is the fact that Enigmas 24 and 27 cannot be both true. (Discussion of this in Desiertos Lejanos)

Unregistered user wrote: And calling El Mundo a centrist newspaper nowadays is a bad joke.

'Could you please tell us, with some fundament, which is the political leaning you ascribe to "El Mundo"?. Please remenber that this is the newspaper that is pro gay mmariage, that opposed (and uncovered) the PSOE GAL death squads, the 1991 PSOE involvement in the Gulf War and the PP involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Go ahead and tell us, please.

I adscribe to it fundamentally an antisocialist (anti PSOE) leaning. All the things you say (save GAL) have been archived, and El Mundo is the reference for PP attacks on the government and for all the conspirationist community. Its alliance with COPE and specifically Federico Jimenez Losantos, who makes no secret of his rightist leanings., and with one sector of the PP (Zaplana/Acebes), curiously the most rightist one, are well known. Some analysts (see for example www.periodistadigital.com) think that El Mundo is moving right fast, trying to destroy ABC, for years the reference paper of the Spanish right, and occupy its niche.

Southofwatford 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I think we can probably add to the list of El Mundo manipulations the claims that Pedro Ramirez made about the "ST" timer found in the house of another suspect. Ever desperate to prove any connection between the bombings and ETA, Ramirez claimed that this timer had been made by ETA - not even his own paper backed him up on that one. Again, you have to ask - what kind of independent, honest, investigative journalist would even think of doing such a thing? Proper investigative journalism does not adapt the facts to fit the theory. In polite English we would describe what Ramirez does as being "economical with the truth".

While I'm here, lets not forget the phony experts they quickly found when they needed backing for their case on the explosives analysis. If what they say is correct, it should be easy to find the most reputable explosives experts in the world to back their case - hasn't happened.

Randroide 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Larean, Southofwatford: You made your point and I made my point.

You trust the spanish judiciary, I do not.

You think that "El MUndo" is anti-PSOE. With your same arguments, in 2003 it could be said that it was anti-PP, due to its criticism against the Iraq war and all the "Weapons of mass destruction" hoax. But all this crap is irrelevant: Wikipdia rules say that "El Mundo" (as "El País") is a reliable source, and thta should end the discussion.

You are not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince you.

Now, please, I propose to stop esterile discussions about who is an "expert" and who is not, and about if such or such newspaper is good or bad, and lets going to build a good article with sourced NPOV statements. Lets stick to Wikipedia ruñles and stop all the superfluous discussion.

    • The "pulsómetro" link is a very interesting source, Larean. Thank you very much. It should be included.
    • Sorry, Larean, but Blogs as your "Desiertos Lejanos" are not regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia rules ([[17]]). If your arguments are published in newspapers, you can add your arguments to the main article. If not, thtat would be "Original research").
  • Nevertheless, if you want to do so, you can create a page about your own blog Desiertos Lejanos (Spain): I am not going to oppose that. There, you can write your arguments in a NPOV manner.
    • Of course that all theallegued rebuttals to the doubters of the official version published in any newspaper (EL País, ABC...) should be included.
    • Larean: I invite you to visit the /Atelier and say what do you think. The Atelier is not a private enterprise between Southofwhatford and me.

--Larean01 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not quote Desiertos Lejanos as a Wikipedia source. I cite it in the context of the discussion of El Mundo's reliability, to save my breath (or my typing). I could translate and reproduce here (parts of) the articles I quoted as part of the discussion; I choose not to because they are already written elsewhere, and both you and Southofwatford can read Spanish. However, I thank you for your illustrations on Wikipedia policy, as I am fairly new to this world and still learning.

Going back to the main point, it is verifiable that Abadillo said so-and-so (references are in the article). It is also verifiable that he misquoted (references also in the article). The same goes for all the rest of my quotes.

My intention here is to open up a discussion of what sources are reliable and which are not. I don't regard El Mundo (EM), COPE or Libertad Digital (LD)as reliable sources and I am willing to debate why. I also note that in accordance to the policy you just mentioned, all of the Del Pino publications in LD and specifically his blog should not qualify as sources. The reason for this is that there is verious serious doubt that he has subjected that material to any editorial checks.

Let me further quote from the reliable source guideline. My remarks in italics.

Check multiple sources

Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account. It is very clear to me that EM, COPE and LD are not independent among themselves and have a strong reason to be biased.

However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion.

Issues to look out for

Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources? Not in general

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? They definitely do

Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like . , Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.

Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. OK, no problem

Find out what other people say about your sources. Answers to this in this very page

Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

Are they available to other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle. If not, inclusion is probably not appropriate. Note, however, that they need not be online; availability through a library is sufficient. OK, no problem

Live news footage during disasters and major incidents are primary sources that often contain highly speculative reports and commentary, some which may later turn out to be false; Such sources should be corroborated with other reliable sources, such as newspaper reports that have gone through editorial process and review. OK, no problem

What is an independent secondary source?

Independent secondary sources:

Have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes; Benefit of the doubt, although LD almost surely does not have such oversight and process.

Have not collaborated; They do collaborate and usually quote each other

May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them. Not in general, they don't. They take at face value what the other says, especially LD with respect to El Mundo (even when it contradicts Del Pino himself!)

Even given the same primary sources, different analysts may come to different conclusions about the facts being reported. In practice, many secondary sources find and use different primary sources in the course of their research. Conscious biases, unconscious biases, and errors are not always self-evident. The best way to expose them is to cross-check with another secondary source. I cannot think of almost any non-contaminated secondary source you can use for that..

....

With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked. Not in general

Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are generally more credible, all other things being equal, than those which are not. Benefit of the doubt to El Mundo. Almost sure LD does not have one.

Reliable sources also are ones which differentiate within their own information stream between assertions which are backed by observation, those that are theoretical but highly likely, and those which are speculative, conjectural and rumor. All fail with flying colours this test.

Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked. Many of the assertions cannot be checked.

Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are. Thus quotes with attribution are more reliable than "anonymous sources," particularly when anonymous sources are speaking towards their own interests. They almost never do. Most of the sources are anonymous

In general it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice. No comment

However, while reliability is to some extent fungible, peer reviewed publications make errors, professional publications vary widely in quality and have their own POVs and other sources have to be evaluated based on the particular assertion. OK

While reputable and reliable have considerable overlap, one is not a substitute for the other. A source is more reliable within its area of expertise than out of its area of expertise. OK

A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view. Another test failed with flying colours

....

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

...

Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Ooops

(End of quote)

By the way, I do not think El Pais is reliable either, although in this particular case (11-M), its mistakes and shortcomings are not as dire.

P.S. Thanks for the invitation to the Atelier. I will do what I can. I already made some remarks.

--Larean01 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to this:


Randroide 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Southofwatford wrote: do you think the pictures that El Mundo have printed more than once of an empty Kangoo and a full Kangoo are genuine photos of the van in question....or faked?

What a funny question, Southofwatford. I will answer you with a equivalent funny question: 'Do you think the footage of Julio Cesar being stabbed that was presented in that nice History Channel documentary uses genuine footage of Julio Cesar....or faked?'

And , of course, the answer is...NEITHER. The footage is not "genuine" and is not "faked". It is called A RECONSTRUCTION. I wonder where is the IQ point where someone can start to think that the pictures of the Kangoo are "the real thing". I suppose that that poor soul maybe thinks that the Julio Cesar footage is also "genuine".

"El Mundo" never, never, never, tried to pass those pictures as "the real thing". Pedro J. himself talked about the pictures as a reconstruction. A very funny divertimento, Southofwatford. Now, please, move on to serious things.

I dispute that El Mundo did not make a claim of truth. The foot to the photograph says especifically "What at least three policemen say they saw", showing an empty van load compartment. Stated as fact. The second photograph says "and this is what, according to the judge's indictment, they SAW". Stated as fact again.

Besides that, a reconstruction must have some minimal claim to be reasonable true. Considering 61 objects, there are 5,075 x 10^83 ways of arranging their ORDER. Let alone if we consider variations like putting some on top of some others, under the seats, in glove and other compartments, etc. The reconstruction claim is thus ridiculous.

Larean: Wikipedia rules say that newspapers are "reliable sources". You and me can have (and we have, indeed) different opinions about if this or that newspaper is better or worse. I do not trust neither 100% of what "El Mundo" says.

But the bottomline is that "ELMundo", "El País", "ABC" and "La Razón" are kosher, according with Wikipedia rules.

If you find newspaper-published allegued debunkings of what "El Mundo" published, write a NPOV text, source that and propose an addition. I will never oppose to the addition of new information if thta addition is made under Wikipedia rules.

I even fought some months ago for the link to your blog being present.

Of course that the rules thta apply to your blog also apply to Luis Del PIno´s blog.

We have spent, I think, too much time here in sterile discussions, and I also blame myself.Randroide 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford : you are a hero of the truth

I want to congratulate Mr. Southofwatford for his no ending patience and his heroic will to defend the truth and the memory of the victims. But it would be dishonesty not to point how fruitless his effort has been so far. After literally months of careful and respectful discussion, he has been unable to even state in the begining of the article who commit the bombings. Randroide, armed only with more than doubtful newspaper articles had been able to stop the truth with his reckless and disorganized softalking. Everybody who counts in the world KNOWS for sure who did the bombings at least sice the 12th March 2004 but wikipedia cannot reflect this fact because its working mechanism allows whoever has the patience (and the lack of moral) to stop the truth, to do so. It is sad to say this, but for me is the litmus that shows that the project cannot work properly and wikipedia is a non reliable source. Unestructured lies spread by amateur spin doctors have more chance than the simple and evident truth. I want to apologize to Southofwatford for not having helped him but I knew the outcome from the begining and unfortunately facts are at sight. The bombings were done by an islamist cell and for IRL it is irrelevant if Randroide manages to twist the truth or not (i.e. how much patiente Southofwatford has)in wikipedia. IRL the trial will start in a few days and the culprits will go to prison. IRL the deads are dead as will be forever. IRL the El Mundo lies are lies and as such will be remembered. As the said goes : "all the rest is silence". Southofwatford : I am not exagerating when I say that every good faith person in Spain is behind you and your fight. If at the end you throw the hat to the fire and you surrender, nobody would accuse you of anything since you have fought much beyond the duty. And if at the end you succeed and the truth appears in the article, it would be one of the heroic feats in the ethernal fight against lies and dishonesty, fought in a field (wikipedia) where the most evident truth is in a terrible and dramatic disadvantage. If someone who reads this can do something, please do it (e.g. add a paragraph in the rules that states "if a newspaper has lied in the most infamous way for months about an issue, if it has paid witnesses to lie, if is a part in a political quarrel so have evident reasons to lie, etc... then, it cannot be a source for this particular issue specially when its opinion is going against the opinion of all the world experts, the police, the judge and the logic.") Igor21 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

--Larean01 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In line with what Igor says (minus personal attacks) isn't there a way to escalate stalled discussions in Wikipedia?

Southofwatford 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I'll respond in more detail later, maybe in the meantime you might want to look at this: Article Problem

or this: Resolving Disputes


Southofwatford 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks Igor21 for your kind remarks - I don't really see myself in quite such glowing terms, if I spend as much time as Larean01 surely has on defending the truth then I might deserve some of these plaudits. I certainly would never claim to be speaking on behalf of the victims, after everything I have heard and seen in Spain, and other countries, over the last few years (going back before the Madrid bombings), I have an almost instinctive distrust of those who use the victims of terrorism as a shield for their political positions.

I understand the rest of your argument, but I'm not completely in agreement with it. That Wikipedia works in a way that makes it vulnerable to organised political campaigns attempting to impose their views is probably beyond doubt - it's a collective enterprise and defining rules and structures that prevent that kind of thing happening is not an easy task.

I got involved in this page because I was appalled that it was being converted into a platform for the conspiracy theories by people who found themselves unable to achieve the same objective with the Spanish page of the bombings. It's taken a long time, but we have now reached a stage where it is at least agreed that the main article on the bombings is not an appropriate place for those theories. It has also taken a long time, but is now understood, that changes to these pages are only to be made by consensus - getting those who talk most about the rules to apply them to themselves is not always a simple task.

Maybe you think that is not worth the effort, but I'm sure that if I throw in the towel tomorrow that in 7-10 days time you will be able to read on the main article in English on the bombings everything you never needed to know about how the bombings were a grand conspiracy involving ETA, Zapatero, GAL2, GAL3.7 for Windows XP, judge Baltasar Garzon, and anyone else who gets thrown into the pot depending on the topic of the day in Black Pawn Central. Apologies to anyone reading this who doesn't understand the references - it's a long story!

Anyway, I'm neither throwing in the towel or any of my hats into the fire - I'm much too fond of them. If you want to escalate the article into some sort of mediation or arbitration process then I will support that, but you have to be prepared to see it through. I have my reservations about these mechanisms, the only mediation process I observed on this page didn't convince me that it was solving anything, it's hard for it to work unless it is led by someone who understands the context and issues involved. That is not so easy, we may be absorbed in Spain with what is going on, most of the rest of the world has little or no awareness of it. Nevertheless, if you don't explore these mechanisms then you are left with the situation more or less as it stands now. I've written enough today on these pages - I was going to come back on the discussion about reliability of sources, I think it can wait until tomorrow. Good night.

