Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings

• /Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english
• Controversies about the 11M-2004:Proposed article
• New proposed core article
• /Proposed additions

/Archive 8

The explosives issue: Proposal

Randroide 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) This is a controversial issue, so I request for opinions:

Some lines from the main article:

Investigators subsequently found that the explosives used in the Leganés explosion were of the same type as those used in the 11 March attacks and the thwarted bombing of the AVE line

The provincial chief of the TEDAX (the bomb disposal experts of the Spanish police) declared on 12 July 2004 that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4.[24]. Use of Titadine (Used by ETA, and intercepted in its way to Madrid 11 days before) has also been reported [25].

Two bombs—one in Atocha and another one in El Pozo stations, numbers 11 and 12—were detonated accidentally by the TEDAX. According to the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive. The 13th bomb which was transferred to a police station, contained dynamite

These groups would have bought the explosives (dynamite Goma-2 ECO)

No era Goma-2 ECO: El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas

And, the jewel of the crown:

This officer, head of the TEDAX investigation group...stated before the judge that she was unable to determine the type of dynamite used in the bombs because it was not possible to obtain a test sample of sufficient size to study the composition of the explosive.

Well, if it was not possible to obtain a test sample of sufficient size to study the composition of the explosive, who the H**l did she know it was dynamite. This is a contradiction.

As a whole, all this diferent lines are a mess.

Any ideas to improve the narrative of the article?.

I suggest the creation of a new section with all the pieces of information from all different sources about this controversial issue. With all the contradictory information we would try to write a coherent narrative about which explosives went off in the trains. Not an easy task.

---

I do agree with you that the section needs vast improving, it's quite messy as it stands now. For one, I'd take off all the Spanish sentences. This is the English Wikipedia, there is no need to have the same sentence both in Spanish and in English (as long as a reference is provided). Second, in order to write a coherent narrative, as you rightly put it, we need to find different sources and provide a chronological order of events. I'm a bit worried on how heavily the entire section leans on only one source (El Mundo). We need to provide different sources with the different takes they have on everything that has happened related to the explosives. I for one remember reading an article by El Pais that refuted (or so they claimed) every single assertion that El Mundo gave about this topic. I'm gonna try to hunt it down online. There is a lot of contradictory info about this subject, but it's not up to us to solve the contradiction: merely, to present all different points of view existing about the subject to the reader. Does what I'm saying make sense? :) Cheers Raystorm 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raystorm : El Mundo is a non reliable source that is inventing things and contradicting primary known sources. They have been catched fabricating news and their ideas are not shared by nobody except a very small circle of people interconected. The narrative of El Mundo 1)is unique and cannot be blended with the narrative of all the world class sources 2)since cannot be blended needs to go in a separate article called "conspiracy theories" as have been done in 9/11. It is not a question of finding El Pais contradicting El Mundo, the question is how El Mundo can be used as a source when their statements are not backed up by nobody. What El Pais says is what ALL the newspapers and TV channels in the world say and what must be the main article. Randroide has been looking for world class sources to back up what El MUndo says and has been unable. He do not want El MUndo theories to be in "conspirationist theories about 11-M" and is trying to force them in the main article. The rest of the editors do not agree and we are preparing a request for arbitration. So there are not many of points of view but just two : El Mundo (and some small websites and individuals on a radio programme) and the rest of the world including any newspaper or TV channel you can think about. Cheers. --Igor21 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor21! I can see this is a hot topic that has jumped from the Spanish Wikipedia to the English one. :) Listen, despite personal misgivings any of us can have towards specific info being in an article, the fact is that El Mundo (and we're talking about an important Spanish newspaper here) has an alternative theory to the, shall we say, official one. Conspiracy theory or not (in fact, until it's proven, it is technically a conspiracy theory, but anyway), the fact that it exists should be included in the article. Do we agree up to here? Now, I appreciate your concern about giving too much weight to a theory that only El Mundo is carrying out (a few others make echo of the alleged findings of this newspaper, but only those which are extremely critic with the current government, which is suspect in itself), and that only, rather ambiguosly, the Popular Party half supports. I agree that the section (I have mentioned it before here) takes too much space in the article. It could be transferred to another article, with a blow by blow description of what El Mundo says, and other media rebate (without other sources, it'd be shamelessly POV). In this page it'd be enough to mention that El Mundo has an altenative theory (I think that's noteworthy enough), which has not been proven and is highly disputed, and leave it at that. Cheers Raystorm 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) We had an agreement to go into mediation on this page, yet I note that significant undiscussed changes are being made by Randriode to the structure of this page. I am away from home and unable to participate actively for another week, but I regard these changes as being an attempt to introduce a bias into the article whiach is favourable to the conspiracy theories (despite the apparently innoccuous headings for each change. I dispute these changes, it is completely against the spirit of the proposed mediation process and when I am able to participate more fully I will seek their reversion. The content of the entire page is now under dispute - again.

We must reverse all the changes made by Randroide using the holidays we agree. It is ashaming what this guy does. Tell us when you are ready to restore the article to the status it has before Randroide started his massive biasing editings after having accepted mediation. There are no words to qualify Randroide (in fact there are many but are too colourful for Wikipedia).--Igor21 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In another words: In English Wikipedia, Igor21 cannot use the same words that he uses in es:wikipedia. :) --Gimferrer 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Hi, Guys:

Raystorm wrote: For one, I'd take off all the Spanish sentences. This is the English Wikipedia, there is no need to have the same sentence both in Spanish and in English (as long as a reference is provided)

You should not do that, Raystorm, really. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English.

Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Raystorm wrote: I'm a bit worried on how heavily the entire section leans on only one source (El Mundo)

I agree with you. All the (contradictory) data about the explosives should be moved to that section. That "El Pais" reference you cited would be an excellent counterpoint.

To Igor21: You did not provide a single source for your allegations in your previous message, so, you said nothing, so I answer you nothing.

Igor21 wrote: What El Pais says is what ALL the newspapers and TV channels in the world say and what must be the main article. Randroide has been looking for world class sources to back up what El MUndo says and has been unable

You are wrong, wrong, wrong: Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.

BTW, Igor21, my (allegued) intentions are irrelevant. Please stop talking about me and start talking about the article. Thank you.

To Southofwhatford: Wikipedia is not our private toy. If one is away, one is away. Other (than me) users changed the article while you were on vacation. Suppose I go to the Amazonian jungle for a year. Should the article be "closed" until I go back?. Common sense, please.

If you think there is bias, please present your points and let´s try to correct that allegued bias.

If you want my opinion: I think too that the article is biased, but I did not change a comma of the things I see as biased because I wanted consensus.

All the changes I made in the last week were non-controversial. I you think that´s not the case, please present the pertinent diffs and let´s talk.

The article is MUCH BETTER now than 2 weeks ago. I challenge to anyone to disprove this assertion.

---

Randroide, sorry but I'm right about there being no need to have the sentence both in English and Spanish. The full quotation of the link you provided is:

Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.

Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

This means, (a) if there exists a translation published anywhere it will be much preferred over any translation any editor can make, and (b) if you use a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear CITATION (not quote) of the foreign language original, so people can check it out. Which means, we use for example El Mundo as a source (non-English), we give a quote (in English) in the article and we provide citation of the foreign language original (the El Mundo webpage where the quote -in Spanish- is).

Btw, I did find the El Pais article I mentioned, but the problem is that it can only be accessed by suscriptors to the newspaper. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Cheers Raystorm 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Answers to Raystorm:

• Yeah, you have a point, Raystorm. On the other hand, I think it is not the best practice to support and assertion with a brief reference from a looooooong article. What about if we move the spanish original citations to the description of the source ? (i.e., to the "Notes" section).

• Please give us the date of the "El País" article. That´s enough. You have no obligation whatsoever of producing sources available online.

---

Randroide : Your list of references to the conspirationist theories of El Mundo by world class media is completely pathetic. The trick of writing the link as if were something below is not very good and the trick of having the list full of bold letters and HTML types for hiding its abismal insubstancy shows how desperate you are. The truth of all this is that you only have a local newspaper who has been caught lying extensively, brigning winesses to lie and fabricating "proofs" and you are trying to make english wikipedia to swallow this usupported conspirationist theories. --Igor21 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)PS : It is good you call for help your friends as Gimferrer who was blocked forever in Spanish Wikipedia due to his performance. This will help people here to know better you and your entourage. BTW, you were also blocked forever or only for a while?

---

20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Answers to Igor21:

Your string of personal attacks is a waste of time. You said nothing.

You fail to source your bold assertion a local newspaper who has been caught lying. You said nothing, again.

Your comment about my two blocks (two days the first and a week the second, if you are interested) in the Spanish Wikipedia is totally irrelevant here, but, well, if you breach the subject...

• An explanation about the fist block can be found here ,to whom could be concerned. The "reasons" for the second block were still feebler. It starts with "Censor" and finishes with "ship".

• A report about the sorry, sorry state of the Spanish Wikipedia can be found here ,to whom could be concerned.

• It should also be said that I am sure that the first of those blocks was motivated by my work here, in this article about the 2004 Madrid train attacks. Here you can read the menacing message written by the admin who blocked me. Yeah, admins in the Spanish Wikipedia write that kind of messages. I also had long and bitter discussions with this admin about the Madrid train attacks in the Spanish Wikipedia.

---

Hi again Randroide. I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. I'm getting a feeling (I could be woefully wrong, and if so I apologize!) that you're using 'quote' and 'citation' as interchangeable (maybe because quote in Spanish is 'cita'?), but they are two different things. I stand by what I said: take out the Spanish quotes from the article and provide the Spanish citations for the English translations (might this be what you're proposing we do?). And I do not believe I took out of context the quote I provided (it was the one that belonged to the section relevant to our discussion). I just got you with the weapons you provided! ;) Cheers Raystorm 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 07:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Let me make it clear again, the changes that Randroide is making to the main article without prior discussion or consensus are partisan, POV changes designed to bolster the presence of the conspiracy theorists point of view. These changes are contested, and I will seek their reversal when I return home. Nobody who ignores my previously stated opposition to these changes can possibly claim to believe in working by consensus - carrying out significant and politically sectarian changes when there was agreement to try and resolve our differences through mediation is a direct blow against that process. As is the renewed attempt to spread the thesis of the peones negros throughout the main article. No presumption of good faith survives such shabby manoeuvres - taking advantage of the absence of those who disagree with your views to try and impose them on the main article is unacceptable behaviour. Open a blog Randroide, thats where your political opinions belong - Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for the extremist political agenda of the peones negros and their allies. The content of this article in its entirety is under dispute, anyone who makes changes without heeding that situation has to accept the possibility that those changes can be removed.