Igor21, read this: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and stop doing that: You are wasting your time, your bandwith and Wikipedia´s server space. Thank you.Randroide 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford : I do not think that scalate would do any good. Some innocent chap would come here to try to find the middle point between truth and the nauseating aberrations spread by Jimenez, Ramirez and friends. I have not a winning strategy and I supect that patience is the only recipe. I just wanted you to know that many people who do not have the patience you and laurean01 are showing, back up your stance and wish you the best. Some people should be banned forever of wikipedia since is the only silver bullet that would work. Save your energy for crucial battles since some trolls boast Duracell batteries (I know that from my own experience). Good luck.Igor21 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

About the quality of the sources

--Larean01 20:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide:

Thanks for the link....

At any rate, I have my reservations. All newspapers are not equal, and I have not found any Wikipedia rule that says that ALL newspapers are sourceable. To put a couple of examples, would a British tabloid or the American National Enquirer be considered reliable sources. Yet they are newspapers. I do see, however, that talking about reputable publications Wikipedia mentions that:

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly Randroide 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)ntrast, The New York Times is generally accepted as a trustworthy source: Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political or religious magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the organization itself.

El Mundo is not the National Enquirer, but neither is it The New York Times. It has serious political bias and has been shown, as the previous discussion illustrates, to manipulate and to ignore elementary deontological practices. Therefore, its biases should be noted and it cannot be considered to be at the same level of believility as a judicial indictment... or the judicial process in general.

Randroide 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Larean: If you can find a Wikipedia rule to disqualify "El Mundo", please let us know, but I´ve read Wikipedia rules about sources and, AFAIK, that rule does not exist.

Larean wrote El Mundo is not the National Enquirer, but neither is it The New York Times. It has serious political bias

Status: Ehrrr,I am speechless. Look, Larean, ALL newspapers have some kind of political bias. To call that bias "serious" or not is a entirely subjective evaluation. For instance: I think there is a very serious bias in "El País", but it´s only my personal opinion: It would be a foolishnes to try "ban" news published in thta newspaper. The same goes with "El Mundo".

OMoreover: "El Mundo" attacked PP political positions in 2003, during the Iraq war, now is attacking PSOE positions. That is called "Independence". I see the "serious" bias nowhere. The same goes with "la Razón", a conservative right wing newspaper, but, by no means "very extreme".

Larean wrote A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable", as it has a biased agenda to advance

I hope that you are not trying to say that "El Mundo" or "La Razón" or the es:COPE radio station or es:Tele Madrid, or the es:AVT are A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group. Please make this point clear because I do not want to be offensive refuting a (outlandish) claim I do not know for sure if you wanted to do.

Southofwatford 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Perhaps we need to look at some concrete examples to try and clarify this issue, when a newspaper occupies a position which is somewhere in between serious journalism and sensationalism then it is obviously difficult to assess the validity of what it is doing. To me it is clear that simple publication of something should not mean that it can be automatically included in Wikipedia, it is necessary and important to distinguish between opinion and reporting of facts. This is a separation that serious papers seek to maintain, in my opinion El Mundo does not. If Pedro J Ramirez has one “copa” too many one night and decides to go back to the office and write an editorial accusing Zapatero and ETA of having organised the bombings together, I see no reason why such an accusation – without foundation – would have to be treated as reputable. Or take the example I raised yesterday of the “ST” timer found in a search of a suspects house. Pedro Ramirez goes on the radio show of his friend Losantos and claims the timer was made by ETA and establishes a link between ETA and those accused of the Madrid bombings , providing no evidence at all for the claim. How do we treat such a claim in Wikipedia? A last example, from today’s edition – on the front page the paper states that the now famous boric acid report establishes a relationship between Hasan Haski and ETA. In fact it does nothing of the kind, regardless of whether you agree with the content of the report or not. So does that bogus and unsupported claim have to be admitted as reputable because it has been published? In short, what do we do with claims that are evidently not supported by the evidence?

On the question of the ‘’independence’’ of El Mundo, I have already commented at length on this page, detailing with facts the growing relationship between sections of the PP and Pedro J Ramirez. Where the paper was 5 or 10 years ago has no relevance, it is where it is today that is important.

Randroide 09:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the continous and eyesore mistypings. As I said, my computer display is badly broken, and I can hardly see what I am writing with my sticky keyboard.

Southofwhatford wrote: To me it is clear that simple publication of something should not mean that it can be automatically included in Wikipedia, it is necessary and important to distinguish between opinion and reporting of facts. T

1. I think that you are not a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, Southofwhatford. Neither I am. So, what "is clear" to you (or to me) is irrelevant here. Only the Wikipedia rules about sources count. Stick to those rules and we will avoid a lot of superfluous debate.

2. "El Mundo" publishes opinions AND hard-as-nails facts about the many, many shady issues around the Madrid bombings.

Southofwatford 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I don’t think this debate is superfluous at all Randroide, I think it goes right to the heart of an important issue, the quality of the work which is performed on this article. I gave three different examples of cases where there is room for debate.

1). An article that is pure opinion

2). A statement that is made without any supporting evidence

3). A statement made that is demonstrably false

Are you seriously saying that sources in all these categories should automatically be included, without any assessment of their impact on the quality of the final work?

Randroide 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1. All newspapers are full of articles that are "pure opinion".

2. You think that there is no supporting evidence. The newspaper thinks otherwise. Let the reader of Wikipedia make his own mind.

3. I am not breaching the question of if you are right or wrong, but "El Páis" and the "SER" made false statements regarding the issue of the vanished "suicidal terrorist" in march 12th and 13th 2004. That´s not reason enough to stop using references from those media.

Randroide 10:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)I am a bit tired of this useless debate, Southofwatford, so I made a brief search of alternative sources. I found this in the british newspaper "THE GUARDIAN" website:

There are too many coincidences,' journalist Encarnación Valenzuela wrote in El Mundo recently. 'There is enough to be able to affirm that Eta had something to do with the 11 March attacks. A series of supposedly suspicious coincidences, unanswered questions left by the police investigation and contacts between members of the Basque separatist group and Islamists in jails are the main evidence offered by those backing the conspiracy theory...[]...Revelations that police in the northern region of Asturias hid evidence that they ignored several warnings about the local explosives traffickers who sold stolen dynamite used by the bombers has, meanwhile, been taken by some as proof of a wider, more sinister cover-up. The confrontation has reached national newspapers, with El Mundo fanning the conspiracy theory while the pro-government El País repeatedly tries to quash it...[]...The clues which the conspiracy theorists say point to Eta include the fact that some radical Islamists and Eta members have made friends in jail and have discussed the tactics of terror. The fact that a vanload of Eta explosives was seized a few weeks before the attacks as it travelled a route that could have led to the Islamist bombers' hideaway near Toledo is offered as further evidence. With the explosives used in the bombings being sent to Madrid that same day from Asturias, it is argued that either the Islamists had been planning to make more bombs or that the Eta van was a smokescreen. Eta was known to have been planning attacks in Madrid, had tried to bomb trains and was ready to use mobile phones to set bombs off, as happened with the dozen bombs that ripped through crowded commuter wagons on 11 March. It had considered planting a similar number of bombs at a ski resort used by King Juan Carlos. The conspiracy theorists also point to a series of 'connections' between Eta, the explosives traffickers and Asturias. A car used in an Eta bombing two years ago was stolen from the street where one of the traffickers lived. A former fellow crook had, meanwhile, claimed in a tip-off to police in Asturias before the bombings, that the traffickers were dealing with the Basque terrorists. Even the fact that one of the drivers of the vanload of Eta explosives carried photographs of a town 30 miles from where the explosives traffickers lived has been presented as evidence of an Eta link. 'Coincidences do not exist in the fight against terrorism,' Astarloa told a radio station.[18]

Facts, facts, facts. Facts disputing the Official Current Government Conspiracy Theory abouth what happened. Facts reported in "The Guardian". They do not "buy" the "El Mundo" train of thought, but they do not buy "El País" neither. They are independent: They just report different views. I like that.

There is a debate and a dispute, Southofwhatford. You can not present as undisputed facts questions that are disputed: Is a NPOV issue.

Now, Southofwhatford, I hope you are not going to doubt the reliability of "The Guardian".

Thank you, anyway: You make me search additional evidence to support my positions, and making this, you help to create a better article.

Southofwatford 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Two observations:

1. You haven't answered the question in my previous comment.

2. In my opinion this article is a reliable source for the existence of conspiracy theories about the bombings. It is not a source for the validity of any of the allegations mentioned, because it does not provide any evidence for them.

I think you'll find there is a more recent article by Giles Tremlett from last month about El Mundo's allegations.

Randroide 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"1. You haven't answered the question in my previous comment."

Vide supra for my answers.

2. In my opinion this article is a reliable source for the existence of conspiracy theories about the bombings

It is your opinion. I respect your opinion, but you are not Jimbo Wales. Sorry, but your opinions are not "the law" in Wikipedia. Here, Wikipedia rules are "the law". Stick to those rules and move on improving the article.

So far, three (and counting) "paper" newspapers ("El Mundo", "La Razón" and "The Guardian") and one digital newspaper ("Libertad Digital") think that the Official Conspiracy Theory is NOT airtight, and they point to factual evidence supporting their claims.

Southofwatford 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC) What an amazing claim Randroide, read the bits of the Guardian article that you have not highlighted in bold. This is an article reporting the existence of conspiracy theories about the bombings in Spain, and citing in the process some of the issues raised in the conspiracy theories. I think that is fairly evident, even to somebody with a monitor that doesn't work properly.

The article does not attempt to evaluate those theories or the supporting evidence - it is simply reporting their existence in a neutral way that would make the journalists of El Mundo blush with shame as they remember the days when they could do the same. For you to then try and suggest that this puts the Guardian in the company of those who doubt the authorship of the bombings is an incredible and bizarre interpretation - Giles Tremlett in this article does not think anything, no wonder you have problems distinguishing between opinion and fact.

More "The Guardian" stuff doubting the Official Version

Randroide 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)It is not a "El Mundo" exclusive "lunacy". "The Guardian" also thinks that the issue is credible. I hope this will end this nonsensical debate about the quality of the sources.

"the actual investigation of the origins and ramifications of the attacks has proceeded at snail's pace. Several suspected terrorists were blown up - or blew themselves up - in an apartment on the outskirts of Madrid days after the bombing, which certainly made things more difficult. In addition, it is hard to envision anyone among those who died or those who have been arrested having enough planning skills and technical sophistication to have organised the highly synchronised attacks and having set up the sophisticated explosive devices that were detonated with cell phones. " [19]


Southofwatford 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC) What a foolish attempt to deceive Randriode, the article you have cited is written by the deputy editor of El Mundo. Very very naughty.

We can say that your reporting of facts is of the same high standard as El Mundo's!

Randroide 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC) foolish attempt to deceive

Baseless accusation, Southofwatford. It is clear that I have no intention to deceive: Anyone can read who wrote the text.

The point is that "The Guardian" published the text written by the deputy of "El Mundo". "the Guardian" gives (some) credit to those accusations.

I could also point thta all the newspapers voicing the Official Version of what happened are copy-pastes from the (highly biased) policial and judiciary investigation.

Southofwatford 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC) You tried to pass off quotes fron an El Mundo article as if they are the opinion of the Guardian, that is deception Randroide, the fact that its not a very clever deception does not change that.

Randroide 11:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) If a person honestly thinks that my quoting was intended as a deception, that person´s IQ falls clearly in the left side of The Bell Curve. Sorry but that´s what I think.

Southofwatford 11:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Arrogance and insults as a substitute for argument, not surprising after what you tried. Instead of saying "here is an article from El Mundo included in the Guardian", you chose ""The Guardian" also thinks that the issue is credible".

Stretch your high IQ trying to tell me those two statements are the same

Randroide 11:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)No insult intended, Southofwatford. You called me "deceiver". If you honestly think that I tried to hide something that is in plain view in the link I provided, I am forced to think that you are not too bright.

If you are intelligent, then you are not honest accusing me of being a deceiver.

BTW, you also called my contribution "foolish attemp", "very, very naughty" and "not a very clever deception". And now you talk about "insults" ...I can not believe this double standard.

If you want to end this ugly disccussion (I want to end it), I propose you to apologise you for my comments about your IQ (or your honesty, as you wish) and I erase them, and you apologise by your "deceiver" accusations (and ohter assorted insults) and erase them, and we end this personal dispute that leads nowhere.

You also wrote: nstead of saying "here is an article from El Mundo included in the Guardian", you chose ""The Guardian" also thinks that the issue is credible".

Bot statements, I think, are equivalent.

I you felt deceived, I beg your pardon, and I will be much more explicit in the context of my quotes in the future, just to avoid this unpleasant misunderstandings.

You acuse me of trying to hide the obvious in the link I provided. That´s against the Wikipedia rule of pressuming good faith, Southofwhatford.

Randroide 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)OK, I am doing my part: I beg the pardon of Southofwhatford for the personal attacks I made and strike them.

I offer to Southofwhatford the erasure of all personal attacks.


--Larean01 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide wrote: Randroide 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Larean: If you can find a Wikipedia rule to disqualify "El Mundo", please let us know, but I´ve read Wikipedia rules about sources and, AFAIK, that rule does not exist.

Larean wrote El Mundo is not the National Enquirer, but neither is it The New York Times. It has serious political bias

Status: Ehrrr,I am speechless. Look, Larean, ALL newspapers have some kind of political bias. To call that bias "serious" or not is a entirely subjective evaluation. For instance: I think there is a very serious bias in "El País", but it´s only my personal opinion: It would be a foolishnes to try "ban" news published in thta newspaper. The same goes with "El Mundo".