---

Randroide 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) You provided no diffs, Southofwatford, so you said nothing. Business as usual.

The article was a mess. We even have a source called "eyewitness account". Of course that I removed that c**p [1]. You do not care about an "eyewitness" as "source" in the article?. O.K., that´s your problem.

• Please illuminate us about the "extremist political agenda of the peones negros and their allies". I am very interested in that (alleged by you) "extremist political agenda". Provide external sources, please, for a change. Your say so is not enough.

• Please provide us with the diffs where I insert my "political opinions". I think that I never, never, never did such a thing. It´s up to you to prove the opposite.

...anyone who makes changes without heeding that situation has to accept the possibility that those changes can be removed

Of course that all the changes made against Wikipedia policies will be reverted.

Enough time for you, Southofwhatford , back to work. Have a good time away from Home.

Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs

Obviously there is a lot of dispute regarding this section. I just re-read it, and frankly, it's way too POV. We're just giving the view of El Mundo and Cope, as though everything they say is proven and verified, when that's far from true. There is a request for mediation above, which I think is fine. Meanwhile, I've temporarily added a POV template to the section, to be removed when the alternative sources and references that strongly oppose these views are added (ie, El Pais, but not only), and the majority (if not all) of the editors are satisfied about NPOV. Cheers Raystorm 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You are wrong about the NPOV: There are also counterpoints from "El País", and references to the Indictment and to the official data sheet released buy the Goma-2 manufacturer.

IMHO the problem is in the title: It is not a good title. What about changing it for "The Nitroglycerine issue"?. "Questions about the explosives" should be a new section.Randroide 12:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not the only one claiming there is POV, especially since a request for mediation has been made. And one line from El Pais (Nevertheless, on July 17th 2006, Mr. Sánchez Manzano stated before the investigating judge that he had mistakenly used the word "nitroglycerine" because of its historical connection with dynamite [60]) hardly counters entire paragraphs about El Mundo and Cope. Cheers Raystorm 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Add more material from "El Pais" of from wathever source disputes "El Mundo" assertion about the Nitroglycerine issue. I am not going to oppose that: The more information the better.

The attemp of presenting the second spanish newspaper as a "nonreliable" source is beyond my understanding, and doomed to fail. There´s no RfM going on. Randroide 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, that's what I'm saying. :) When other sources that dispute El Mundo are added, then we will have NPOV. Until then... User Southofwatford claims above there was an agreement to get RfM, is this not true? Cheers Raystorm 13:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Raystorm. You are being used by Randroide as part of his plan. We agree to present a request for mediation after Randroide boycotted the RFC. In fact he destroyed the whole page by inserting an ocean of comentaries with HTML nicieties. Then it was agree to go for the mediation in January. Randroide has not repected that and has modified the article to fit his conspirationist ideas. We must wait for Southofwatford to come back and then proceed with the mediation. Be careful with Randroide, he always has a plan and he thinks that wikipedia is his home so he can do whatever without consequences. He is not the polite person he simulates to be. He is a fanatic of conspirationist theories as he has proofed doing what he has done. Cheers. --Igor21 13:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This text has been reported to WP:WQA Randroide 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Do not make personal attacks please. We can make this section NPOV, it's just a matter of adding the relevant sources and reaching consensus, and if that's not possible, we go to RfM. Cheers Raystorm 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps: We'll wait for user Southofwarford then, and then discuss the situation. Cheers Raystorm 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What do you think about the title change? Randroide 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I think it's time for everyone to cool off for a bit. We'll discuss the title change later, if that's okay. But I don't believe that will resolve any POV issues, you know. That's all for today, cheers! Raystorm 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, Raystorm. Could you please provide us the date of that elusive "El Pais" alleged rebuttal of the "El Mundo" assertions about the Nitroglycerine issue?.

I am going to spend a saturday morning in the library to search for references (there are a lot of pieces of information I want to check "on paper"), and the date for that article would be very helpful. Thank you.

You made a good point in the main article about the bracketed text. It is a pleasure to work with an editor with this kind of behaviour. See you.Randroide 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey there. Check out El Pais from 15-3-2006 (I think that's the one), 16-7-2006 (mentions Goma 2), possibly 13- and 15-9-2006 (centered around the different versions of Trashorras and how he lied to El Mundo, might be interesting to provide a context), and maybe even 17-10-2006. There are more, but I can't write them all right now. If you can, just search El Pais.com for the usual (11-M, explosives, tedax, El Mundo, nitroglycerine) and thousands of results will come back at you. Have a good weekend! Raystorm 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: It seems today's El Pais also contains something about the subject. Cheers Raystorm 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS2: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Supremo/tumba/teorias/conspiracion/11-M/apoya/PP/elpepuesp/20070112elpepinac_19/Tes Raystorm 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 11:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the references. You provided me with an invaluable help on my scheduled public library data hunt.

I added a new section with the "El País" article you gently pointed. Please take a look at my text and see if you can improve it. CU.

Hi there. I'm not too sure about creating a new sub-section. Can't we incorporate that info into an existing section? Cheers Raystorm 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh. The subjects "El País" article talks about had not been breached until now. IMHO the new sub-section is the way to go. What´s your proposal for placing that info?.Randroide 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In the while before Southofwatford and the rest of editors come back, and having seen the introduction of heavily controversial material took from a highly suspicious source -Spanish local newspaper El Mundo that has been catched saying all kind of lies (see above raystorm reference articles)- I have changed the first paragraph. To not be controversial I have used the most reputed and respected source for terrorism that is MIPT Terrorism Database that is an extract for public use of the official RAND corporation list of incidents that is used worlwide as reference both by academic researchers and governement agencies. I thing that should be a good idea to reflect what this neutral and so higly recognized sources say instead of discussing about local newspapers opinions.--Igor21 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) My most sincere congratulations, Igor21: You came here with your first source in half a year.

But there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM:

You wrote in the main text:

The authors were local islamic extremists with possible links with al-Qaeda

The source does not say that, the source says:

...when Islamic extremists attacked commuter trains in Madrid

Islamist extremists. Not a single word about possible links with al-Qaeda.

Moreover, you can read the MIPT report for 2005 [2]. Again: Not a single word about an al-Qaida involvement in the 2004 train attacks.

In fact, they are so cautious that they write:

A Spanish court sentenced 18 members of an al-Qaida cell to between six and 27 years in prison. Separately, authorities continued to investigate the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people and wounded hundreds of others.

Bold added by me.

Correct the text in the main article, please.

What about if we add all that chunk of data about the (alleged) perpetrators to the infobox at the right?. And I mean all the data. With the sources we have now I think that addition would not be misleading to the reader (the situation some months ago was totally different).

---

Randroide : The MIPT s the most reliable source in the subject of terrorism. Do not start distorting its words as you normally do with the Spanish indictment. Is says what is says because for them the Spanish governement, police and judges are to be believed. --Igor21 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) The MIPT source you gently provided says nothing about an al-Qaida involvement: Please correct the misleading text you wrote.

The text you blanked [3] is sourced wiht references from The Times, The Independent and, yes, the second Spanish newpaper, El Mundo (Spain).

And some Spanish policemen think the Indictment is a very dubious explanation about what happened [4], so please stop writing that nonsense about "Spanish...police...are to be believed".

---

Hi Randroide. :) You've been busy, I see. How was the source-hunt?

Listen, I have doubts about the following sentences in the lead:

It is the only case in history where there is collaboration of muslim extremists with non-muslims [5]. Direct al-Qaeda involvement has been discarded[6]

The source is a good one (I'm fluent in French, so I had no problems with the pdf doc), but what worries me is that (a) it's a short note (not an in-depth report), released six days after the bombings, (b)it does not discard by any means direct al-Qaeda involvement (on the contrary), which comes into direct contradiction with the next sentence, (c)it highly doubts any connection (or alliance) between Al-Qaida and ETA (you okay with this? ;)), (d) it states poor handling of the situation by Spanish authorities (not mentioned anywhere, but relevant don't you think?). My proposal: can't we find a more recent report by the same source about the subject? This short note, both by its date and its lenght, is not adequate for a sentence that begins 'It is the only case in history'. Besides, I wasn't able to find where in the note it says that. The most related comment I found was: Les attentats de Madrid ont, probablement, nécessité la collaboration, à un moment ou à une autre, d’une vingtaine d’opérateurs et de logisticiens… Notice the 'probablement'. Could you tell me the number of the section where the sentence used for the lead is located please?

At the most, I believe this note would be useful to state that the situation wasn't handled very well by Spanish authorities. Cheers Raystorm 11:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry, Raystorm. In the sound and fury of this page I lost this thread.

(a) it's a short note (not an in-depth report), released six days after the bombings,

So?. Most newspaper articles quoted in the article are still shorter, and historical affirmations ("the worst attack in Europe since Lockerby", for instance) had no expiry date.

(b)it does not discard by any means direct al-Qaeda involvement (on the contrary), which comes into direct contradiction with the next sentence,

I never said this source discards al-Qaeda involvement. I suggest to create a "pro al-Qaeda involvement sources" and "against al-Qaeda involvement sources" section.

(c)it highly doubts any connection (or alliance) between Al-Qaida and ETA (you okay with this? ;)),

Of course. How could I disagree with writing what a source says?. If I disagree whith the conclussion reached by the source, I search an alternative source to be added to the article.

(d) it states poor handling of the situation by Spanish authorities (not mentioned anywhere, but relevant don't you think?).

Of course: The "handling" was bad. In fact I posted still more vocal sources about this poor handling issue Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Proposed additions. Please read "Vital clues missed by Spanish police" and "Allegued previous warning".

My proposal: can't we find a more recent report by the same source about the subject? This short note, both by its date and its lenght, is not adequate for a sentence that begins 'It is the only case in history'. Besides, I wasn't able to find where in the note it says that.

Page 3: Il n'y a d'ailleurs à ce jour aucun exemple d’une action terroriste menée par des islamistes internationalistes en collaboration avec des non musulmans

As I said, historical affirmations had no expiry date.

Moreover, the issue has also been commented by w:es:Luis del Pino:

Los terroristas de al-Qaida, fanáticos integristas, no recurren jamás a una persona no musulmana para organizar un atentado Los enigmas del 11-M, ISBN 8496088456

Randroide 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A misleading addition that should be re-touched or deleted

The addition "although this same source also states that there is no precedent of collaboration of international islamists with non-muslims, [45] and there were two non-muslims (and police confidents) involved in the Madrid attacks.[46][47]" in the section # 3.1 Whether the conservative government lied is misplaced (at the best) and erroneous.

1) This "statement" has no relation with whether the conservative government lied or not, and hence it should be moved to other section or deleted.

2) Even if the stated is moved to another section it means nothing, contributes nothing.

3) The two persons we find in the quote from "El Mundo" are the Spanish miner Suárez Trashorras and the Moroccan Rafá Zuher. I won't ask where it's attested the religion that Suárez Trashorras professes (also an interesting question), but how does Randroide know that the Moroccan one was not muslim?? Fact not documented and probably false.

4) As Suarez Trashorras didn't participated in the bombing, but he was only a provider, a seller; can we assume that the ESISC document say that no islamist terrorist group has never bought weapons to a non muslim?? (Remember who armed the Taliban?). The text in question deals on whether there could have been a tactical alliance between ETA and the Islamist, considering it "hautement improbable" (but not excluding it possibility beforehand) and argues that they prefer to make their Jihad without infidels. But to conclude that the ESISC states that the Islamist terrorist only buy weapons of islamic origin is too much... (and even in this case they bought through a Moroccan intermediary!. Can we imagine that the Islamist terrorist in Spain were going to reject a black market provider because he was no muslim? Where is the source that state that Suarez Trashorras was part of the terrorist cell? that he was aware of the bombing or that he participated in the bombing themselves? If he was the weapon black market provider the comment has no sense and must be deleted. What the quote from "El Mundo" says is that Zuher was an intermediary between the terrorist and Suarez Trashorras. The interpretation that Randroide concludes is very dubious and ridiculous.

Conclusion: the "addition" is out of place, means nothing, quotes sources that doesn't justify its statement, and relays on a very dubious and subjective (and probably partial) interpretation.

Please, more control on this theme, it's a very serious one, and sometimes this article seems more Randroide's playground that anything else. I remember that he even re-touched my last contribution in this discussion page, which isn't exactly the Wikipedia etiquette (which by the way I didn't break in my text). Maybe, as in too many paragraphs of the discussion, the article should be renamed as "Randroide on 2004 Madrid train bombings". Would you like to see the same in the article on September the Eleventh?

Finally a question: if there is a judicial indictment published, why to rely so much on newspapers? Do you believe that they are neutral, impartial, professional and only interested in telling the truth and not in selling. Did you know that some spanish newspaper directors years ago made public telling that they felt that they ought to help to topple the government (then also a socialist government) and that they met every week (or so) to coordinate their strategies? (One director told it so, the other one boasted about his intentions and motivations). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.165.228 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

---

Randroide 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Hi. Could you please sign while logged in?. Thank you.

This "statement" has no relation with whether the conservative government lied or not, and hence it should be moved to other section or deleted.

Your proposal to move the source is reasonable. Where do you propose to move the fact?. "Responsibility" seems to me the better section to paste the fact.

Even if the stated is moved to another section it means nothing, contributes nothing.

You are wrong. The piece of text...

Il n'y a d'ailleurs à ce jour aucun exemple d’une action terroriste menée par des islamistes internationalistes en collaboration avec des non musulmans

...illustrates a unique circumstance in an allegedly islamist attack. Is as relevant as the references to the Lockerbie bombing: The Madrid bombing is unique in several ways.

The two persons we find in the quote from "El Mundo" are the Spanish miner Suárez Trashorras and the Moroccan Rafá Zuher. I won't ask where it's attested the religion that Suárez Trashorras professes (also an interesting question), but how does Randroide know that the Moroccan one was not muslim?? Fact not documented and probably false.

There´s no religion "attested" for Suárez Trashorras. That means: Non Muslim. I never suggested that the Moroccan is a non-muslim. The other non-muslim is Antonio Toro [5].

As Suarez Trashorras didn't participated in the bombing...

Judge Del Olmo thinks otherwise. Read the Indictment [6].

But to conclude that the ESISC states that the Islamist terrorist only buy weapons of islamic origin is too much...

Straw man. I never wrote that.

this article seems more Randroide's playground that anything else. I remember that he even re-touched my last contribution in this discussion page, which isn't exactly the Wikipedia etiquette (which by the way I didn't break in my text). Maybe, as in too many paragraphs of the discussion, the article should be renamed as "Randroide on 2004 Madrid train bombings"

Gratituous personal attack agaist me.

You provide no diffs for your allegation against me tampering with your message. Where is that diff, please?.

I provide sources for all the statements I add.

I repeat: ALL the stetements.

So, calling this article "Randroide on 2004 Madrid train bombings" is uninformed nonsense.

if there is a judicial indictment published, why to rely so much on newspapers? Do you believe that they are neutral, impartial, professional and only interested in telling the truth and not in selling

This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources accepts newspapers.

Moreover: Your faith in the Spanish Judiciary is touching, but uninformed, and dangerous.

Former president Felipe González does not share your faith. Please read what he said about the Spanish Judiciary:

¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?

Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos. Más allá de la consideración sobre la inocencia o la culpabilidad, para mí, que soy un demócrata, lo que más me aterra es la quiebra del Estado de Derecho que pudiera suponer que unos inocentes estén en la cárcel. Prefiero que haya cuatro culpables en la calle que un inocente en prisión. Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.[7]

Do you see?. Spanish former president thinks that the Spanish Judiciary can send innocents to jail. Are we going to put a blind faith in such a system?. Me not.

Did you know that some spanish newspaper directors years ago made public telling that they felt that they ought to help to topple the government (then also a socialist government) and that they met every week (or so) to coordinate their strategies? (One director told it so, the other one boasted about his intentions and motivations).

So you believe in a Conspiracy theory of "some spanish newspaper directors" creating a sinister cabal of evildoers trying to topple the current Spanish government?

If you believe in such a Conspiracy theory, I suggest you to source (or at least to try to source) your statements. You failed to provide a source, so you said nothing.

I will give a proper response for Raystorm ASAP.

---

Sorry. No account, no logging.

The indictment says "colaborador necesario", not direct involvement in the bombings. They were not part of the terrorist cell, but they sold the weapons.

No religion attested means no Muslim? Negative evidence is a valid source now? But this is secondary, the question is whether there is documentation which attest that never before no Islamist Terrorist cell buy weapons to non Islamist providers. As the ESISC report doesn't state that, I'm afraid there is no source for that, so no valid data. So it doesn't "...illustrates a unique circumstance in an allegedly islamist attack" and you failed to provide a source.

I accept my mistake on Toro, but the quote (from "El Mundo") is not clear. Even so, my fault.

Do you have more faith on newspapers than on judges? A judge must show the sources of his data, argue his conclusions, and if catch on falsehood he must face up consequences. A journalist says his sources are secret, if his conclusions has no logic he says he was wrong (or simply says nothing and tries again), and if catch on falsehood says that the poor of him believed his (secret) source and goes on. The false news are in the front page and in many issues, but rectifications...

But given your faith on journalists you'll have no problems accepting the conspiracy. Look at this link (sorry, surely there are better ones, but it's the first I found and explains its sources from many journals) "Escenarios para un golpe de papel". "Cómo se gestó y desarrolló el plan que puso al límite la estabilidad del Estado". It copies a text from newspaper La Vanguardia (2-22-1998) and quotes other sources (ABC 7-25-1996; La Vanguardia 8-22-1994; Tiempo and others): the director of "El Mundo" (P. J. Ramirez) hosted a meeting intended to agree an strategy against the government. I quote: "La fórmula empleada para conseguir estos fines, según ha dicho el propio Anson, fue elevar la crítica y la crispación "hasta rozar la estabilidad del Estado" (Anson, then director of the newspaper ABC). The text is very long and there are many persons involved but the fact remains that journalists were working not to tell the truth and publish not biased new, but to change the government of Spain. Of the journalist involved Pedro J. Ramirez is still the director of "El Mundo" and hence "El Mundo" can´t be considered a neutral or impartial source. Can you say the same of judge Del Olmo? Who is the ingenuous?

By the way, if the opinion of Felipe Gonzalez is a source so reliable for you, would you mind to quote his opinions on the conspiracy and the Madrid bombings. It's your source!

Gratituous personal attack against you? Isn't deleting comments of other user in the discussion page something against the Wikipedia etiquette? How many Wikipedia articles in which all is "User X" answers.... User X says..... User X..... If you like so much to entitled the discussion sections with your user name, what is what you dislike of renaming the article according to your user name. You act as if you were the center of the article and in a so serious theme like the Madrid bombings I found it too frivolous, really too. But if you consider any criticism as a personal attack you look like a journalist ;-) I won't delete your comments. --62.57.165.228 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I found infra that now you say "Wikipedia is not your (our) private playground" to Southofwatford. How original!! If I say it to you, you say it's a personal attack, but then you use it. --62.57.165.228 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry, in the midst of a heated discussion I missed your postings.

I do not trust alleged newspaper transcriptions typed in a partisan website (as the one you gently linked above).