Of course any newspaper has political bias. Some of them control it and maintain objectivity. El Mundo does not. Neither does El Pais, by the way. I have said it time and again. For example, the gratituous accusation that Pedro J. Ramirez paid off Trashorras should NOT be included. It is an unsupported claim. One must exercise care both ways. That is what I read in the Wikipedia rules which, by the way, you do not comment. Except for the next paragraph, that is.

OMoreover: "El Mundo" attacked PP political positions in 2003, during the Iraq war, now is attacking PSOE positions. That is called "Independence".

The only positions El Mundo attacked back then was PP international policy concerning Iraq. It defended basically all PP internal policies, notably including of course the ETA "dialog" or whatever you want to call it. You see independence, I see the will to give an illusion of independence.

:Larean wrote A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable", as it has a biased agenda to advance I hope that you are not trying to say that "El Mundo" or "La Razón" or the es:COPE radio station or es:Tele Madrid, or the es:AVT are A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group.

You are right, I am not. I am only saying that between total objectivity and total propaganda there is an almost infinite number of grades. Concerning 11-M, El Mundo is much closer to sensationalism than to objective journalism.

--Larean01 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What Southofwatford is saying about the earlier The Guardian article is right on the mark. The article reports the EXISTENCE of conspiracy theories and comments them. It does not, by itself, give any credit to those theories. In fact it explicitly says that the "evidence is flimsy". I am all for including sources like this one. It does report objectively on conspiracy theories (calling them that, by the way), and says "Few experts, however, give credence to the Eta theory" Which was exactly my point a couple of days ago. I love it.

However, the quote of the second piece is ludicrous. It is obviously an op-ed... and by no other than the associate editor of El Mundo! Give me a break, Randroide. You are going in circles. This does not meet Wikipedia's independence criteria for different secondary sources by a mile.

At any rate, the first Guardian source is what we want. It is perfect as it crearly distinguishes fact from speculation. Now compare that treatment to El Mundo's (including De la Serna's op-ed) and cry...

Randroide 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Larean:

  • You think that "El Mundo" is mostly propaganda, I think that "El País" is mostly propaganda.
  • You think that "El País" is a (more or less) reliable source, I think that "El Mundo" is a (more or less) reliable source.

What you think about "EL Mundo" and what I think about "El País" is irrelevant: According with Wikipedia rules both newspaper are kosher.

BTW. What do you think about "The Guardian"?. Is that newspaper good enough for you?. And what about "La Razón"?. Both newspapers also voice doubts about the Official Version about what happened.

Regarding the competence of the spanish police: Vital clues missed by Spanish police. Three months on Madrid bomb survivors say failings let killers go[20]

--- --Larean01 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My proposal: Treat El Mundo et al as primary sources for conspiracy theories (and El Pais and ABC as primary sources against). Treat them as secondary sources only if the fact reported has been corroborated by independent secondary or primary sources (I am thinking of the indictment in the latter case).

--Larean01 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 11:30: This is a strawman. I have said nothing of the kind. In fact, I explicitly denounce El Pais as not reliable concerning 11-M.

Concerning Wikipedia rules, that is exactly what I am trying to discuss. I brought what I think are the relevant guidelines for discussion. You have dodged that debate calling it a waste of time and postulating (without support) that all major newspapers are kosher for Wikipedia. Well, that is what you need to prove. I see that Wikipedia rules explicitly tell you to be very careful with media that meet a number of red flags which precisely El Mundo meets (when I say El Mundo, I mean that newspaper and its allies, COPE and Libertad Digital).

I already mentioned The Guardian is an excellent source. And I have already mentioned that it does not say what you claim it says. Concerning La Razón and El Periodico, I have strong reservations. They are in general careless and act as tertiary sources as they basically echo their allies.

This of course includes your latest article, which I consider more or less balanced though a bit unfair towards the Police. It is always possible to say "this could have been prevented" after the fact, "a toro pasado" as the saying goes. Hindsight is 20/20.

Randroide 11:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) If we could construct a rather convoluted case fo "El Mundo" deserving red flags, "El país", "aBC", the "SER" radio station anf the spanish Plice and Judiciary would also deserve the same red flags and for far worse reasons.

BTW. We are wasting our time here, an the atelier is not moving on.

--Larean01 11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide, that is precisely what I am saying! Treat all Spanish newspapers as suspect! Concerning the Spanish Police and Judiciary they are primary sources according to Wikipedia rules. Again, my proposal in a concrete example. Say that El Mundo claims that there was a janitor who says he saw the Skoda Fabia parked in Madrid. You go to the indictment document, you see the declaration of the janitor and you say: OK, corroborated. Put it forward. But the same article by El Mundo says that this fellow called the Police and that they told him the car was stolen. This is NOT corroborated in the primary source, the indictment, and to boot it is disputed in a recent article by El Pais. Therefore, you treat that as unproven. You can mention it as part of a conspiracy theory, but not as fact.

P.S. This is not a waste of time at all. This is a basic discussion about how to move forward.

Randroide 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Larean wrote: that is precisely what I am saying! Treat all Spanish newspapers as suspect!

I agree with you 100% on this point, Larean. I newspaper "A" says "white" and newspaper "Z" says "black", neither should be treated as "the ultimate proof". Both newspapers should be cited and linked on an equal basis.

But...the "ultimate proof" is NEITHER the indictment document. The spanish police and judiciary should also be treated "as suspect".

Two links to prove my assertion:

  • "El Mundo" showing that three policemen denounced the spanish police for sending a falsified document to the Judge, deleting a reference to ETA [21].
  • "El País" talking about pro-PP judiciary members blocking the actions of another judge against the policemen who denounced the falsification [22]

All of this is a very ugly stuff, my dear co-enciclopdists. We can trust no one entirely. All contradictory legitimate sources should be quoted and linked.

Larean: Try to visit John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories and tell them that all the statements should be checked with their Official "primary source": The Warren Commission Report. They will tell you iof you are kidding.

Southofwatford 10:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) The point is that much of the conspiracy theories depend for their existence on either the indictment, or the transcripts of the commission of enquiry, or official reports. That is why the primary source MUST be cited together with the secondary source. Take the example I gave the other day of El Mundo manipulating the answers given in the commission of enquiry - if we do not include the original version of the answers then we are knowingly providing Wikipedia readers with an incorrect account of what these witnesses said. Another example, if we decide to admit the article from El Mundo yesterday with its claim that the "boric acid" report demonstrates a relationship between Hasan El Haski and ETA, then it is also important to cite the report itself - so that readers can see for themselves that no such relationship is established in the document. A secondary account is by its very nature more open to factual error than the primary source, unless it is an absolute reproduction of the primary source.

Southofwatford 13:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I agree, I don't think it's at all satisfactory to have a situation where every source is treated as being equally valid without having some sort of evaluation of what is contained in the source. That is why I believe that sourced statements which are just pure opinion cannot automatically be included. I come back again to my example from this morning - can we really include sourced data where it can be demonstrated that it contains assertions which are either flatly untrue or which lack evidence to support them?

Perhaps we should seek some guidance from Wikipedia on these issues.

Randroide 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)I will give some examples of "fact" and "opinion", Southofwatford:

  • That a Quranic tape was in the Renault Kangoo was a fact.
      • That that tape was " aproof2 of "islamist" autorship is an opinion.
  • That the demonstrators in the streets in march 13th were protesting because they thought that government was hiding something is a fact.
      • Wether the government was hiding something or not is matter of opinion.
  • That the Leganés flat exploded is a fact.
      • That the "Islamists" were alive and blew themselves is an opinion.
  • That ETA said that they had nothing to do with the March 11th bombings is a fact.
      • If you can trust ETA or not is a matter of opinion.
  • That a group "A" of policemen said that the "13th bomb" is genuine, no doubt about that, is a fact.
  • That a group "B" of policemen said that the "13th bomb" has no chain of custody and was open to manipulation in IFEMA is also a fact.
      • To believe to the group "A" or to the group "B" is a matter of opinion.

You see?. Without "Opinions" (i.e. "Interpretations"), even the Official Conspiracy Theory is untenable.

"EL País" is also full of "opinions". I do not ask for a Wikipedia ban on "**El País", so, please, use THE SAME standards with "El Mundo" and "la Razón" and "The Guardian"..

Southofwatford 09:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) This is not really what I meant, when I talked about sources containing pure opinion I was thinking much more about the example I gave yesterday where someone can write an opinion column in their paper and make accusations in that column which are simply not supported by any additional evidence. If it is not possible to substantiate the claims made in such an article from other sources, then in my opinion they should not be included – in all cases, regardless of the newspaper making the claims.

An exception to this might be if the writing of such an opinion column triggers events which have to be included as part of the narrative. So if Pedro J Ramirez has his extra copa, goes back to the office and writes an editorial accusing Zapatero of organising the bombings, this is only something which should be included as a source if it has consequences – which to be fair it probably would. If Zapatero says “you’ve caught me out, and I’m going to resign immediately” then the account of what is happening must include the original trigger. The stuff that dreams are made of, if you’re a black pawn.

So I was making a distinction between pure opinion, and journalism which contains facts to back up any allegations made. Now let’s look at Randroide’s examples:

The Quranic tape – I agree, it is not proof of authorship. At best it is circumstantial evidence which can only assume any importance in combination with other evidence.

Whether Aznar’s government was hiding anything – this remains an opinion until either somebody who was on the inside talks about it, or the PP leadership decides to return all the documentation on the bombings which they removed from government offices before leaving office. That’s if they didn’t destroy the documentation – we don’t know. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might suggest that “they had something to hide”! But I’m not, although I am naturally curious why Luis Del Pino and company do not demand the return of what is obviously both public property and extremely relevant documentation.

Leganés – Here we enter into marshy territory. The account of the Leganés explosion in the judicial investigation is supported by a very significant weight of testimony of the many people who were involved, including senior officers who were PP appointees. That none of the dead have come back to tell us how they committed suicide is evident, that they carelessly neglected to film the explosion is also evident. However, the only way to put in doubt the account of Leganés is to set an impossible standard of proof. Tell us, Randriode, what proof you would accept for it being suicide. The alternative “explanations” are completely lacking in serious evidence, yet you support them. Show me one alternative explanation of Leganés that stands up on its own, with supporting facts. All I have seen is crazy speculation about people being killed elsewhere and their frozen bodies being transported by the police to the flat where they were subsequently blown up. Evidence in favour…none.

ETA and the bombings – the question of whether ETA had something to do with the bombings has nothing at all to do with whether you trust ETA or not, the PP currently seems to accept ETA’s declarations much more than the government does. The important question is whether there is evidence of ETA involvement. To say that ETA were involved at the moment is most definitely an opinion, because not a single piece of credible evidence exists to show ETA involvement in the preparation or the implementation of the bombings. Perhaps more than an opinion, it’s a desire – so fervently held by many people that it is sufficient for the name of ETA to appear in an article about the bombings for them to believe it. Faith based reasoning.

The 13th Bomb – Your division of the police into two groups is completely artificial. There is no report that I am aware of saying the bomb “had no chain of custody”, even if there was it does not mean that the police in “group B” producing it do not believe that the bomb was genuine. As in so many cases, the conspiracy theorists refuse to distinguish between hypothetical possibilities and actual data. How can it be expressed more clearly, for the theory of the bomb being planted to stand up as credible we need names, places and times – none of which are currently provided by the conspiracy theorists. All they have is a report saying the chain “could” have been broken. So a source claiming the bomb has been planted cannot be introduced in the article without supporting evidence, because otherwise it is pure opinion. Esperanza Aguirre, president of the Madrid regional government, I believe at some point was inside the security cordon at the station where the bomb was found. I am not going to accuse her of conspiring to blow up her own voters, she is a loathsome creature but surely not that bad. But I have as much evidence to accuse her of planting the bomb as you have to accuse anyone else.

Finally, nobody here has asked for a ban on El Mundo. It is simply a matter of dealing with cases where the sources are making claims that are not supported by evidence – and we need policy on this that we can apply to all accepted sources of information, El País included. But entering something as a “fact” when it can be demonstrated with evidence that it is not correct, is not in my opinion good practice for an encyclopaedia, whether the rules admit it or not.

As I see you still include The Guardian in your list of doubters, you should appreciate the following link – a model piece of reporting and an excellent demonstration of how unfounded conspiracy theories are created from the confusion in the immediate aftermath of the London bombings:

Seeing Isn't Believing

--Larean01 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


New issues

Randroide 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I hope this is "noncontroversial".

I have seen no (well,maybe is due to my VDU malfunction...) reference in the article to the infamous Skoda Fabia and the video alleguedly recorded by the allegued "Islamists".

I propose to add those facts.

Skoda Fabia

"Islamist" video

...I am trying to use english sources. Any suggestion is welcome.

--Larean01 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide:

1) Which group B of policemen say that the chain of custody was not guaranteed?

2) I can't believe that you consider "opinion" the Leganes suicide. It is supported by so many sources... Including Casimiro Garcia Abadillo in El Mundo and The Guardian. It is a fact. Among other things, because the alternative theory is untenable.

A more general reflection: what makes a thing not a fact? That somebody somewhere challenges it? Then facts do not exist. Even the notion that the Earth is a sphere is challenged by a group of wackos called flatearthers...

Randroide 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to read the archives, Larean. The archives are on the upper part of the page, at the bottom of that nice image of a filing cabinet.

  • 2) Deputy editor of El Mundo thinks that foul play is possible in Leganés. "The Guardian" regards such a suposition fit for publication.