Moreover: This is not the right page for that stuff. I suggest you to check if the transcription is right (local library, if they store "La Vanguardia") and, if it is right, then add those facts to the relevant articles (Pedro J. Ramírez, for instance).

I suggest you to get an account.

I have faith on nothing, on nothing. Faith is an epistemological vice with terrible mind-shattering results.Randroide 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This Article Is Subject To Dispute

Southofwatford 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Randroide, I have now warned you twice, very clearly, about the disputed nature of this page and the changes which you are making without consensus, or even a minimal token attempt at consensus. You have ignored both of these warnings and continued to impose unilateral and contested changes on the main article. You are simply not entitled to make substantial and controversial edits to a page that is subject to a dispute and in the face of objections to such changes by other users. By making these edits, and by ignoring all warnings about the disputed nature of your changes, you have chosen to place yourself clearly outside of the Wikipedia guidelines on the resolution of disputes. It seems that every time you have a choice between collaboration or confrontation, you always seem to find confrontation the more attractive option – these are choices you make freely without any obligation at all to do so, and you must therefore assume all the consequences of such choices. Last year I had to force you to accept that consensus was necessary on a disputed page on two separate occasions, if I have to do it a third time then I will do so. If you act like a rogue user Randroide, then you will be treated as a rogue user.

---

Randroide 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You were on vacation. Wikipedia is not your (our) private playground. I had no obligation whatsoever to wait for you.

2. You have a gigantic backlog of unanswered questions made by me to you. You always... (non exhaustive list of excuses)

• ...have "commitments...will make it difficult for me to participate" [8]
• ...the intention of carry out a major edit "in a few weeks time", a major edit that never comes...[9]
• ...don't have time today to submit the mediation request and....have very limited access to Internet in the next 4 weeks [10]

Faced with this backlog, you answer that "I am, thankfully, not accountable to you or anyone else for how I freely choose to use what spare time I have."[11]

Sources produced by you so far to the article: ZERO.

I played your "game" in Aftermath_of_the_11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings. The result is a collection of +50 unsourced statements, with a "protector" (i.e., you) went AWOL.

3. The disputed status was deleted in december, I added again the tag and was deleted again [12].

4. Mi edits were non-controversial. If you think the opposite, please provide diffs. It is very interesting to see you so upset. Why you were not worried about the unsourced blocks of text I removed (vide supra).

5. I was not the only one improving the article while you are doing whatever-it-is-no-my-business-it-is-your-right in other place than Wikipedia. Look at the historial.

6. If you think I am a rogue, I suggest you to contact with an admin.

Southofwatford : We must go for eliminating El Mundo as a source. It is a toxic source and everybody who knows the insides of this article knows this for sure so there should be a way to comunicate this fact to rest of the comunity. I copied part of the RAND world report about terrorism. I think that everybody with head over shoulders can see that is a better source and that is ludicrous to say "RAND and the rest of the world says x but El Mundo says y".--Igor21 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 3 warnings have now been issued and ignored by you Randroide, none of the arguments you have presented justify imposing contested changes to the article and breaking Wikipedia guidelines on consensus

1. My going on vacation does not justify any of your actions, an article does not cease to be disputed because someone goes on holiday - other users have also disputed the state of the article and you cannot pretend to be unaware of that fact. The only person acting like the owner of the article is the user who feels entitled to make controversial changes to a disputed article ignoring the objections of several other users - you.

2. You have also not answered questions I have put to you - again it is an irrelevant argument. Breaking Wikipedia guidelines because you are not satisfied with another user's response is completely unjustified - noone else has done it except you.I did not have time to present the mediation request before I went away, whats your excuse - you were here the whole time and at no point was it decided that I was in some way wholly responsible for moving the mediation process forward? As for the major edit, I began it by rewriting the introduction to the article to update it and remove controversial issues, your only response to that was a destructive edit to attempt to reintroduce controversial issues. Since then I have not touched the main article because of its disputed status and the attempt to resolve the dispute by consensus - an attempt that you have freely chosen to destroy.

3. The unhelpful change to the disputed status of the article was made without any reference to those involved in the dispute. None of the parties involved have withdrawn their objections to the content of the article - you cannot pretend to be unaware of that fact.

4. The headings to your edits are the only non-controversial aspect of your changes, you have removed information unfavourable to your views, and added content that supports your arguments - taken as a whole the changes are completely POV and are contested. Calling something non-controversial does not make it non-controversial - if your changes are contested they are controversial by definition. You are not entitled to ignore that.

5. Anyone who has made contested changes to the article should have their changes removed and be invited to join the discussion on how to resolve the conflict over the content of this article.

6. You have rejected consensus to resolve the disputes on the article, and you have provided no justification for the course of action you have freely chosen - your changes can be removed because of your open refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines on resolution of disputes. What you will be unable to offer us, given your current attitude, is any reason why we cannot all behave like you, making partisan changes and destroying what little remains of the credibility of this article

Southofwatford 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I have removed the contested changes that were made to this article without any discussion or consensus - this is not a straightforward revert, wherever possible I have sought to preserve genuinely non-controversial changes. I have also restored the total dispute tag for the entire article. The intention of the edit is to restore the situation that existed before Randroide decided to make unilateral and controversial changes to this article. -- Randroide 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Your revert:

• You also removed sources to the, for instance, Ibarretxe declaration, hardly a "controversial issue".

• You also destroyed consensused changes done in the last month.

• You also destroyed a lot of other minor improvements done by other users, who commited the grave "crime" of not knowing that User:Southofwatford was away.

• You also introduced a lot of blocks of unsourced text.

I reverted you for the aforementioned reasons.

If the "perpetrators" block of text at the beginning of the article is such a problem, I suggest to move the content (all the content) to "responsibility".

If concrete diffs by me are such a problem, please revert and discuss concrete diffs, one diff at a time.

Ok. Randroide. You have finally caused the war of editions that you have been seeking since 8th July 2006 as this diff proofs beyond any doubt. [[13]]You are very clever but you also commit mistakes time to time. So you are not the user devoted to wikipedia rules that you are currently simulating to be but a shrewd activist of a small group of fanatics who came here to overcome the limitations that the fact that in Spain everybody knows this issue represented for your conspirationist activities in Spanish wikipedia. So, can we comment this particular diff for starting?.--Igor21 10:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC) The reversion of vandalism is not an "edit war" at all, Igor21.

Of course I am willing to comment my past edit: I was "spoiled" by the "far west" atmosphere so prevalent in the Spanish Wikipedia. That´s the reason I wrote that text. In the English Wikipedia things work much better.

Your post has been reported to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

---

Southofwatford 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) In answer to your points Randroide:

- I introduced no material in my edit, I simply restored material deleted by your imposed and non-consensual edits

- I removed all of your changes, the reason why I removed them is because you are acting in breach of Wikipedia guidelines on resolution of disputes, and you ignored all warnings to that effect [[14]]. While you continue to act in breach of these guidelines you cannot demand that changes you make are examined individually. You have rejected consensus, you have rejected the mediation process - that is your free choice but it does not entitle you to make unilateral changes to a disputed article. There are no rewards for such behaviour, and you are acting as a rogue user. Until you agree to return to resolution of the dispute concerning this page I will continue to remove your changes.

- I removed no consensual edits by other users, consensus involves the agreement of parties involved in the dispute, and this agreement is not to be found anywhere on the talk page. It's unfortunate that removal of your imposed changes also means removal of other users changes in response to yours, but it's an unavoidable consequence of you deciding to impose partisan changes. I hope that other users who have become involved in the discussion will join attempts to resolve the disputed content of this page by common agreement. Before removing your changes again, I will make further checks to try and ensure that genuinely non-controversial changes are not affected.

Given Randroide's rejection of mediation I feel that the only way forward now is for this article to be submitted for arbitration, for me the choice is a clear one between Randroide's attempt to abuse the article as a political platform, and those who believe that an encyclopaedia is not an appropriate place for such abuse.

---

Discussion diffs by diffs

Randroide 07:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) My first ten "controversial" (ahem) diffs (and, BTW, my last 2006 diffs on this article).

Any problem with them?.

To avoid conflicts, I´ll reverse myself in any problematic diff while whe discuss the problem. O.K.?.

I´ll say it again: All my work here while other user were away was NONcontroversial.

I introduced NOTHING from the controversial Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]
9. [23]
10. [24]

Any problem with this diffs?. Comments, please.

We solve this bunch and we´ll review again the next ten diffs. Do you agree?.

---

I went ahead and checked them and made a few comments on each. Hope that's okay. :)

The first two diffs. I must admit, I don't understand why you deleted those edits. Just because they are unsourced doesn't make them false. Especially number 2. Just put a 'citation needed' tag and ask in the talk page for someone to find a reference.

No problem with number 3. If anything, again a statement only sourced by El Mundo, but in itself valid.

Number 4 is a bit weird. It cites involvement of Trashorras. Nonetheless, that man was later found to be such a liar, that I'm not sure up to what point the judge believes he's to be considered as a reliable source in this matter. Might be better to use words such as alledged or supposed with him.

Aha! You deleted that edit yourself in number 5 I see. :)

6 is a minor edit. But somehow the deleted text is back again. Another user must have re-added it?

In 7 again you delete a text that at the most would have been worthy of a 'citation needed' tag. But you did discuss it in this talk page (the user that made that edit explained it, and you answered him there). Unfortunately, the user that made that edit never returned, and the issue was unresolved.

Number 8 is okay, minor. You corrected a reference that didn't work (wasn't properly coded), for one that did.

Number 9 is another El Mundo statement claiming that other newspapers echoed its news. Why not use one of those sources as a ref directly instead?

In number 10 you just provided a reference for the previous statement.

I don't like too much the pattern I see though. It seems you make an effort to include statements and references that support a determined POV (which in itself is not bad), but at least in these diffs the texts you deleted were against that POV. If you made the same effort to include sources 'from the other side' it would be extremely valuable. Good editors must provide info from all sides, not only from the one they support (making it a 'task' for the other side to find the sources that cite what they support. That's not the way to go). That's just an opinion, again, based on these diffs only. Cheers Raystorm 13:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide answer

Randroide 17:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced text must go out, that´s the reason I deleted those texts.

Diff 1: The text is noncontroversial, but unsourced. IMHO it should not stay in the article. I suggest to to repaste it into the article as " hiddedn" text of repaste it with a {{fact}} tag a some time span (let say two months) to find a source or delete.

Diff 2:

Despite the Spanish Government's claims that the explosive used was titadine, a type of compressed dynamite used by ETA in recent years...

There is a contradiction. This is written as "the government said". This line is based (I suppose) in this source:

The bombers used titadine, a kind of compressed dynamite also found in a bomb-laden van intercepted last month as it headed for Madrid, a source at Aznar's office said[25]

BUT (and it is a very big "but"), the presence of Titadine was presented as a fact by other media:

El análisis de un artefacto colocado junto a una valla de la estación de El Pozo y explosionado por la Policía ha podido determinar que el explosivo estaba compuesto por una mezcla de unos cinco kilos de titadine y nitroglicerina considerada "típica de ETA".[26]

This is a quandary: How do we present this issue?. Should we present the oresence of Titadine as a fact (as ABC said) or as a "the government said" (as the CBS).

Please ponder what you are going to say, because you are going to create a precedent for the rest of the article.

IMHO the best option is to write BOTH versions (...although other sources present this as a fact , for instance).

Second part from diff 2

...forensic analysis of one of the remaining unexploded devices found at El Pozo revealed the explosive used there to be Goma-2, manufactured in Spain and not used by ETA since the 1980s.

This is unsourced and false. The crux of the issue is the line "the explosive used there": There´s no obligation for the perpetrators for using the same kind of explosives in all the devices. The 13th bomb contained Goma-2 ECO. Fine. But that piece of data does not prove per se that Goma-2 ECO exploded in the trains.

Moreover, the Spanish judiacry (or at least part of the Spanish Judiaciary) says that it is impossible to know what kind of explosives went off in the trains [27]

Moreover, the 13th bomb was not "found" as an explosive device in the El Pozo station, and the whole issue is under heavy dispute.

Questions have been raised about the actual provenance of a knapsack dubbed “Backpack 13” and its contents [28]

I suggest an estrictly neutral description of facts, as the one I suggest below.

I suggest:

• To find a source for the Goma-2 claim (I volunteer for that).
• To reword the text into something like this:

"forensic analysis of the so-called "13th bomb", an unexploded device found by Spanish policemen among personal belongings from the stations in the first hours of march 12th found Goma-2 in the device, manufactured in Spain and not used by ETA since the 1980s."

Diff 9 I am glad to say that your reasonable petition has been attended: The ABC source cited by "El Mundo" talks about Nitroglycerine [29]...BTW, Nitroglycerine presence (supported by ABC) is NOT compatible with the Indictment explanation.

Everybody : You can see here what is the meaning of "discussing" for Randroide : to write kilometric answers until the other side gets tired enough to accept everything. It is no point to play his games. He is not the owner of the article, he is the one that has destroyed it after accepting to wait for an RFA. --Igor21 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The text is noncontroversial, but unsourced. IMHO it should not stay in the article. I suggest to to repaste it into the article as " hiddedn" text of repaste it with a {{fact}} tag a some time span (let say two months) to find a source or delete.

That's exactly what I said Randroide. Citation needed tag is a fact tag.

Despite the Spanish Government's claims that the explosive used was titadine, a type of compressed dynamite used by ETA in recent years...

There is a contradiction. This is written as "the government said".

This is a quandary: How do we present this issue?. Should we present the oresence of Titadine as a fact (as ABC said) or as a "the government said" (as the CBS).

Both. It is relevant to have both because a strong part of Spain later blamed the Government of lying to them. If there are other sources questioning the use of that explosive, they should be added too. There's no problem with having many references. Especially since you said, quite rightly:

Moreover, the Spanish judiacry (or at least part of the Spanish Judiaciary) says that it is impossible to know what kind of explosives went off in the trains.

Let's have all versions then, not just one. But priority should be given to the Spanish Judiciary one. They have resources and access to info that newspapers generally lack.

Cheers Raystorm 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide (sorry, bold letters to get your attention!): I've seen your latest edit. That is not what I meant. You just cite El Mundo citing ABC. What I ask for is a direct citation from ABC. Cheers Raystorm 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ABC article, Raystorm [30]. You failed to see it in the turmoil. I understand. Thank you for the bolds.

You're right, I missed it. My mistake. Sorry and thanks. Raystorm 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC) This is a complex issue, Igor21. If you "get tired" with it, I suggest you to rearrange your editing priorities.

---

Southofwatford 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I'll take you on your word Randroide - your changes are all problematic - please remove them. I am not prepared to discuss individual changes until you are prepared to demonstrate with your actions that you accept the disputed nature of this page and that you accept consensus prior to the introduction of significant changes. If you do that I will be happy to discuss my objections to your changes.

---

Southofwatford wrote: Randroide...your changes are all problematic

Really?. Take a look at these diffs: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Where´s the problem, Southofwatford?.

Of course that I accept the disputed nature of the page, but I made no "significant" changes at all. Not a single issue from "Controverises" was introduced.

---

Southofwatford 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Very simple to answer, the problem is in the way the changes were made and the way you responded when objections were raised. Following on from that the problem is the partisan nature of many of these changes, but the key issue is that you imposed these changes without discussion or consensus, and then brushed aside clearly expressed objections to your changes - that cannot be considered as acceptance of the disputed nature of the page. Imposing changes and only then subsequently offering to discuss them is not working by consensus. I assume from your response that your offer to withdraw problematic changes has been withdrawn? The definition of problematic cannot be yours alone to define.

Request for arbitration

At this point is clear that there are two different narratives that cannot be blended together and there is a source that is El Mundo that contradicts all other sources.

Why not split in peace and then Randroide can explain at lenght all the El Mundo theories plus his own improvements while the rest of editors can writhe a decent article with the ideas of all the other sources?

I have been seeing Southofwatford trying to find a middle ground between these two narratives for months with no succes. I do not see the point to start again. Randroide and El Mundo have his own ideas and they have the right to express them in wikipedia but, why mixing water and oil? So if Randroide do not accept this so logical thing we must go for a RFA. This is my opinion.--Igor21 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) All other options have been exhausted unless the contested changes made to this article are removed for discussion, and there is a return to solving the dispute on the article via consensus - which of course means that objections from users involved in the dispute cannot just be ignored by a single user determined to make changes.

Randroide 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, I agree that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is the way to go.

BTW, I accepted RfM 50 days ago [40][41]

I am still waiting for someone doing the RfM paperwork for reasons I explained a long time ago [42].

I am still waiting, and waiting, and waiting...

---

Southofwatford 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) You cannot accept mediation and at the same time act unilaterally on a disputed article in breach of Wikipedia guidelines on resolving disputes - the two positions are simply not compatible. I am prepared to submit a mediation request and I will do it quickly - but only when you withdraw your non-consensual changes to the main article and restore the situation that existed on this disputed article before you made your entirely voluntary decision to make these changes. It appears you can do many things in Wikipedia Randroide, it is unfortunate that a simple mediation request was not one of them. I hope that if I submit such a request you will be capable of waiting until it is dealt with?

---

Randroide 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I am not going to do any en masse revertion. You can be 100% sure on this point.

My rationale: Wikipedia policies forbid me to undone the work I did (for instance, to reintroduce unsourced material).

Nonetheless, I am willing to discuss and amend my edits.

---

Southofwatford 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you could point out to us the Wikipedia policy which specifically forbids you to reintroduce this material. In any case, given the fact that the material was originally deleted in the face of objections from other users, and in clear breach of Wikipedia guidelines on disputed pages and resolution of conflicts, I am sure that we can find a way round this problem. I am perfectly prepared to make a joint approach with you to a Wikipedia administrator explaining the special circumstances and requesting their opinion on whether it would be acceptable to reverse these changes - given the circumstances surrounding the dispute I think we have a reasonable chance of success, certainly there is nothing to lose by trying. Under such circumstances it is extremely unlikely that anyone will accuse you of breaking Wikipedia policy.

Maybe we can also hear from other users on the issue? Does anyone else have any objections to an attempt to resolve the issue in this way? If all parties to the dispute make the joint approach then the chances of success are even greater.

---

Randroide 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: Perhaps you could point out to us the Wikipedia policy which specifically forbids you to reintroduce this material.

I hope you do not read my messages, Southofwatford.

Yes, I said I hope, because if you really read them, your brain has a serious problem storing information: I gave you the policies two days ago [43]

---

Answering southofwatford request for other opinions, IMHO there is a practical fact that has been extsensively proofed during all these months and is that the narrative that emanates from El Mundo is incompatible with the narrative that emanates from the rest ot the sources. The manifestation of this is the fact that when we blend both narratives, the editors who do not believe El Mundo feel that the result of the blending is the El Mundo narrative. And if we try to solve this, the outcome is that El Mundo narrative becames watered down to a point that is not acceptable for the editor who believes that there is truth in El Mundo narrative. This is what has caused the five months useles debate we have experienced so far.

Faced with this fact, the only solution is to split the article in two and then both narratives can stand on their own legs and can be compared by the reader to decide which is the one that fits better with his mental framework.

The name of the second article can be discussed thorougly in the light of the discussions that are being carried on in 9/11 article. There has happened the same thing since some editors have the idea that the buildings were demolished by explosives installed in them by someone the day before. The attempts to explain this idea blended with the ideas of the people who thinks that the planes were the only cause fo the collapse have proofed imposible so a second article has been created.

At this point is not clear to me what steps must be followed to have these two separated articles but is clear that start again the attempts to blend both narratives is useless. To be fully honest, I do not want to hide that if it were on my hand, there would be only one article and El Mundo would be not used as a source but I can understand that here there are some rules and give voice to all narratives is one of these rules. --Igor21 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Two separate articles? As in, the official version and the El Mundo version? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with that idea. If everytime editors were incapable of arriving to consensus, and new articles had to be created, Wikipedia would be twice as big and there'd be no use for the NPOV rule.