Several suspected terrorists were blown up - or blew themselves up - in an apartment on the outskirts of Madrid days after the bombing" [24]

Luis del Pino documentary, aired in Madrid regional T.V., argues against the "collective suicide" theory. See from minute 66. [25].

The Popular Party regards thwe "collective suicide" of Leganés a "suposition":

75 ¿Qué constancia real, o en qué hechos se basa el señor ministro, para afirmar que los presuntos suicidas de Leganés dispararon desde las ventanas, teniendo en cuenta que no existen vídeos, ni fotografías, ni testigos, que avalen esta información?
102 ¿Se ha informado al juez Del Olmo de que en la vivienda contigua al piso de Leganés, en el que presuntamente se suicidaron varios islamistas, vivía un policía que se reunió en su piso, curiosamente, con el jefe operativo de los GEO poco antes del día de los presuntos suicidios?
106 ¿Existe el testimonio de algún vecino, o cualquier otra persona, que pudiera haber visto a los presuntos terroristas el día que, supuestamente, se suicidaron en Leganés?
144 Teniendo en cuenta que el GEO 81-743 declaró ante la Juez Teresa Palacios que los GEO habían llevado un inhibidor de ondas para evitar las comunicaciones por móviles, el día 3 de abril en su intervención en el piso de Leganés donde, supuestamente, se suicidaron siete presuntos terroristas: ¿Cómo explica el señor ministro que se haya querido hacer creer a la opinión pública y al Juez instructor de los atentados del 11-M que esos presuntos suicidas hicieron llamadas desde los móviles a familiares y, por ellas, se conoció que se iban a suicidar, cuando los GEO y la policía rodeaban la casa?

158 ¿Quién dio la orden de que se enviasen al juez Del Olmo diversos informes contradictorios acerca de las llamadas que, presuntamente, realizaron los denominados suicidas de Leganés?

217 Teniendo en cuenta que de los tres artefactos recuperados en el piso de Leganés en ninguno de ellos se ha recuperado el sistema de iniciación eléctrica, según consta en el auto de procesamiento: ¿Tiene alguna prueba el señor ministro de que los explosivos cercanos o adosados a los cuerpos de los presuntos terroristas que, supuestamente, se suicidaron el 3 de abril de 2004, estaban preparados para explotar o más bien su puesta en escena era a modo de señuelo?

Common source: [26]

---

--Larean01 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I am aware what Alicia Castro says (that's why I call her "supuesta diputada" in return). That does not show me that is the official position of the PP. And even if it was, I find that the official position of a political party is not very helpful in terms of stating a fact. It is nevertheless interesting to consign the fact that Castro made such delirious remarks and questions, to her everlasting intellectual shame.

El Mundo has more or less changed its position regarding this. The original account the day after, by no other than Casimiro García Abadillo, wholeheartedly endorsed the suicide. If Casimiro is having second thoughts, why doesn't he recant his reporting of that day?

At any rate, now, I am asking YOU. Do you really think it is possible to pull off a stunt like a false suicide in front of 200 Policemen, a dozen of which are an elite unit? Imagine what we are talking about: a person kills seven others (or has them transported frozen or something) without leaving any trace. He makes 200 policemen believe they are ALIVE. He is so good he makes 16 of those policemen (including the SWAT team) tell the judge that they heard several voices and shooting coming from the flat. No conspiracionist has ever come up with a credible technology to achieve this (a tape recording is ludicrous; that might happen in Home Alone II, but I see no instances in the real world, and besides, how could the perpetrator make sure that he would leave no trace of that recording?)He also knows the exact moment to activate the bomb. Finally, he escapes through two police lines, unnoticed.

I propose another litmus test: if a claim is made of something extraordinary who has never, ever, happened before in the History of Mankind and that claim is made without evidence, it should go to the bag of outlandish speculations. Check the page on Project Apollo No mention about the outlandish claim that the Moon landing never happened.

Concerning point A, no source in the archive. At any rate, I will not go through all the archive, thanks. I think I ask polite questions which can be answered in the same polite way.

Randroide 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The sources, Larean: [[27] [28]

[29]

Of course you ask polite questions. I also try to give polite answers, if I fail to do so, please put the blame in my laconism : )

Randroide 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Larean:

  • It is a fact that the PP expressed doubts about the "collective suicide" of Leganés.
  • It is a fact that the deputy editor of El Mundo also expressed such doubts in "The Guardian".

Both are facts, relevant facts voiced by what Wikipedia call "reliable sources". This POV should also be included in Wikipedia to comply with the NPOV policy.

What do I (or what do you think) think about the issue is irrelevant for the article.Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you Randroide 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

--Larean01 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You confuse the fact that X expresses an opinion, claiming Y did not happen, with Y's actual happening. I am all for including what the PP or the deputy editor of El Mundo think (to their everlasting intellectual shame). But that is very different from saying "since somebody somewhere has expressed doubts, we cannot treat Y happening as fact"

My example again: go to Project Apollo. The article does not doubt that the Moon landing happened. It treats that Moon landing as fact. It does not even mention people disputing that fact, although I am sure I can find such wacko theories elsewhere in Wikipedia. We must treat the Leganes suicide as fact until evidence to the contrary surfaces.

And like it or not, your opinion in these outlandish claims is very relevant. Don't get upset.

Randroide 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I do not get upset, Larean. It´s just...my laconism.

Opinions and beliefs of editors are irrelevant for the article, Larean: Only sources count.

I am Sorry Larean, but it´s not your fault. It´s a personal issue: I am well beyond the phase of arguing the Leganés explosion. I do not want to talk about my thinking about the issue, because that talking would be irrelevant and useless.

  • Fact about Leganés: The flat exploded.
  • Interpretation A about that fact, an interpretation made by relevant sources: The guys inside the flat commited suicide, no doubt about it.
  • Interpretation B abiut tha fact, ALSO an interpretation made by relevant sources: We do not know really if the guys commited suicide,and some evidence points to other explanations.

"The guys commited suicide" is NOT a fact, Larean.

Southofwatford 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC) So what would make it a fact? What evidence would convince you?

"some evidence points to other explanations" - what evidence points to other explanations? What are these other explanations, the frozen corpses theory?

Maybe the suicides cannot be proven to your satisfaction - but it is a logical conclusion which can be drawn from the available evidence. If there is an alternative conclusion that is uequally or more logical then I haven't seen it.

Randroide 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC) My thinking (and yours) about the issue is irrelevant, Southofwatford.

Only that was expressed in what Wikipedia calls "relevant sources" is relevant here...and "relevant sources" expressed doubts about the "collective suicide" interpretation. That´s it.

BTW: Did you finished your comments on the atelier?.Larean is working there, and I also made my work. It would be a waste of time if you want to make major modifications on the texts checked by us.

The report or the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center

I can't find and I really miss any reference to the report of the ESISC on march 17th. The ESISC is an independent agency and it's specially interesting its statement on the real opinion of the Spanish Intelligence Service after the bombings.

Attentats de Madrid

Randroide 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Yes, you are right, Larean: Reference to the report should be included. Thank your for your work.

The blocking of the page is, AFAIK, unvalid. Only administrators can block pages, and they should do so only under certain circumstances that, AFAIK, are not the circumstances of "our" article.

Some time ago users were able to "pseudoblock" a page. I am going to remove the block and see what happens. You can add the link to the report in the "links" section.

I deleted your comments about another page because this is not the proper place for those comments. Please, focus comments to the subject of the page. Wikipedi is not a forum. Thank you.


Southofwatford 13:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I think you'll find it was another user who added this section. Deleting comments is a bit dangerous, whether they are out of place or not - it is sufficient to express your opinion.

--Larean01 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Southofwatford. In effect, it wasn't me and I don't have the foggiest idea of what Randroide's talking about in his last paragraph.

BTW, Randroide, I hope you read my message to you.

Southofwatford 09:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I have no real problem with the page being protected - although it is hardly necessary at the moment - but I am concerned that it has been done by an anonymous user who has not even indicated the intention on this page. Does anyone else know anything about this?

--Larean01 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I don't even know exactly what it means for the page to be protected or who can do it. Can you "unprotect" the page? I need to study a lot about the Wikipedia world...

More on Methodology

--Larean01 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Kennedy articles. I like the original (the factual account) very much. It is unbiased and factual as far as I can tell. It leaves out conspiracy theories and centers on official investigations. It has an extensive section on official investigations and their conclusions. It then touches on conspiracy theories (calling them that) and refers to another article. I am all for that format.

Randroide 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)There is a gigantic difference, Larean:

  • U.S.A. Republicans did not start to voice doubt about the Warren Report. The spanish PP is voicing such doubts about our own "Warren Report".
  • Media did not pay attention to dobters of the Warren Report, (some) spanish media is paying attention to them.

..BTW, you can not call to the doubts expressed about the Official Version conspiracy theories . It has been argued. Read [[30]],and this, please.

Archives, Larean, you should read the archives, as I told you.

Moreover: Rubalcaba told us (it is also in the archives...somewhere.I pasted the link) that "La única conspiración fue la del PP para engañar a los españoles", or something like that. The Offcicial Version is ALSO a "conspiracy theory", Larean.

The bottom line: Please, be neutral and talk about the "current government explanation" (or, I propose CGE, in our conversations) and about "disputers of the current government explanation" (or dCGE)...but I am open to suggestions about a non-charged, neutral, terminology.

Southofwatford 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) In the article there should be no generic title used for the imaginary "Official Version". You should address things by their name, if you are referring to the indictment then you name it, the parliamentary commission is a separate entity, government statements are not the same as either of these. I am prepared to refer to the conspiracy theories as "alternative explanations", although given the lack of real explanation that we get it is frankly a very generous description. On this discussion page we use the terminology that we choose to, by all means read the archive discussion on conspiracy theories, it shows Randroide making tortuous efforts to reinterpret the Wiki definition of a conspiracy theory.

Every time the question is raised of "equal treatment" for the conspiracy theories, I will come back with the argument I have already made more than once and which is almost always ignored - equal treatment requires equality in all aspects, standards of proof and evidence, ability of the theories to stand on their own merits etc. If you want equal treatment on the Leganés explosion for example, then that means you have to set out for examination the alternative explanation(s), not just have the luxury of criticising the account you don't agree with. That is what equality of treatment requires, a level playing field.

Randroide 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwhatford wrote: I am prepared to refer to the conspiracy theories as "alternative explanations"

I am not. Pedro J. Ramírez makes a very, vey strong point on this issue: He says that he is not trying to "explain" what happened, he is only pointing at the (allegued) inconsistencies of the indictment, the Commission...whatever. J

ust the same with Losantos: He says "I do not know what happened, I am only know that the government lies us".

I propose the more neutral "doubters of..." the indictment, the Commission, whatever.

Southofwatford 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC) It's become a common feature of the campaign by El Mundo, Del Pino and company that whenever they are asked to produce evidence supporting their accusations they retreat back to the line of "We are just asking a few questions". The liberty to make serious accusations without having to back them up with facts. I've said before that it is too late for this to be sustained any more. A newspaper that claims, as El Mundo has, that the bombings were a "golpe de estado", a coup d'etat, is no longer in a position to play this game - the accusation has been made and those who make it should justify it. But if you want to adopt this position, however untenable it may be, then you cannot demand equivalence of treatment. The conspiracy theories in this context are entirely parasitical, they cannot survive on their own - without the volumes of data coming from the judicial investigation there is nothing there.

Randroide 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Look, Southofwatford: The indictment explanation about Leganés is absurd, self-contradictory and impossible. I am not going to argue this again. If you still think that "El Mundo", despite being "media", should be presented in a derogatory manner, you are outside Wikipedia policies. Sorry but I will give my reasons again only to an administrator in a formal mediation process.

Pedro J. Ramírez produced argumeeents and evidences. You do not agree with him, and I respect your freedom, but you agreement is not a condition to appear in Wikipedia. "Media" appearance is, and those doubts about the indictment appeared in media. That´s it.

--Larean01 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Please, Randroide. It was yourself who pointed to the Kennedy articles as an example to follow. You cannot tell me know that the example should not be followed because Republicans and major media did not echo conspiracy theories (i.e. acted responsibly). It's the world upside down. What you should ask yourself is WHY the PP and El Mundo are not acting responsibly, not putting forward that they should be taken seriously because precisely of that behaviour. At any rate, it is a nice ad verecundiam. You basically state that since the PP and El Mundo propose conspiracies, it must have some credibility. Logical fallacy.

Second, as Southofwatford says, it is totally untrue that no theory has been put forward. Pedro Jota has said very clearly in an editorial that police planted evidence. This is not a doubt; it is a claim. Today Jiménez Losantos said that either it was ETA or the Spanish intelligence services (CNI). No other alternative is possible to him. That is also a claim. It is disingenous to claim that they are simply pointing out inconsistencies in the judicial summary. That is simply not true. They claim the government withholds data. They claim ETA is involved (Del Burgo does). They claim police planted evidence. They claim someone staged the Leganés suicide. They claim, they claim, they claim.

Not to mention the famous Popper phrase: "there is no research without a hypothesis". One of the fundamental dishonesties of the main conspracionist authors is hiding their hypotheses, claiming they don't have any.

Other things. I totally disagree with "current government explanation". As Southofwatford says, there are neutral names already for everything: government statements, judicial summary conclusions, Parliamentary Comissión conclusions. Again, look at the Kennedy example that you yourself provided.