Like it or not, the El Mundo theory is relevant to this issue. I fully agree that it belongs to a minority view, but that doesn't mean that it can't be incorporated to the article. My suggestion would be to create a sub-section for the El Mundo theory (about 2-3 paragraphs long), that links with a sub-article, and there fully expand that version _along_ with the sources that discredit that perspective.

Of course, the trouble has been rebating El Mundo references in the article, because its main rival (El Pais) has a subscription policy, and we cannot simply proceed to argue every single assertion El Mundo makes by citing the date El Pais published that info. Some online references have to be provided. And so far, that's not been possible, and that's why the article is dangerously POV (btw, I don't like the current lead either, I've made a few objections above I hope Randroide will be able to discuss asap). Another possibility would be using the Sumario (or Judiciary text) as a reference (check out http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/108807/0/procesaron/11m/madrid/ and http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/108831/0/olmo/eta/11m/).

I've never been involved in a RfA. What's the procedure? Cheers Raystorm 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To Igor21: What you are suggesting is a POV fork. It is forbidden, as you can read here: Wikipedia:Content forking.

Igor 21 wrote: I do not want to hide that if it were on my hand, there would be only one article and El Mundo would be not used as a source[44]

This is the respect you have for the NPOV, Igor21.

If this website would be "in our hand", I would not be here.

To Raystorm: I do not know if "20 minutos" is a valid source or not. Anyway, thank you for the job and for the links.

Most of the "El Mundo" contents are not available online. I had to go to the local library to check some facts, and to see if "La Razón" was also voicing doubts about the Indictment (it was). I suggest you to do the same: A saturday morning in the library can do wonders for a data hunt.

Why wouldn't 20 minutos be valid??? Nonetheless, that wasn't my point. My point is what the Spanish Judiciary says about ETA involvement, which could be used to counter El Mundo statements.

Unfortunately, my local library closes on Saturday. :) Anyway, that won't solve the problem of not having online references, which is a must. Cheers. Raystorm 15:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : What I am proposing not only is not forbidden but all the way round and has been the followed procedure in 9/11 article.

  You are always giving lessons of wikipedia rules to everybody but you do not understand
  that wikipedia rules are a set and not an arsenal of arrows to be used individually
  to follow your variable needs. 

Regarding respect, for what I have respect is for truth and it is clear for everybody except a small group of local Spanish fanatics that this is incompatible with using El Mundo as a source.--Igor21 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm : The problem is not between El Mundo and El Pais. The problem is between El Mundo and the rest of the planet. You can take any serious source and you will find that islamists did the bombing. Of course the only newspaper who bothers to answer El Mundo is El Pais because the rest of reliable sources just ignore completely the non-sensic insinuations of that source. So the issue is not to put what El Mundo says and then the answer of El Pais but to say what all the sources of the world say. If then, due to the special nature of wikipedia, there is a need for name other ideas, it is not correct to mix this with the account of what happened. I want to insist that in 11September attack article, this what has been done since was imposible to explain the conspirationist theories in the middle of the account of what the mainstream thinks happened. --Igor21 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor21: I think mentioning what El Mundo believes is relevant for informative purposes. A big Spanish newspaper questioning the authorship of the March 11 bombings, to the point of making some citizens and even politicians (PP) doubt their police, judges and even Government? I think it's important to mention. That's not the same as granting validity to those claims and saying they might be right. I believe (my POV, I fully admit) there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against El Mundo's theory, the problem is translating that evidence to the article. Once that can be done (and it _can_ be done, one way or the other I'm sure), there's no doubt in my mind that the issue will be quickly resolved. Alas, if only we had complete access to the Auto de Procesamiento del 11-M! :) Nonetheless, I think the El Mundo theory could be incorporated into the main article in a much more proportional manner, with a subarticle that fully explained and debated it, as I have stated above. Cheers Raystorm 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You are wrong, Igor21. There is a debate and it is international: Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.Randroide 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : Yes, I remember your desperate efforts to try to find international world-class media to back up El Mundo fabrications and the meager harvest you gathered.

This pathetically scanty collection is shown in this page that to which you regularly refer each time someone names the problem of your ideas supported only by a local Spanish newspaper. And everybody can see in the page that neither the bombastic name you gave to it nor the HTML festival you construct can hide the scarceness and irrelevance of the cites. I guess the idea is that people do not consult the page because doing so, everybody can see its utter insubstantiality.

So no, there is not any other international debate about El Mundo non-sense that the one your are sustaining here against all odds.--Igor21 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC) On removal of your deletions Randriode, thank you so much for not questioning too much my mental capacity - a typically patronising reply. I now see that your offer to remove problematic changes was not genuine. Obviously, if all editors involved in the dispute agreed together to deal with the issue by consensus there would be no breach of Wikipedia policy and I repeat my proposal to test that view with an adminstrator. What do you have against doing that?

What really causes my brain to have problems is how you manage to edit the main article in open breach of Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution and in defiance of all objections, and yet still have the nerve to lecture other users on the "rules". There must be a special hidden section somewhere which says "Randroide does what he wants, other users must obey the rules". If there is no solution on offer to return to consensus as the basis for working on this article, then I see no alternative to a request for arbitration. There can be no reward for openly disregarding the disputed status of this page - otherwise it will happen constantly. If we go to arbitration then every user involved has the opportunity to put their view on what they consider to be the best solution - I still regard what we were trying to do prior to the recent disruption of that effort as being the only realistic way forward.

Assessment of the situation by an administrator

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#2004_Madrid_train_bombings

To Southofwatford and Igor21: Now, please, go ahead with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The issue is in your hands now.

I am not going to retype diffs I typed weeks ago about this issue [45][46][47].

To Raystorm: If you agree, we can continue checking my edits. We do not agree on our positions, but your ideas and suggestions are constructive and help to improve the article (see history), as I recognized in four edit summaries writing your username in my diff.

Once the paperwork for the RfA is done, you can join the RfA if you want to do so, of course.

Randroide 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there are other options we can take before resorting to RfA. Will you join such an effort? I believe you seek to improve this article, and I'm hoping you will accept to participate in a RfC or RfM with the most constructive of attitudes (as should be demanded of all editors). Is this reasonable to you? Cheers Raystorm 12:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) A more distorted or propagandistic "request for clarification" would be hard to imagine - I'm not surprised having read such open falsehoods that you rejected the idea of a joint approach. Anyway, arbitration obviously seems the way forward - in the meantime this page is still subject to dispute and you have no right to make any changes to it without seeking consensus from other parties involved in the dispute. If you attempt to impose further changes without consensus they will be removed.

---

WP:OWN. Any deletion against Wikipedia policies will be treated as what it is: Vandalism. Randroide 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Imposing contested changes on a disputed article without seeking consensus is against WIkipedia policies [[48]]. Don't quote the rules at others if you are not prepared to respect them yourself.

---

BTW: All the open falsehoods you talked about, Southofwatford, are supported by eleven links to your own edits.

After the RfC fiasco, I am not going to make anything "joint", with you, Southofwatford. Randroide 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC) It was precisely because you refused to do anything in a joint way that the RFC was a fiasco - as in all cases where you have had the option of collaboration you opted for confrontation instead. Intead of a consensual RFC you wanted a confrontational one - I didn't.

---

I've been studying what a RfA involves. Seems it's the last step of a very long chain of actions. Have we done all the others?

First step: Talk to the other parties involved. Okay, this one we have. This talk page is proof enough about it.

Second step: Disengage for a while. I believe SouthofWatford and Igor21 did this last X-mas.

Informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Discuss with third parties:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes

• Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for problems with uncivil editors

• Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue.

Conduct a survey Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Last resort: Arbitration

Seems to me that before resorting to RfA there are many options that could be taken to resolve the issue. However, I won't object to a RfA if all other editors agree to it. Cheers Raystorm 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Raystorm, its probably best not even to mention an RFC - but it was tried. Agreement was reached before Christmas to go to mediation on the problems blocking progress - the actions taken by Randroide while others were "disengaged" are somewhat incompatible with a mediation process. We could go back and try it, but that does mean going back to where we were before - it does mean an acceptance of consensus because mediation requires consensus. Southofwatford 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

WP:OWN: articles don't go on Wikibreak because particular editors go inactive. I dealt with this dispute before. An arbitration request becomes reasonable after months of fruitless WP:DR. DurovaCharge! 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAC, case closed. Thank you for your attention, Durova. Randroide 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) Have there really been months of fruitless WP:DR? As I pointed above, it seems not.

(b) Case closed? I believe not. Not by a long shot.

What does this mean Randroide? You seek an administrators' noticeboard to state your POV and do not let other editors explain theirs, but instead boldy state that the case is closed when at most, that admin is suggesting to go to Arbitration if other means for resolving disputes have proved useless (which is not the case here). Be aware that the 'break' that some of these editors took could be interpreted as them 'disengaging for a while', step 2 of a mediation process. What you did was unfair to the other editors, especially letting them (us) know about your actions a posteriori, instead of going all together to that noticeboard to present each one's POV to give a neutral statement of the situation.

Shall we go to RfC or RfM, let's say, next Tuesday, so everyone has time to prepare their statements? Or any other date everyone can agree to. Who will take part in this? Cheers Raystorm 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes indeed, it was much more a personal attack than anything that could be described as a request for clarification. For an RFC to go ahead we need to agree on a neutral presentation of the issues and a structure for individual statements so that the issue can be presented - I tried to do this in a way which avoided the individual position statements being used for attacks on positions of other editors. The failure to agree on that was why the previous attempt failed. Perhaps you might want to review the discussion on it to see where it went wrong - a much better way of understanding what happened than being presented with selective diffs. On mediation we actually had agreement on the points to present, if you look at discussion page for the week ending 15th December you will see that it was almost ready to go. Mediation requires consensus between all editors involved - I will agree to it as long as we also include subsequent events in that mediation process. Southofwatford 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Aaah, I can see that would be problematic. I'll take a look to that date. Do you have that neutral presentation that you prepared anywhere at hand? I'd like to see it if that's possible. Cheers Raystorm 12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Take a look at Archive 6 starting at the section titled "Moving Forward On The RFC" [49]. The title was not intended at the time to be ironic. Southofwatford 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Raystorm wrote: You seek an administrators' noticeboard to state your POV and do not let other editors explain theirs, but instead boldy state that the case is closed when at most...

• You and any other user are totally free to vent grievances at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

• AFAIAC, the case is closed. As Far As I Am Concerned. If you think that the case is not closed, you are free to go there and write your points.

Would you like to follow with the point by point review of diffs, Raystorm?. I had a productive (albeit adversarial) relationship with you a few days ago.

Randroide 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Just leave the article alone Randroide, I did not put forward that source for inclusion in the main article. I regard your determination to divide sources according to their position on the conspiracy theories as unnecessary, POV and in one particular case as bordering on the fraudulent. Stop looking for excuses to keep editing the article unilaterally without consensus.

---

Randroide 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Your intentions providing the source are irrelevant. The source is very good (The Economist, man!!) and highly relevant.

I suggest you to present your case for that "bordering on the fraudulent" accusation. Maybe there are improvements to be made that I missed. Raystorm, for instance, suggested some very opportune improvements.

---

I'm not arguing about the content of anything you insert until you stop making unilateral non-consensual changes to the article and start to repect the disputed nature of the article. Southofwatford 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide : I think the admins here are starting to know you so your rants are received with more and more suspicion. The case that is closed is not your manipulation of the article but your attempt to manipulate Durova. The article as it is now cannot continue since is contradicting all the sources in English. Your plan of taking the substantial from El Mundo and the insubstantial from other sources is childish. We must continue with the RfA so someone takes 15 minutes to examine all this and says "enough is enough" to you.--Igor21 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should...

...move to the archive this discussion. I can not do it due to my "filtered" access.

The instruction for that job are on the file cabinet picture at the beginning of the tal page.

Thank you. Randroide 10:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

O.K., Southofwatford. If you wish, lets try the "first discussion, afterwards improvement" approach you demand.

This text (from the Controversy regarding responsibility section) is outdated and should be rewritten:

This group seems to have worked with a very tenuous connection with al-Qaeda but with the aim of acting on its behalf. Shortly after the bombings, the group was completely dismantled by the Spanish police

Both assertions had been refuted by new data:

• al-Qaeda "very tenuous" (in fact non existent) connection refuted by [50].

Yup, the famous line: While the bombers may have been inspired by Bin Laden, a two-year investigation into the attacks has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance.

POSTDATA: Refuted with source provided by Raystorm (see below)Randroide 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• the group was completely dismantled, false as a three Euros coin. "El País" 4 January, 2007 asserted [51] that new attacks were being prepared in Spain by alleged perpetrators of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. That reference demolishes the myth of "the bombings were a response for our intervention in Iraq". Spanish troops in Iraq were (thankfully) called home in 2003.

Any suggestions for this improvements? Randroide 10:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I've got some pretty good news!!!! :) Check it out:

http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2006/04/11/autohtml/indice_hechos.html

Yes Ladies & Gentlemen, the complete Auto de Procesamiento del 11-M! And this one can be quoted instead of El Pais. Ironically enough, I found it at El Mundo, but obviously they have nothing to do with it aside from making it available to the public.

Regarding your Independent source, Randroide, about a 2+ year investigation yielding no evidence etc etc. Well, here is said investigation, but it seems to contradict what the Independent says, I'm afraid:

http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2006/04/11/autohtml/index.html?cual=1412

Cheers! Raystorm 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Congratulations, Raystorm. Excellent job!. In fact I pasted the "El Mundo" link on the article [52], but you found the reference.

This "piece" has been "hunted" by you, so I leave you the honor of adding the reference.

I suggest this wording:

The perpetrators were local islamic extremists [1], accordingly with the Spanish Judiciary with links with al-Qaeda [RAYSTORM´S SOURCE], and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants.[2][3][4]. It is the only case in history where there is collaboration of muslim extremists with non-muslims [5]. Other sources discard direct al-Qaeda involvement [6]

You should also add that source to the "perpetrators" section.Randroide 13:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm still waiting for your comments about the French ref before changing the lead... Raystorm 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He, he. You are an orderly guy. Fine, I like that. I am not as orderly as I would like and I forgot that thread. You are right in your request, I answered you above. Randroide 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Just edited the lead (FINALLY! For some reason it didn't let me). I don't like the contradiction between the Spanish Judiciary ref and the Independent ref. The Independent says the investigation has found no evidence of al-Qaeda colaboration, but the investigation does mention such colaboration in several pages along evidence (see ref above for example). There is a contradicition between what the Independent says about the investigation, and what the investigation does say. Now, I'm all for eliminating this contradiction and taking out the Independent ref, but I wanted to hear opinions about it before I did anything. Cheers Raystorm 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide said "O.K., Southofwatford. If you wish, lets try the "first discussion, afterwards improvement" approach you demand." This is Wikipedia policy for resolving problems on disputed pages, it is not something that I have invented, or something you can just choose whether to respect or not. If you genuinely intend to adopt this approach then I welcome it, but you should make a clear and unequivocal commitment to abide by Wikipedia dispute resolution policies - everything you have done in the last 3 weeks falls outside those policies and has only had the effect of making the dispute about this article worse than it was before. You appear, without explicitly saying so, to have rejected the attempt to resolve the dispute that still stood at the end of last year. If you are going to accept Wikipedia dispute resolution, then you need to put forward your position on how the dispute should be resolved.

Raystorm, have you had a look at the history of the RFC and mediation proposals? I'm just asking to see what your opinion is on reviving either of these.

The conspiracy theorists practice of drawing conclusions not supported by their sources is further demonstrated by the refutation of al-Qaeda involvement. We have already had this discussion before and it should be made clear again - the absence of proof for something is not proof of anything else. Randroide's source does not discard al-Qaeda involvement, all it says is that such involvement has not been proven. Any other conclusion is not justified. Southofwatford 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You know, except for the POV tagged section, I think this article is coming along quite nicely. I've made some pretty straightforward changes, such as taking out the contradition off the lead and polishing statements here and there, nothing too major. I gotta say, it ain't looking half bad, now that I read it again. Might not be long enough before we submit this article for GA status even. :) Southofwatford, I'd appreciate if you could take a critical look at the article as it stands now and pinpoint to me the sections you believe are POV (not counting the one with the POV tag, of course). Just list them to me if you don't mind. I believe I can tackle them now that I have the Auto de Procesamiento at my disposal. Randroide and Southofwatford, please check out WP:Undue weight, I think it's quite relevant for our discussion. Cheers! Raystorm 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS:Southofwatford, I have been looking at the history of RfC and mediation proposals, but I ain't finished yet. Do take a look at the wiki link I provided in the meanwhile, if you don't mind. If we do go to Mediation at the end, that policy will prove basic for any pro or con argument. Cheers Raystorm 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm : The judgement about the article is very different depending on which is the opinion you have about the bombings. If you think that were organized by the Guardia Civil and the police to help PSOE and you think that the muslim question is just a cover-up, then article is really fantastic. However if you think that terrorism is an important thing and the islamist offensive around the globe is something relevant, and think that is important that the world population knows the truth about what is going on, then is catastrophic.

The introduction is directly ashaming with these insinuations against Spanish police forces and the manipulation of the source I provided (apart from being self-contradictory).

The explanation about what happens lacks completely "what happens" (this is logical because Randroide do not believe that happened what happened).

The responsability part is a kind of mixing of reality and El Mundo delirium where the delirium has de upper hand and includes the nauseatings libels about the 13th bomb and "the explosives not being known". If this is not enough it says that there was an "apparent suicide" for adding even more libeling.

Then the Controveries part where a supposedly neutral narrator weights evidence and founds it inconclusive in the key issues while again and again ETA is named.

Afterwards we arrive to the explosives article that is the Gospel of the conspirationist and includes libel against Spanish police officers.

And if you think that with the Sumario you are going to do something useful then you do not know Randroide.--Igor21 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor21, it's not about what one 'thinks' that happened. If there are Guardias Civiles informants incriminated, they should be listed as suspects. If there aren't, they shouldn't be listed. End of story. If incrimination is suggested, the reference must be closely examined to see what it says exactly, and transfer it to the article. The same for the rest. I also remit you to WP:Undue weight. It is quite possible the El Mundo theory will have to be reduced in size in the main article, no matter how impressive their accusations. Find references that contradict what you obviously think is POV or uninformative in the article. That will be extremely helpful. Cheers Raystorm 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm : I do not know what is about but is clear that should be about "what really happened" Everybody can see that that the inclusion of this ridiculous expresion of the informants in the first paragraph is aimed to mislead the reader. For serious people from academic institutions or intelligence agencies it is clear what happened and is clear that RAND corporation is THE SOURCE whatever other sources say. I have no time for ridiculous games like discussing obvious things word by word. If someone want to know what the people who knows thinks about this, here it is[[53]]. If you want to include this or you want to continue helping Randroide in making a fool of wikipedia by sustaining the El Mundo deliriums, is up to you. --Igor21 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no time for ridiculous games like discussing obvious things word by word.

You are an editor at Wikipedia, are you not? That's exactly what you should be doing if you disagree with controversial content.

Provide the pertinent RAND sources and, as I said, they'll be closely examined and, if pertinent, added to the article while conflicting info is taken off.