And I am all for "conspiracy theories" to describe what EL Mundo and company do (Kennedy example again). They all point to hidden conspirators: someone planted that bag, someone killed the people at Leganés, someone planted the Kangoo, etc. That someone is an invisible conspirator. "Believers claim that conspirators in the possession of secret knowledge are misleading and/or have misled the public in pursuit of a hidden agenda" This phrase is literal out of Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and it applies perfectly to our subject. Thus, conspiracy theories.

P.S. If something has been argued, please put the link as you so politely have done so far. Don't make me go through all the archives. I have a life to live.

Southofwatford 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much about the archive, those of us who are trapped inside this page are doomed by an ancient Egyptian curse to continually repeat the same arguments for all eternity. We haven't done "What is a conspiracy theory?" for a few weeks now, so I imagine it must be due for a re-run.

Randroide 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Larean wrote: What you should ask yourself is WHY the PP and El Mundo are not acting responsibly

I do not know and I do not care about the convoluted reasons of the PP. In the context of Wikipedia those reasons are irrelevant.

I think that "El Mundo" is acting responsibly, and that "El País" is not. You think the opposite. OK, no problem. We can work together to improve the article. But what we think is irrelevant in Wikipedia. Only sources count.

Larean wrote: Pedro Jota has said very clearly in an editorial that police planted evidence. This is not a doubt; it is a claim. Today Jiménez Losantos said that either it was ETA or the Spanish intelligence services (CNI).

Quote, please. I do not read "El Mundo" nor hear to Losantos everyday. I missed that, and sounds interesting.

Larean wrote: They all point to hidden conspirators: someone planted that bag, someone killed the people at Leganés, someone planted the Kangoo, etc. That someone is an invisible conspirator.

The Official Conspiracy Theory also uses "invisible conspirators" that, alleguedly, parked the Skoda Fabia, left a unidentified print in the 13th bomb, burned the dead GEO corpse, burned the Morata de Tajuña explosives depot...etc, etc. No one knows who they are. Hidden conspirators eveywhere, Larean, and it is the Official Version.

In the talk page we are free to use our favourite terminology, of course, but for the sake of politeness, I also offer a "truce": I offer the posibility of using in the talk page the same non-charged terminology of the article.

---

--Larean01 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Randroide: I am afraid you don't get the knack of what a conspiracy theory is. Conspiracy theorists always claim that the real truth is hidden by powerful people. That is not what the government is saying; that is what El Mundo et al are saying.

Besides, it is provable that El Mundo has violated almost every rule in the deontological code. Your silence concerning the examples I brought up is, allow me to say, deafening. And let me state this again: I DO NOT endorse El Pais. I think some of their latest articles on the matter are deplorable.

P.S. I will try to get the quotes, but Jimenez Losantos was quoted extensively in www.periodistadigital.com a couple of days ago. Also in www.escolar.net.

Randroide 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Conspiracy theorists always claim that the real truth is hidden by powerful people

The guys commanding the PP, the COPE, "El Mundo" and "La Razón" are powerful people. The insistence in calling "conspiracy theory" at something voiced in the second and fourth spanish newspaper is something that is beyond my understanding.

Please visit AIDS reappraisal. That´s a "conspiracy theory". I am an AIDS reappraiser since the 1990´s, and NO ONE in the media talks about your ideas. You are forbidden. This is not the case with this issue.

Look, Larean: Witouth media and the PP airing the "agujeros negros" of the 11-M, I would concede the "conspiracy theory" name without hesitation (BTW, that says nothing about the veracity of the claims). But that´s not the case.

Besides, it is provable that El Mundo has violated almost every rule in the deontological code. Your silence concerning the examples I brought up is, allow me to say, deafening. And let me state this again: I DO NOT endorse El Pais. I think some of their latest articles on the matter are deplorable.

Larean: El País (and the SER radio station and Zapatero himself) brought us the pure, undiluted LIE of "suicidal terrorists" in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. A lie uttered with the devious politically-charged intention of reinforce the "islamist" theory in the previous hours to the march 14th election. They made something despicable. They broke all deontological rules in heaven and earth, and I do not understand why "El país" readers (God bless them) still buy that newspaper.

I am not (and I will not ask) asking for a "ban" or a "red flag" on those media.

What´s the point then in defending "El Mundo"?. You think that is not a good source. I respect your opinion, but Wikipedia rules say that it is a valid source, or, at least, as valid as "El País".

....

--Larean01 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide, skip the sophistry. The fact that Pedro Jota or the PP are also powerful does not detract from the fact that all conspiracionist think powerful people are conspiring to hide the truth from them. It so happens that the existence of powerful people in position 1 (PP et al) does not preclude the existence of powerful people in position 2 (PSOE, current government, Polankone, etc).

Your statement that only the support that El Mundo and the PP are giving to the conspiracy theory is what makes you give it credibility is an argumentum ad verecundiam the size of the Kuiper belt. A conspiracy theory is such regardless of who believes it. What makes it a conspiracy theory are its intrinsic characteristics.

Finally, it is probably the tenth time that I tell you I DO NOT ENDORSE EL PAIS OR PRISA'S MEDIA. (Sorry for the uppercase, but you leave no alternative, as you seem not to read me). Please stop using ad hominem tu quoque against me. The behaviour of "El Pais" does not excuse El Mundo's. The latter stands or falls on its own (de)merits.

I also dispute that El Mundo is a valid source and I have reasoned why (and I have explicitly said that El Pais is in the same situation). Either debate my points or accept them.

Quid pro quo offer:

Randroide 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)In the article text, I offer to avoid the use of "Official Version" if you avoid the use of the word "Conspiracy". A "conspiracy theory", by definition, is not supported by the second and fourth spanish newspaper and the (second?, third?) spanish radio station.


"the indictment" is OK for me if you accept the expression "doubters of the indictment".

---

--Larean01 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I am not sure I like this kind of dealing. The truth is the truth, not a matter of negotiation...

Randroide 07:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Look, Larean: "indictment axis" call to the "doubters of the indictment" "Conspiracy theorists". On the other hand, the "doubters of the indictment axis" call to the indictment "Official Version".

If you want to avoid the use of "Official Version", I ask for the avoidance of the "conspiracy" word. You do not like "Official Version", I do not like "Conspiracy". Thatá it.

---

--Larean01 13:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) It's great that you want to avoid the use of "official version". There are objective reasons for that that Southofwatford has described cogently. Now, if you can show there are objective reasons not to talk about conspiracy theories, I will avoid the term. Not as part of a negotiation, but because you will have convinced me it is not adequate.

Larean01 changes to the Atelier

--Larean01 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes. I believe the narrative needed to be expanded and some context provided. I am open to cricitism.


Southofwatford 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I have made additional changes to the Aftermath section to include casualty data from Leganés and a (very brief) summary of the judicial investigation. I don't think this section needs to contain much more information, it links to the extended Aftermath page, and also to the proposed Controversies page. Comments welcome.

--Larean01 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Now I am confused. You two are editing the Talk page of the Atelier. I made my changes to the Article page. We need to merge them. Is the discussion page the editable one? If so I will incorporate my changes there.

Southofwatford 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Yes, it is. I suppose we should make clear, just in case El Mundo have some space they need to fill, that this document is only a draft - a borrador - not an official document at all. I am away from home and the Internet this weekend, on Monday I will review the state of things and decide whether I want to propose any further changes.

Randroide 08:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) "El Mundo" thinks otherwise. You voiced the "EL País" line, Southofwatford. I think that "El País" is telling a LIE . My arguments:

  • "drafts" are not signed and flourished, the (allegued by "El País") "draft" was signed and flourished Image of the signe and flourished "draft".
  • "drafts" do not become registered in official books. This "draft" was registered, and the spanish police chief ho falsified the document also had to use Typex to falsify the Official Book [31], [32].

Please note that I am not saying that "El país" should be "banned" from this article despite of (what I see) as an obvious manipulation of the facts. I ask you to have the same attitude with "El Mundo".

Come on, Southofwatford, give us the "El País" version and we have a new section for the "controversies" page. It is a pleasure to have honorable adversaries at the other side of the line: They make you work, and I am not kidding.

Southofwatford 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Wow! It was a joke Randroide, just a joke about the Atelier version. Too much conspiracy melts your sense of humour.

Randroide 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 191 persons were assasinated brutally in my country 2 years and a half ago. We do not know who made it.
  • The police of my country is falsifying official documents, and the Judge Baltasar Garzón goes against...the policemen who denounced tha falsification.
  • Politicians and media pepople call us, the spanish citizens who have doubts about what happened "golpistas", "delincuentes" (Gabilondo dixit) and "derecha extrema" , and they announce that they are going to be "implacables" (merciless) with us. I do not know if they are going to create a GAL 2 to hunt and kill us.

Sorry, Southofwatford, but my sense of humour about this issue is depleted.

The work in this article (almost my only Wikipedia work now) it is not any longer the joyous task it was. Now it is a grim and unavoidable civical duty, made with the mood of an Álamo defender: My keyboard is broken, my computer display is broken, es:Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, the man that was in the government of the GAL death squads makes threats against people like me. I do not care, here I am, to the last bullet and to the last man.

"Sorry, Southofwatford, but my sense of humour about this issue is depleted."

Southofwatford 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC) So I see - so lets have the debate instead. I don't need El País to have a different interpretation of these events, I have primary sources. The police officers involved made a report which was rejected, on perfectly sound grounds in my opinion, by their superior officers. They then tried, 16 months later in July this year, to reissue their version of this report and get it approved without informing their superior officer that an amended version of the report had already been issued the year before - a fact which the conspiracy theorists strangely always omit to mention. Also a fact which El Mundo did not report until it emerged in other media.

I'll tell you what I find scary about the case of this report. It is scary that the scientific police officers involved admit before the judge that they download their information from Internet! It is scary that they produce reports which are supposed to be based on scientific analysis, but which instead contain speculative unsupported assertions on "possible" relationships that may or may not exist. It is scary that the outcome of the case appears to be reduced to a question of which judge deals with it - the conspiracy theorists have deliberately chosen a place to present their accusations of falsification in a place where they know the case will be handled by a right-wing judge.

On your descriptions of the names the conspiracy theorists are called:

"golpistas" - I would reserve this description for the Acebes/Zaplana/Aznar wing of the Partido Popular, and for Ramirez, Losantos and del Pino. I have little doubt that they are trying to use the conspiracy theories in an attempt to provoke a political crisis that is a mirror image of the one which ejected the PP from office. The fact that the journalistic side of the operation is also using it to make money doesn't preclude the combination of commercial benefit with political aims. It's a subjective issue, but for me the hat fits.

"delincuentes" - this is more complicated. It is clear that El Mundo has gone beyond mere reporting on the issue and is now interfering in the judicial process, what is not clear is the extent of this interference - because they do not tell us. They reach commercial agreements with people related to the case, I would dearly like to know the process preceding the publication of the contentious report discussed above - whether they had direct contacts with the police officers concerned and what was the nature of such contacts. Without them revealing such things it's difficult to reach a conclusion. Had the case occurred in the UK or the USA it is almost certain that Pedro J Ramirez would now be stitching mail bags or working on a chain gang, but Spanish law is different.

"derecha extrema" - I agree fully with this description, entirely justified. The Spanish right has never been very strong when it comes to accepting the outcome of the democratic process and they are showing this very clearly these days with a systematic campaign to undermine and subvert the results of the last general election.

GAL2 - pure conspiranoia, not worthy of further comment. Your life is not in danger Randroide, just your sense of proportion.

Randroide 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: " It is scary that they produce reports which are supposed to be based on scientific analysis, but which instead contain speculative unsupported assertions on "possible" relationships that may or may not exist.

Just the same with a Quranic tape and a cellular phone cad "proving" "islamist" involvement, Southofwatford.

BTW, you said that you do not trust some spanish policemen. OK, I do not trust other different spanish policemen.

Southofwatford wrote: GAL2 - pure conspiranoia, not worthy of further comment. Your life is not in danger Randroide

I am not worried about my leife, Southofwatford. I am not going to live forever anyway. We all are going to die some day. I am worried about an end to the Open Society in Spain, just like in Venezuela: The PSOE shutting down "El Mundo", the "COPE", "La Razón"...a dictatorship.

In the 1980´s, the mere suggestion of the spanish police under PSOE control being involved in kidnappings, torture and killings in southern France, and shootings with automatic weapons in crowded restaurants in southern France was also "conspiranoia".

That whole chain of horros was proven true by the same "muckcracker" of the Madrid bombings: Pedro J. Ramírez.


"Just the same with a Quranic tape and a cellular phone cad "proving" "islamist" involvement, Southofwatford."

Southofwatford 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC) As if that was the only evidence. You compare a two year judicial investigation involving hundreds of people with a speculative paragraph in a single report - and conclude that they are the same! It seems for El Mundo that the only valid piece of investigation is a report which identifies the presence of a legal insecticide sold over the counter, and uses this to try and relate ETA to the 11th March. So presumably if judge del Olmo produces a new indictment which says something like "I have been on Internet this morning and I have seen that ETA is a terrorist group in Spain and therefore I conclude that they must be responsible for the 11th March bombings" you and El Mundo and all their allies would be completely satisfied with the thoroughness of the investigation.

On your accusations about GAL2 we are really seeing you in true Jekyll and Hyde form. Yesterday you were back to the "we only have some doubts about the investigation" line, today we get the full conspiracy theory. The usual question - where is your evidence? Names, dates, times and places please.

Randroide 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC) That card (the card in the disputed 13th bomb), Southofwatford, is the keystone of the whole indictment.

You can investigate during two years, 20 years or 200 years: If the keystone of your investigation is bogus, all your investigation means nothing.

Without that card, no "islamist" trail was to be found. The card was included in a DISPUTED exhibit.

"That whole chain of horros was proven true by the same "muckcracker" of the Madrid bombings: Pedro J. Ramírez."

Southofwatford 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Ramirez was just one of the many people who investigated the GAL Randroide, and almost certainly not the first. They were perfectly justified in publishing the results of their investigation, but it should also be noted that they had a political agenda in doing so. None of that gives what they are doing now a single scrap of credibility - the only common element is the political agenda. Ramirez likes being close to power, as anyone who has read the account of his private dinners with the Aznar family can tell - if he wants to be a maker and breaker of governments there is unfortunately little we can do about such abuse of power. I only hope he doesn't succeed.

Randroide 13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramirez likes being close to power

Southofwatford, please....do not force me to refute your statements with the obvious:

  • Ramírez was fired from Diario16 in 1985 due to his insistence in the GAL issue. He was NOT "close to power".
  • Ramírez founded "El Mundo" in 1989. He was opposed to "the power" until 1996, when Aznor won the lections.
  • Ramírez was AGAIN opposed to power in 2003, during the infamous Iraq military adventure.
The Spanish right has never been very strong when it comes to accepting the outcome of the democratic process and they are showing this very clearly these days with a systematic campaign to undermine and subvert the results of the last general election.

Yes: You are right. But the spanish left is not shy neither of trying Coup d'état. I remind you of the es:Revolución de 1934.

2004 elections were made under the pressure of illegal manifestations fueled by evidences that now are disputed under the light of new facts.

--Larean01 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide: It is my country too. They are my dead too. I grieve for them as much as you do. I know someone who was in one of those trains and miraculously survived. Victims are nobody's to use as political ammunition. I take issue, and strong issue, with your efforts to appropriate them.

As for the rest: if the Police is falsifying something, courts will tell. And they will even tell us WHICH policemen are falsifying what. Judge Garzon (the nemesis of GAL and ETA) disagrees with you. You might want therefore to substantiate your claim. It is not enough to quote Pedro J. Ramírez. He has, as Southofwatford says, a very clear political agenda, and your blind trust in him is intelectually disturbing.

And of what you are being called, trust me, my friend. It is nothing compared to what the sectarian Black Pawns have called me by name, because I do use my real name when I write, out of a conviction that my name must back up my statements. Or what they have called Garzón in the last few days. Or anybody who disagrees with the sect, including of course judge "Glaucolmo", a miserable pun on his health problems.

Don't play the victim, Randroide. It's argumentum ad misericordiam at its worst. Leave the victims out of this discussion, for Pete's sake.

P.S. Do you really need to go 72 years into the past to document the Left's "golpismo"? May I suggest you may have a case against some people's grandfathers, but not against them? Do I need to remind you when (and by whom) the last two or three attempts at a "coup d'etat" in Spain were made?

P.P.S. You greatly exaggerate the impact of demostrations on the citizenship mind. It reminds me of Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico: he is also right that the political campaign was not kosher, but that is no excuse to accept the election results when the electoral authority has deemed them legitimate.

Randroide 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I do not put "blind trust" in Pedro J. Ramírez, Larean. I see documents, arguments and I make my own thinking. I do not like at all the general line of "El Mundo", as I said, but without that newspaper Spain would be in a far worse situation.

If you have been personally attacked in your blog, I am totally against that too. I am agains all kind of personal attacks.

If you think that I am your friend, I am your friend, and you are mine, and I hope we will be able to improve the article together.

The last attemp of coup d'etat in Spain was the neo-francoist attemp of 1981. I suppose we agree on that. BTW: The spanish moderate right (the PP) endured without a grudge 18 years without the power, from 1978 to 1996. They are not my friends, Larean, but facts are facts.

The demonstratios were ILLEGAL. That´s a fact. The impact of of those demonstrations is disputable issue.

--Larean01 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide: Of course I consider you a worthy contributor and a person of good faith and intelligence.

I agree that demonstrations were illegal (I have written that much in the Atelier) and I thank you for agreeing that the impact is disputable. I also thank you for acknowledging who is who in "coup d'etat" attempts. I was also thinking of a couple of botched attempts by the same class of individuals. Of course I am not accusing the PP of coup d'etat attempts, but I find your allusions to the unfortunate past of the socialist party rather anachronistic.

I am the first one to grieve the road that Pedro J. Ramírez is taking. Some time ago I respected him. He dreamed of being Bob Woodward. He will end up being Charles Foster Kane (or William Randolph Hearst). I wager it is an ego problem. He has absolute power in his newspaper and is too much in love with power... and you know the Acton quote.

P.S. I have been attacked in my blog, sure thing, but I have been attacked far worse in several other places, most notably by Black Pawns in Del Pino's blog.

Randroide 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) The allegued (by you) egomaniacal nature of Pedro J. Ramirez is not relevant here, Larean. I regret if you have been personally attacked by Black Paws. There are uncivilpeople EVERYWHERE.

Yes, Larean It is very important to differentiate fact from interpretation of fact.

  • That the demontration were illegal is a fact, that the PP lost the election (or not) due to the demostrations, is an interpretation of a fact.

But it is the same with the Leganés explosion,Larean:

  • The flat exploded, fact. The guys inside commited suicide (or not), interpretation of fact.

You have a very good knowledge of "indictment axis" sources, I saw that with your Pulsometro link. With your help this article can be much better: You contribute with "indictment axis" sources, I contribute with "doubters of the indictment axis" sources. If we stick to Wikipedia rules our very different views about this issue should not be a problem.

But: Please, lets stick to Wikipedia rules and stop talking about non-relevant issues (and again, mea culpa).

---

--Larean01 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC) What is the alternative to "the guys inside committed suicide?" The Invisible Woman from Fantastic Four and, being a ventriloquist, fooled 16 policemen into thinking they were alive? Again, we need to understand what is reasonable to challenge and what is not. The article on Project Apollo treats the Moon landing as FACT, even though there is a number of people who doubt it. There is reasonable doubt and there is unreasonable doubt.

By the way, I have checked the Moon landing hoax article and I like the way the present the alternative theories, especially the mention to Occam's razor.

At any rate, I am still waiting for criticism of my writing. I will merge it into the talk page, but now it is in the Atelier article page.

P.S. What is "indictment axis"?

P.P.S. I am all for sticking to Wikipedia rules... but all of them. Including the ones that let you qualify a source as reliable and reputable or not. The rules are mostly common sense. Let's use our commons sense to apply them.

Randroide 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) According with the Indictment there was a two hours shooting in Leganés with automatic weapons. According ALSO with the Indictment, that shooting left...5 empty shells. Maybe the "Invisible woman" and the "Fantastic Four" collected the missing empty shells. This is just ONE of the multiple impossibilities that the Indictment contains, Larean.

I made a detailed study (I spent a whole day) of this issue reading the Indictment. You can read the study here: es:Discusión:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004/Extractos del sumario 20/2004 sobre número de disparos del tiroteo de Leganés.

"Indictment axis": An expression I coined to name the "El País", "ABC", "La Razón", "SER" radio station... i.e. , those who say that the ultimate truth about the bombings can be found in thje Indictment.

I propose this kind of expression to avoid "charged" expressions like "conspirationists", "faithful in the Official Version"...and so on.

Of course that there is also a "doubters of the Indictment axis": "El Mundo", "La Razón", "COPE"...

Including the ones that let you qualify a source as reliable and reputable or not. The rules are mostly common sense. Let's use our commons sense to apply them.

Your "common sense" is NOT like my "common sense".

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, "El Mundo" and "EL País" are equally reliable and reputable sources.

Southofwatford 12:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Any attempt to use either as a source should be subject to at least some verification that:

a). the source actually provides data to back up the statement that it is supposed to be sourcing i.e. a headline doesn't count, and a mention of something without providing supporting information doesn't either.

b). that any primary sources the article relies on are accurately reported. Where this is not the case then the inaccuracy has to be explained and sourced with the primary document.

c). that the source is a useful contribution to an encyclopaedia document. Difficult to define but it has to contribute to the understanding of the issue.

Saying they are equally reliable sources does not mean that anything from either can be automatically included.

Randroide 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Could you please give us the link to the Wikipedia policies where those "conditions" can be found?.

Saying they are equally reliable sources does not mean that anything from either can be automatically included.

Really'. And who is the gatekeeper who decides what is fit for inclusion and what is not?.


Southofwatford 12:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) The gatekeeper is a collective concept in this case because we have to reach a consensus on what to include - it is not an individual.

Just because the Wiki rules do not prevent us from adding something is not a reason in favour of adding it, it just means there is no specific impediment to it being included. Those editing the document will still have some criteria which they apply concerning the quality of the final result. Otherwise, we can add information which we know to be false - and what use is that in an encyclopaedia?

Randroide 12:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) You gave us here an elaborated list of "conditions", Southofwatford. I ask you again: Where is the link to the Wikipedia policies with those conditions?.

Southofwatford 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Usually you force me to repeat the things I wrote yesterday, now you want me to repeat what I wrote a few minutes ago! Where did I say these were Wikipedia policies?

Randroide 13:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) OK, so your "conditions" are NOT Wikipedia policies.

My false conclusion of your "conditions" being a part of Wikipedia policies is something implicit in your raising of those "conditions" in this forum, Southofwatford: This is Wikipedia, and "the law" here is the rules recognized in Wikipedia rules.

Look, Southofwatford: Wikipedi is not ours: We do not dictate the rules here. The owners created rules for the people who want to work here. Those are the rulñes that count here. So,please, stop posting "conditions" you created. Those "conditions" are valid and fine in your personal websites, but not here. Thank you.

Southofwatford 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I never made the slightest attempt to imply or suggest that these were Wikipedia policies that I was quoting. This is a straw man that you have invented. Nevertheless you cannot tell me that I am not entitled to propose criteria for the inclusion of sourced information - I am as entitled as anybody else who is working on this article to do so.

Consensus is going to decide the content of the pages we are working on, we work within the rules but that does not mean that every decision is automatically taken for us. I say it again, the fact that something is permitted under the rules does not mean that we are obliged to do it. A source that contains something we know to be false should not in my opinion be included, or it has to be accompanied by other sourced material demonstrating the inaccuracy. A source where the headline says something that is not backed up by the accompanying article should also not be included - in my opinion. You can tell me that my opinion doesn't count, but I'm afraid that while I am here participating in the editing of this document it does count, as does the opinion of everyone else who participates.

Randroide 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

you cannot tell me that I am not entitled to propose criteria for the inclusion of sourced information - I am as entitled as anybody else who is working on this article to do so.

Criteria for the inclusion of sourced information is not made by you not by me. It is written in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your opinions have all my respect, but are nor relevant in Wikipedia.

If you want to add sourced NPOV rebuttals to "my" sourced NPOV texts, that´s fine Wikipedia work and I support that 100%.

Southofwatford 14:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid that my opinion is relevant Randroide, this is from the document you have provided the link for:

As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

Something is not automatically a fact just because you have a source for it.

Randroide 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much for this quote, Southofwatford: That´s a Wikipedia rule, NOT a personal opinion.

There is NO consensus among "experts" about the Madrid bombings, Southofwatford.

  • Spanish judiciary members...
  • Spanish policemen...
  • Journalists...
  • Spanish Politicians..

...all this groups of people support both "sides" of the issue: That the Indictment is airtight AND that the Indictment has "holes" and elements to doubt about.

Southofwatford 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I think you'll find the quote is a reference to those working on the encyclopaedia article and the consensus that they reach, hence the reference to revising the article.

Randroide 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but you misinterpret the meaning of the quote: The quote is NOT about us. We are simple editors. AFAIK, we are not "experts" not "scholars" about this issue.

Southofwatford 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Well I don't claim to be an expert although it should be possible to be an expert and an editor - my point, however, is that inclusion of sources is not automatic. There is a process of evaluation of sources and in the case we are dealing with that means there should be a consensus on the admissability of a source. There is no rule that I have seen that obliges other editors to accept sources if they feel that the source contains data that is incorrect.

Randroide 16:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

it should be possible to be an expert and an editor

Yes, you are right. But you must get your research published first in an accepted source. Remember Wikipedia:No original research.

there should be a consensus on the admissability of a source

AFAIK, that´s your opinion, not a Wikipedia policy.

There is no rule that I have seen that obliges other editors to accept sources if they feel that the source contains data that is incorrect.

"Feelings" of editosr are irrelevant. Editors are free to search for sourced rebuttals (or allegued rebuttals) of sources they disagree with.

Southofwatford 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) No Randroide, this is a disputed article and changes have to be made by consensus, and that obviously includes sources. You have shown me no rule that says we are obliged to accept a given source. Editors are not robots, they have to make decisions on what material to include, and what to exclude; and they are fully entitled to exclude material that they feel is not good enough, or which is clearly wrong - whatever the source. Show me a rule that says that is not possible.

Randroide 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Editors as you and me do not decide what it is a "source" and what is not. What is a source is defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

You do not like "my" sources?. I do not like "yours" neither. Our liking or disliking of sources, our "feeling" about them means nothing in Wikipedia.

Southofwatford 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) That does not mean we do not have the liberty to select the best available from all of the sources that can possibly be included.

Randroide 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) You are, of corse, free to choose the sources you think are the best for your collaborations.

And I am, of course, free to choose the sources I think are the best for my collaborations. "El Mundo" is a "source" recognized by Wikipedia. I choose that source.

Neither you nor me are "free" to "choose" the sources of the other one.

Randroide 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I hope we could end this discussion sticking to this Wikipedia policy, Southofwatford:

However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion. [33]
  • We should NOT talk about what happened really around the Madrid bombings. That is a sure-fire recipe to endless and sterile discussions.
  • We SHOULD talk about what different sources say about the event: "El país" says this, "EL Mundo says that", "PSOE" says this, "PP says that"...

Southofwatford 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) The fact that something may be included in Wikipedia is not the same as saying that it must be included. I'm not prepared to pretend that the events are just a relativist matter of opinion where each opinion is equally valid, or where its just a question of one newspaper against another. It's not, and this false equivalence you keep trying to create is not sustainable. The reason its not sustainable is that you don't have an equivalent case to make, only a parasitical one that looks for, and feeds off, any gaps in the evidence of others.

Randroide 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Those are your personal opinions, Southofwatford. If you are "not prepared" to abide by Wikipedia rules, it is your problem.

I also will give you my personal opinion: The Indictment is self-contradictory piece of crap. But, you know?, the Indictment is a "relevant source", according with Wikipedia rules. The sames goes with "El Mundo".

Southofwatford 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I asked you before for a rule that I would be breaking, but you still haven't produced it. The rules you have cited do not oblige us to accept any source.

You may think the indictment is crap, but without it your conspiracy theories don't even exist - it's the crutch they depend on. It's also the primary source for many of your secondary sources, and as such cannot be less accurate than any of the sources that depend on it.

Randroide 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) You have not produced neither the Wikipedia rule stating that there should be consensus among the editors about which sources are to be included and which not. Such rule do not exist.

"El Mundo" IS a "source" according with Wikipedia standars, and you can not prevent me usinf thta source in the article.

Southofwatford 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Consensus is necessary for this page to move forward, consensus on content and on sources - it's a disputed topic.

Once again, nobody has tried to suggest that El Mundo cannot be used as a source - it's another straw man. There are cases with sources, not just El Mundo, where the content of the source has defects. Let me give an example: it would be quite wrong in my opinion for El Mundo to be the source for an assertion that the Kangoo van was empty on arrival at the police station. Why? Because they have blatantly manipulated answers from the Parliamentary Commission as we discussed the other day. The only valid source for those statements has to be one that reports them correctly. Where alternative sources exist, it seems to me good editing practice to choose the one that contains more accurate information.

--Larean01 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) According with the Indictment there was a two hours shooting in Leganés with automatic weapons.

Untrue. The indictment does not make that assertion at all. But even if it did, that does not prove that the Invisible Woman was there to fool 200 policemen. Please, Randroide. Be sensible. You cannot take the delirious assertions of an Internet blogger (Luis del Pino) and put them at the same level as the TESTIMONY of 16 policemen. If you want to do that, you need to provide evidence that the policemen lied.

And that goes also for your assertion that the indictment's account of Leganes is self-contradictory. First you will have to convince me there is such a thing as "the indictment's account". Second, you will have to convince me it is self-contradictory. And then you will have to argue an alternative version including the Invisible Woman. Pay special attention to the wonderful argument by Luis del Pino that there was no blood on the walls. Wait a sec.. Which walls? There were no walls left..


---

--Larean01 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Concerning reliability of sources:

I disagree with both. There ARE Wikipedia policies which I have posted earlier and which still need to be discussed. Randroide, you claim time and again that El Mundo is a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules. Yet, you have not argued which rules make it a reliable source. I would like to enter that discussion. I want to know why El Mundo is OK but The National Enquirer is not. After all, they are both newspapers.

That being said, I agree with Southofwatford in that we need to establish ground rules specific to this case. It is not every day that a major newspaper and a mayor political party in a Western democracy go totally mad. Therefore we need special rules.

Besides, I take issue with your statement that experts disagree. Politicians are definitely no experts. Nor are journalists,whose recurring mistakes, political agenda and manipulations can be perfectly documented. Not to mention that journalists have no special training to qualify them as experts. They are almost by definition generalists. You include them because you know that without them the overwhelming consensus is against conspiracy theories. That is not fair play.

Again I say: produce experts in any field who support your view. Spanish or foreign, but real experts. Ask the Univ. of Auburn about smelling capabilities of dogs (they are experts). Ask any analytical chemist about the explosive analysis. Ask demolition experts about the damages. Ask judiciary experts and police experts about the evidence, and whether they consider the contradictions you see as relevant. Any experts. FBI, Scotland Yard, Europol, Interpol. THOSE are the experts. Not Luis del Pino and Fernando Múgica (or Ernesto Ekaizer) for Pete's sake. And certainly not Pedro J. Ramírez or Federico Jiménez Losantos.

Who wastes what?

Randroide : You accused me of wasting bandwith and space in the servers but whoever looking to this particular page will see who makes the wasting. You keep saying the same unbeliavable things for ages stopping, without any other reason than your stubborn contumacy, the editing of these article (and some others). You think Wales founded wikipedia to allow you to spread non-sense and to block legitimate editors from doing their job? Quosque tandem Randroide, quosque tandem....? Igor21 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Black ribbon

Wikipedia is not the place for awareness ribbons, as it not only fails to add content to the article but also makes a minor political statement. Wikipedia is the place for a lot of things, but not content-free statements of solidarity. --Adamrush 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)The ribbon was not content-free. There is a piece of text that gives the content to the picture: "All TV stations replaced their logos with black ribbons overlaid on the Spanish flag at 18:00, visible in the upper-right corner of the television screen". I placed the text in the caption for the picture to avoid future misinterpretations.

Continuing Edit Of Atelier Version

Southofwatford 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC) I have made some further changes this evening, trying to incorporate some of the changes made by Larean01, whilst at the same time avoiding controversy and trying to keep the Aftermath section to a reasonable size - bearing in mind there is still a more detailed aftermath article. I have also started with some edits to the Reactions section but have run out of time for tonight; to be continued tomorrow. Comments welcome as always.

Its good someone is bringing reason to the insanity brought about by Randroide. As a Spaniard I feel offended by his attempts to slander the image of our country in an international encyclopedia using flimsy arguments to spread sick ideas about these attacks. I would also like to congratulate Southofwatford for the civilised way in which he is dealing with this, countering these arguments without losing your temper. I know I would not be able to do so.

Good luck and thanks for your work! --Burgas00 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)You must read this, Burgas00: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

--Larean01 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article, I still find pieces lacking. We need to put this in context of the general elections happening three days later. That was the intent of my addition to the first section. Also, I think the events on the 13th are not well explained. We need to expand on the fact that some people thought the government was withholding information in order to understand why the Saturday demostrations happened. Saturday is an important day and it has to be described in more chronological detail. I believe my version does that, maintaining NPOV.

I have the same sensation about Leganés. It is so sanitised it says very little. Let's agree to some facts. I am sure we can do it.

Randroide 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Leganés and the 13th bomb are controversial issues, and as such they are treated in Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. You can add information there.

In the main article you should discuss ONLY noncontroversial facts: The Police surrounded the flat, neighbours evacuated, GEOs invited and the flat exploded. If you can think about further NONCONTROVERSIAL Leganés info, add it.

The idea that the PP was hiding information has been treated by Igor 21 in the Atelier (and accepted by me, it´s true and NPOV written). If you want to add more information (ans some sources), go ahead.

Southofwatford 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I suggest that where there are disagreements without obvious solution, then we leave those issues for discussion once the rest has been sorted out - otherwise the atelier page is going to have more comments than it has text. As it is I find that I almost need to wear sunglasses to read it at the moment with all these different colours. We seem to be doing things in different ways, I just used colour for my comments whereas everyone else seems to use colour for comments and text. To me, that makes it increasingly difficult to read. Once we have all gone through the whole text it might be a good idea to make a new version containing all agreed text, which we can then use to solve outstanding areas of disagreement.

Randroide 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Good idea, Southofwatford. But everyone should re-read the text commented by the others.

Southofwatford 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) On the question of the perpetrators which seems, at least from the volume of comments, to be the most contested item so far I suggest an anglo-saxon solution. It's not normal in the UK or the US to talk about anyone being the perpetrator of a crime until there has been a trial and a verdict - the presumption of innocence. Equally it makes little sense to talk about the authorship of the bombings being disputed when the trial has not even begun. Thats why I suggested that we can only say who has been accused, and that the case is set for trial. It's only one small entry on a box on the right of the article - there are other parts of the article that need far greater attention.

Randroide 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry but I must reject your suggstion: The autorship is a disputed issue. If you want to avoid any mention to the dispute, you should also avoid mention to the disputed issue. It´s better to say nothing than to mention only one side of the dispute.


Southofwatford 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Well I made what I think was a reasonable compromise which didn't point the finger at anyone as being the authors. If that's not good enough, I'm not going to rack my brains on other suggestions for the contents of a tiny little box in a corner of the article. Blocking attempts to find a compromise does not help consensus, suggesting alternative compromises might.

Randroide 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)I am blocking nothing. We started a "split" of the controversies section from the main article under the condition of removing disputed issues from the main account. If you now do not agree with the removal of disputed issues from the main article, I offer you a new compromise: To leave the "controversies" in the main article and to move from the main article a less troublesome section. For instance, the "Reactions" section.

Southofwatford 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) You have never shown much enthusiasm for splitting the controversies from the main article, after all it is the only section in the article that interests you. I suppose it should be entirely predictable by now that your solution to a problem should be one that gives precedence to the conspiracy theories over factual information. From the point of view of your political objectives that is probably logical. Then, as is very likely, when the controversies section grows too big I suppose your proposal will be to get rid of the description of what happened, and to make the controversies the main article on the issue of the Madrid bombings. All the factual information can then just hang off an article dedicated to the products of Luis del Pino's fevered imagination. The Reactions section fits with the description of the bombings and belongs in the main article. It is also very unlikely to grow significantly as the events it refers to are those immediately following the bombings. You cannot argue the same about the controversies section.

Randroide 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: You have never shown much enthusiasm for splitting the controversies from the main article, after all it is the only section in the article that interests you.

Status: False. Anyone can check the falsehood of this statement in the history of the page.

--Larean01 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I have done some editing. First, I have tried to separate text from comments. Second, I have added some context in the Description section concerning general elections. They are an important part to understand what happened, and if they are buried in a passing remark in the Aftermath section no one will understand their importance.

Third, I have a general suggestion. It does no good to put the label "contested/disputed" every three words. What we should do is give a NPOV description of facts and then, in the paragraph concening controversies, we can discuss the items that are disputed (mochila de Vallecas, Leganes, etc). This is by the way the Kennedy article solution.

I regard these as undisputable:

The bag was found amidst personal items collected from the trains.

Police found a tape claiming responsibility. Not by Al Qaeda, mind you. We need to look up the actual group. ¿Ansar el Islam?

Acebes described the situation in Leganes as a suicide and attributed authorship to the people killed. To my knowledge he has never retracted that declaration.

DNA tests identified seven people including the three I mention.

Fourth, I have added names and talked about Trashorras.

P.S. I agree with Southofwatford. It is undisputable that 29 persons have been indicted. They will not officially be authors until tried and sentenced.

I regard these as undisputable: The bag was found amidst personal items collected from the trains.

Randroide 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)"El Mundo" thinks otherwise: [[34]].

"EL Mundo" is a "source". It´s an objective fact that the issue has been disputed.

Southofwatford 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Well I've read your sources Randroide, and if the bag was not found amongst personal effects from the trains then tell me where it was found - because these sources do not tell me where the bag was found. If El Mundo thinks the bag was found elsewhere why doesn't it tell us where?

Randroide 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) This is an epistemological question I willillustrate you with an example,Southofwatford:

If "El Mundo" shows that it is impossible for Santa Claus to leave the christmas gifts to the children, "El Mundo" has positively NO further obligation to show who left the gifts: Pa, Ma, GranPa, GranMa, Uncle Scrooge, Aunt Jemina or the Tooth Fairy.
If you show thta something is impossible, or very unlikely, you have no further obligation providing an additional explanation. You called this fact a "parasitical" relation towards the Indictmen, Southofwhatfors, and you were right: Doubters of the Indictment do not offer an alternative version.

YThey are NOT "conspiracy theorists", they only point to inconsistencies in the Indictment and uncover declarations of spanish policemen.

Pedro J. Ramírez boasts aa lot about this point: He says he has no "alternative theory" to offer.

--Larean01 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Exactly. El Mundo thinks the bomb was planted, but it does not dispute its recovery from a large bag containing personal items which came (all of them) from the El Pozo station. Besides, I have already said in a later paragraph (where I believe it belongs, AFTER introducing the controversy, that some people doubt the bag. Please also note I stroke out the "other" in "amidst other objects", which DOES imply it was in the trains. The way it is now written this is not implied.

This is NPOV as everybody agrees on that. In fact, if the bag had been planted in a different place (i.e. not amidst personal items coming from El Pozo) it would have instantly been suspect, something that the alleged conspirators would not like to happen. If they planted it, they planted it in a place where it should have appeared withour rising suspicion.

--Larean01 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Randroide: If you leave everything out of the main article, what is left? I disagree totally with moving out the Reactions section.

P.S. I want to make some changes in the Social Reaction section, but will wait a reasonable time until we reach consensus on the Aftermath section. At any rate, my proposed changes are in the Atelier ARTICLE (not discussion).

Randroide 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Larean wrote:Randroide: If you leave everything out of the main article, what is left?

Undisputed facts, Larean. Nothing more and nothing less.

I appreciate your interest in writing your own objections to the "El Mundo" doubts about the 13th bomb genuineness, but that´s not the point, Larean. The point is that several sources expressed reasoned doubts about the genuineness of that exhibit.

--Larean01 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but the point is you dispute so many things that you are devoiding the article of content. I still don't see what the problem is with my writing. The bag DID appear in Vallecas, ¿no? I am not even stating it was in the trains. But a bag appeared. It is senseless not to mention that fact. Please be proactive and suggest an alternative writing, but try to understand the idea I am trying to convey.

Southofwatford 08:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) The onus is on you to do this Randroide, you cannot just sit back and criticise the efforts of others. Both myself and Larean01 have made significant efforts at different times to find wording for issues that does not carry a controversial interpretation. You are not here just as a judge to say whether you agree or not agree, if you want to find a solution for a problem then you have to participate in the search.

GUBU

El Mundo is a vomiting source of nauseating lies. Only a demented, immoral and abject mule can say what they regularly excret in their libelous turd. It is a joke to suggest using it as a source of an encyclopedy. All this is GUBU and Randroide is going far beyond any reasonable person can accept. Igor21 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Sorry. This part where the people who were coming in an out of the wreckage -with the smell of butchery and pieces of people on the floor- are accused of planting the 13th bomb, is beyond my capacity of engaging. -Igor21 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Igor: let's keep it civil, please. I agree El Mundo is terrible and what it is doing is more terrible still, but we need to reach consensus. It may be a source in some cases. I have made a proposal already concerning that: I regard it as a primary source of "original research" concerning the conspiracy theory. Research of course within quotes. BTW, what is GUBU? Never mind, I found it.

Southofwatford 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Well this is the discussion I had yesterday with Randroide, nothing can automatically be considered a source just because of where it comes from. There has to be a process of evaluation concerning the information contained in the source to verify that it backs up with some concrete data the assertion in the article that it sources. Taking today's example, if El Mundo can show - with data - that the Vallecas bomb was never on the trains then that has to be accepted as a valid source. If, on the other hand, they make the assertion but cannot demonstrate it, then we either have to reflect that doubt in the article or not accept the source. In the latter case it becomes an arguable source.

Following the debate

Randroide 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I asked you some questions yesterday in your talk page, Southofwatford. I prefer to do not overload your attention with new disputes until you give me answers. You are also invited to the debate, Larean. I prefer to move the debate to the personal pages because there we can talk in spanish, an advantage I appreciate dealing with complex issues.

--Larean01 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks, but I can't find his talk page... At any rate I am away for these holidays (el Pilar). Will be back on Monday.

Southofwatford 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Put the questions on this page Randroide so that everyone can see and participate in what is being debated. Whilst I can understand a preference for dealing sometimes in Spanish, that should only be used for clarification - this is after all the Wiki in English. You might write more precisely in Spanish, but I do not.

Randroide 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC ) I talked with you in spanish because I saw that we were going nowhere in our discussion in english.

But your demand is just, Southofwatford. My questions for you, here and in english:

  • Please give us a list of the articles or references provided by me that you think that not should be used. We will discuss later your reasons in an article-per-article basis. No "general guidelines" now, please. Now I am demanding you the concrete articles that you think that should not be used. Of course that the list is non-conclusive, i.e., you can add new articles to the list as you wish.
  • Do you accept the application of your standards of rejection to ALL (not only "my" sources) the sources that appear in the article?.

I strongly suggest, by reasons of order and clarity, to have that discussion in this subpage: /Atelier 3: Sources not accepted by an User

Southofwatford 08:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I'm not going to supply a list Randroide, for the simple reason that I don't have one. We can't carry out any evaluation of proposed sources until we know what they are and, more importantly, see the context in which it is proposed to use them. For example, the El Mundo article on the Kangoo where they manipulate the answers given in the Parliamentary Commission. This would be a perfectly valid source for a section on media distortions about the bombings, however I do not think it is a valid source for asserting that the Kangoo van was empty on arrival at the police station; because we know that the evidence provided for this assertion has been tampered with. We know this because we have access to the original, primary, account of the answers given. This primary account is a much more credible source.

The answer to your second question is yes, we have to be consistent in the standards we apply. By the way, I think we already have too many sub-pages - and at least one of them is in danger of deletion.

Randroide 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: "We can't carry out any evaluation of proposed sources until we know what they are and, more importantly, see the context in which it is proposed to use them"

Look here: Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. Oh, you didn´t see the link. I understand: I created it only 10 days ago.

Now you know which are the proposed sources. It´s your turn.

Southofwatford 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) In the words of Johnny Cash, Randroide, I think we have to do things One Piece at a Time. When we have sorted out the core article we can turn our attention to the proposed contents of the controversies page. It's not that I didn't see the link, it's just that it's not yet the main priority.

Randroide 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Sir. The "controversies" page must be created simultaneously with that the "controversies" are removed from the new trimmed main page.

It is the same issue. And, BTW, we are waiting to see what happens with our listed-to-be-deleted discussion page.

Southofwatford 10:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Yes, but you are busily adding completely new material to the controversies page which will have to be made NPOV before this page can formally become part of Wikipedia. So I suggest that we resolve the outstanding issues over the main article before we work on the final format of the controversies one.

Randroide 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC) The status of disputed to the topics treated in the "core" article is created by the "controversies" page. It is the same issue, Southofwatford.

We can do nothing with what is a formal part of Wikipedia until we reach a consensus on both articles. I am a bit surprised of having to explain such an obvious thing.

Moreover: I want to see and evaluate your personal "standards of proof" of "controversies" sources in action before accepting certain sources and assertions in the main article. Those "standards of proof" will also be applied, by me, to "the other side" of the issue in the core article.

Again: Both articles are like the heads and tails of a coin. Both are the same entity from two different points of view.

"We can do nothing with what is a formal part of Wikipedia until we reach a consensus on both articles. I am a bit surprised of having to explain such an obvious thing. "

Southofwatford 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) No more surprised than I am, I have never suggested anything else. All I have said is that I prefer to sort out the content of the main article before we turn our attention to the structure and content of the controversies page.

I note your comment on sources, all that suggests to me is that you have no criteria of your own for evaluation of sources and that you will try some kind of "retaliatory strike" if I object to any of your proposed sources. An eye for an eye is not much of a basis for deciding which sources are good or not.

Randroide 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Southofwhatford wrote: all that suggests to me is that you have no criteria of your own for evaluation of sources...

Of course that I have my own criteria.

The issue is that here, in Wikipedia, personal criteria is not relevant. Only Wikipedia criteria is.

You insist in introduce your personal criteria to my Wikipedia-kosher sources. O.K., I just want to see your criteria in action before accepting anything else.

    • Southofwhatford wrote: ...and that you will try some kind of "retaliatory strike" if I object to any of your proposed sources. An eye for an eye is not much of a basis for deciding which sources are good or not.

Very revealing: You see your personal criteria as a "first strike" that could provoke a "retaliatory strike" from me. Retaliation: Act of striking back.

Look, man: If your personal criteria (outside Wikipedia criteria) is so reasonable, so rational, so good intentioned. Why are you afraid about a "retaliatory strike"?.

Thank you for your transparency. You just confirmed me that I must be very cautious before making deals in this page.

    • SouthofwatforD wrote: I prefer to sort out the content of the main article before we turn our attention to the structure and content of the controversies page.

What you propose is to start building the house by the roof: The controversial label to a topic in the "core" article is provided by the sources in the "controversies" page. If you show us that such or such source should not be used, the topic is no longer "controversial".

I will tell you the same idea with different words: What belongs or does not belong into the "core" (i.e. controversies-free) article is determined by the "controversies" article.

Your message here, please, not in the midst of my previous message.

Southofwatford 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC) No, I do not delete comments on this page, you do.

Randroide 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC) I beg you to read this Wikipedia guideline, Southofwatford:

Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.Wikipedia:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_Talk_pages

Southofwatford 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) I will not discuss any issue with you where you take it upon yourself to edit other user's comments. It's not the first time it has happened but it should be the last. I don't care how many documents or links you produce, you are not the policeman of this page.

Randroide 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You edited my comment first[35]. I simply reverted your disruption. It´s not the first time you do that, and it is not the first time neither I ask you, please (please, please...), to do NOT that again.

I don't care how many documents or links you produce

The documents and links I produce are Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not my personal whims. You and me must comply with those guidelines, we like them or not, if we want to work here in a civilized and constructive atmosphere.

Yes, you are right: I am not the policeman of this page, I am only the Neighborhood Watch.

As an act of good will, I paste your comment again:

COMMENT MOVED BY RANDROIDE, due to the disruptive place where it was written:

Southofwatford 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist. Your judgement on my motives is not backed up by anything I actually wrote. I am completely open about my criteria on sources, and personal criteria do have a place here. Whether you like it or not Wikipedia rules are not sufficient for determining whether a source should be used.

I used the word "retaliation" because of the way you posed the issue, you said you want to make a ruling on sources in the main article only after knowing my objections on the controversies sources. So it is you that has introduced the concept of retaliation, not me.

Randroide 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist.

Vacuous ad hominem.

...and personal criteria do have a place here. Whether you like it or not Wikipedia rules are not sufficient for determining whether a source should be used.

Wikipedia rules are the law here. I will cite you another guideline:

Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported

I sourced the expressed doubts about the Indictment. Where is then the problem, Southofwatford?. If you think that those doubts are unsusbtantiated, that does not change the fact that "source A expressed doubts on subject Z". You are also free to look for alternative sources proclaiming the (allegued) weak case of the doubters and add those sources to the narrative.

A Welcome Example of Clarity

Southofwatford 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) We can be grateful to Luis del Pino, the high priest of the conspiracy theorists and the Black Pawns, for finally making his objectives clear. In his blog today, [[36]] (which unfortunately we cannot use as a primary source), he has explained that the aim of his campaign is that a radicalised Partido Popular can win the next general election by persuading left-wing voters to stay at home. He makes that very clear, it’s not about "seeking the truth", it’s no longer about "remembering the victims" , or even about presenting a nice centrist image. It’s about demoralising enough voters on the other side so that a mobilised minority vote can impose itself in an election. Let’s be clear, this is not my personal interpretation, nor is it based on a report from a newspaper opposed to the conspiracy theories, it’s there in the blog in his own words. No need to pretend any more.

Randroide 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Off topic, Southofwatford. Your extremely personal interpretations about Luis del Pino intentions are irrelevant for our work here.

or even about presenting a nice centrist image

Why being "centrist" is "nice", Southofwatford?.

Southofwatford 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Neither off-topic nor my personal interpretation. Are you going to force me to translate directly from it? Read the article and tell me this is not what he advocates.

Randroide 19:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) I do not want to force you to do a superfluous translation. We have better things to do here. I drop the subject.

AGAIN: Why being "centrist" is "nice", Southofwatford?. You wrote (vide supra) "...or even about presenting a nice centrist image"

Southofwatford 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Well I offered the translation because of your suggestion that what I wrote was just my interpretation, obviously you have now read the article if you consider it to be superfluous.

My reference to centrist being nice has nothing to do with my opinion of centrism, but with the idea of political forces that are not centrist pretending to be so with the aim of presenting a softer image to the electorate.

Randroide 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. What I consider superfluous are your extremely disputable personal opinions and moral judgments about Luis del Pino.

I also have my extremely disputable personal opinions and moral judgments about the march 13th 2004 crowds in illegal concentrations (expressly forbidden by spanish law in the day preceding elections) shouting "Who made it?", "We want to know the truth" and "Tomorrow we will vote, tomorrow we will expel you". After the march 14th election was won, most of that people are no longer interested in new facts.

I keep that opinions and judgments for myself. They are not relevant here.

2. Please, please, please: Provide us with one, just one, text of Luis del Pino trying to pass as "centrist". Such text does not exist.

Southofwatford 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) At no point have I ever tried to suggest that Luis del Pino is a centrist, or that he is trying to pass himself off as a centrist. I have no doubt that he belongs on the far right of the political spectrum and I recognise that he makes little attempt to hide it. What is interesting about this article is that it makes clear what this is all about - for the Black Pawns the 14th March (day of the elections) was always more important than the 11th March, if Rajoy and the PP had won the elections they wouldn't exist and del Pino wouldn't pass his days inventing conspiracy theories. That's my opinion, but what I wrote above about Luis del Pino is not my opinion and if you continue to suggest otherwise I will go ahead and translate his own words.

Randroide 10:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: In his blog today, (which unfortunately we cannot use as a primary source), he has explained that...

Seems that you recognized that all this Luis Del Pino issue is not Wikipedia relevant. I suggest you to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and end this pointless discussion.

Formal question from Randroide to Southofwatford:


Userfy the Atelier

Randroide 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Atelier it has been suggested we "userfy" the Atelier, i.e., we move the atelier to a subpage of a user.

It is a good idea, but, on the other hand, I do not want to "userfy" the discussion from my user page because I do not want to give the symbolic impression I am making this article "my own".

Any volunteer to lend permission to "userfy" the Atelier from his/her user page?.

--Larean01 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) You can use mine. It is empty as far as I know.

P.S. I am still waiting for specific criticism of my writing.

Randroide 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) OK, Larean. Thank you. I will move the discussion to a sub-division from your user page. It is easy: To write a link with a "/" makes a page a subdivision of the root page.

I included your interesting "Pulsómetro" link in the "Controversies" project-page (second link at the top of this page). You can take a look to see if you agree with my text.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_5&oldid=1142748859"