Please stop being so confrontational Igor21. I am neither helping Randroide to make a fool of Wikipedia nor attacking your POV. But we need references. Provide them and I'll do the rest, okay? Again, I suggest you look at WP:Undue weight. I fully agree El Mundo claims must be toned down from the article. Help me (a) pinpointing conflicting statements and (b) providing references okay? Thanks and cheers Raystorm 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Raystorm - I will take a look at your link and will respond on the issues you have raised in more detail tomorrow. For the moment, while you are studying the issues of the RFC and mediation, I will put my request for arbitration on hold. Just a brief response this evening - in general terms I think your assessment of the quality of this article is over-optimistic, but I am prepared to collaborate with all reasonable attempts to solve the dispute on the article content. Such collaboration obviously assumes that all parties to the dispute are prepared to recognise that they are bound by dispute resolution policies - it is a waste of time to try further to resolve this by consensus if there are users who simply ignore that situation to impose contested changes. Tomorrow I will respond in more detail on the issues I have with the current state of the article. Southofwatford 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

*Grin* Well, yeah, it's quite over-optimistic at this point, but we obviously have some dedicated editors willing to improve this article, searching references and discussing changes and all that! POV is just the only problem, and I guess that if we can't solve that here, Mediation will do the job. But honestly, we're only 4 editors -surely we can reach consensus on our own. Or maybe I'm being over-optimistic again. :) Cheers Raystorm 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Raystorm : In my previous post there was a reference that when added to what says the one I let on the first paragraph of the aritcle, gives a clear picture of what RAND thinks about this issue since MIPT is based on the public part of RAND database. The bombing was done by islamic extremists probably linked with Al-Qaeda Europe branch. Try to put this simple thing alone in the first paragraph and Randroide will start with his rants about Al-Qaeda implication is non proofed in spite of the fact that Madrid bombing is the paradigmatic example of new Al-Qaeda organization (you can look to "The one percent doctrine" from Ron Suskind that has Spanish version ("La doctrina del uno por ciento"). If you remove Al-Qaeda to follow Randroide rants, he will start saying that islamist authory is controversial. This is my red line. If islamist authory is controversial I am out because is a statement that says that the one who mades do not have good faith since is ignoring RAND and/or givng the same credit to RAND and to El Mundo what for me is an aberration.--Igor21 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good reference Igor21! It definitely has a place at the article. :) I doubt anyone will contest it. Cheers Raystorm 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To Igor21: Thank you very much for the new RAND link you provided. That´s just what I asked you for in your talk page. Please paste that link after the al-Qaida claim in the first block of text (in place of your previous RAND link).

This is the way to go, Igor21: You find a source for a claim, you write a NPOV text and you paste both into the article. Good job, and I hope you will make new valuable contributions like this in the future.

I will never ask for the removal of the al-Qaida mention, Igor21, because now it is sourced, much the less for the "Islamist" claim.

• I am not here to try to delete sourced information, Igor21. On the long run that´s a totally futile job in this Wikipedia.
• I am here to add sourced information, and I suggest you to do the dsame as me: Focus on adding sourced data, not in deleting sourced data you might disagree with.

Regarding your rantings about the confidents:

Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. WP:Undue weight

To Raystorm: This edit of yours [54] is called "Not adhering to NPOV", Raystorm.

The "prize" for this edit of yours is this: {{welcomenpov}}

I ask you to please reintroduce the line you deleted in that edit, per WP:NPOV. This version [55] was fine, and all you other edits are also an excellent job.

The BBC has a different POV that the Indictment. Jus another article:

However, interestingly, it looks as if al-Qaeda may not have played a direct role in the Madrid bombings. [56]

From the same source:

Also key to the inquiry is Spaniard Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras, a former miner who allegedly supplied the explosives. He also faces multiple counts of murder, as well as robbery and terrorism charges.

Yup, he is not simply a "supplier", as Southwatford said. And Trashorras was a confident.

And I just found a description of the Leganés shooting by the BBC:

"New terrorist blow in Madrid," runs a headline in the leading daily, EL Pais. It quotes a resident of the southern Leganes area...[]...

The report says that during "the intermittent shoot-out" which continued for a few hours "there could be heard shouts in Arabic". Describing it as "a spectacular display"...[]...An ABC headline speaks of "Koranic chants in the midst of a shoot-out"."The fanaticism of the Islamic terrorists was again manifest in a most dramatic manner, as in the full heat of the shoot-out, they were engaging in Islamic chants.[57]

A full heat shoot-out, for a few hours.

5 empty shells. Anyone wants to buy a bridge?.

From WP:Undue weight:

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...[]...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

"Prominence" of groups supporting doubts about the Indictment:

• The second Spanish newspaper (and the first one in Internet), among others like "La Razón", "El Comercio" and "La Gaceta de los Negocios".
• The second Spanish party (and the first one in vote intention).

I completely disagree Randroide. The Independent got it all wrong. They said the investigation did not found evidence about al-Qaeda involvement. In the previous sentence, a reference to that same investigation is provided which completely denies the Independent claims. The Independent got it wrong, and the contradiction was eliminated in favour of what the investigation really says. I abide by my actions. That is not POV, it is just being coherent.

Second, the groups that support doubts against the indictment: El Mundo (obviously). La Razon _does not_ support this theory. Frankly, I don't know where you got that idea. It's a pity its editorials aren't available in the web, but I can assure you that they do not support this theory. At most, they echo the alledged findings of El Mundo, but that does not imply endorsement. The other two, again, echo El Mundo. There is only one newspaper who is making all these alledged findings and discoveries, and that's El Mundo. Newspapers that echo what this one is doing do not count as support (they merely do their job, inform).

And I ask you to skim through the webpage from PP, for example. They do not endorse this theory. Find me a reference where it says that this political party endorses denying al-Qaeda involvement and exclusively blaming ETA. Find where it says they (as a party) doubt the validity of the indictment. At most, some members make ambiguous remarks about 'wanting to know all the truth about 11-M' etc, but that's a long way from granting validity to El Mundo's claims.

From WP:Undue weight:

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.

Cheers Raystorm 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The Independent got it all wrong. They said the investigation did not found evidence about al-Qaeda involvement. In the previous sentence, a reference to that same investigation is provided which completely denies the Independent claims.

Could you please paste the Verbatim text you are talking about?.

La Razon _does not_ support this theory. Frankly, I don't know where you got that idea.

There´s not a "theory". That´s a straw man. There are only reasoned doubts about the conclussions reached by the Indictment.

La Razón, Lunes, 25 de septiembre del 2006, página 11:

Tras lo atentados del 11-M en Madrid, sectores de la izquierda acuñaron la frase "queremos saber". Pretendían que el gobierno "popular" investigara investigara la verdad sobre la crueldad desatada en la estación de Atocha aquel fatídico día. Ahora, dos años y medio más tarde, los españoles seguimos queriendo saber. Pero no sólo la verdad sobre lo ocurrido en esa fecha...

And I ask you to skim through the webpage from PP, for example. They do not endorse this theory. Find me a reference where it says that this political party endorses denying al-Qaeda involvement and exclusively blaming ETA.

Again, the straw man. I never wrote that. I wrote groups that support doubts against the indictment

Find where it says they (as a party) doubt the validity of the indictment.

[58] [59] [60] [61] ...etc

Randroide 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm : You are getting to know Randroide sooner or later. After all these cheerings and congratulations, the first paragraph continues saying the same non-sense and Randroide keeps insisting on using Trashorras as a mean to involve Guardia Civil, keeps insisting on using insolvent sources against RAND and keeps insisting to use your collaboration and mine to overcome the dificult situation he was regarding what he did during Christmas. I do not want to be cofrontational but it is imposible to work with Randroide and what we must do is to join southofwatford in his fight to reverse Randroide destruction.

So now we have a link from the most reliable source in the world (RAND) that explains who did it and what happened in Leganes. So I think that we can agree that from now on, everything Randroide does is done on purpose, and that if he keeps insisting in his bizarre ideas against RAND doctrine is not because he is a mislead honest guy but a dedicated activist who is not going to follow the simple rule of believing RAND instead of El Mundo. I hope this will open your eyes and we can come back to southofwatford track.--Igor21 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Igor21 wrote: You are getting to know Randroide sooner or later. After all these cheerings and congratulations, the first paragraph continues saying the same non-sense and Randroide keeps insisting on using Trashorras as a mean to involve Guardia Civil, keeps insisting on using insolvent sources against RAND

• Is The Times "insolvent" [62]?

• Moreover, RAND says nothing about confidents NOT being a part in the bombings. There´s not contradiction at all. I use nothing "against" RAND.

• RAND is not the Pope, and I am not a catholic (that "RAND doctrine" line...). RAND is is just a source: A relevant source, a significant source, but not the only source on the fac of earth.

Randroide 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me man. :) Playing semantics with me? Okay. El Mundo doubts the validity of the indictment (they point to ETA, the indictment does not). The 'groups that support doubts against the indictment' do not doubt its validity (not once), but its 'completeness'. It's not against, but about. Big difference. Hence, they do not per se support El Mundo.

That La Razon quote you pasted above: where does it grants validity or support to El Mundo's claims? In fact, where does it even doubt the indictment? The indictment says other islamists may have participated in the bombings but may not have been identified. The La Razon quote is understandable in that sense. Sorry, but it's way too ambiguous to count it as support for El Mundo. Wanting to know everything about the attack does not mean doubting what it already is known (via indictment).

From the refs you provided:

En contra de la tesis del Partido Socialista de que, tras el auto de procesamiento dictado por el juez Juan del Olmo, todo ha quedado «aclarado», el cuestionario del PP se extiende en la verdadera relevancia de algunos islamistas considerados como el núcleo duro de la célula y el de otros investigados que, finalmente, han quedado fuera de ese auto.

They do not doubt the indictment, they doubt the Socialist interpretation of it . In fact, they don't even doubt it, but 'ask questions' about islamist participation. Again, this does not support El Mundo claims.

Much more relevant is this ref:

Zaplana y Rubalcaba se refirieron a las informaciones publicadas por EL MUNDO, sin mencionar al diario. El 'popular' recuperó en su discurso lo que su partido considera "lagunas" de la investigación

Now, let's examine this sentence more closely. It does not imply that the results of the indictment are wrong, but that there might be things missing, which is big difference. The PP considers some things might be missing, but does not come out and say they doubt the validity of the indictment (ie, saying El Mundo is right).

Next ref:

El PP exigía al Gobierno que remitiese al Congreso informes sobre aspectos de la investigación que, a su juicio, no están aclarados

Su portavoz, Alicia Castro, acusó hoy al Gobierno de ser responsable de "informes falsos" sobre el 11-M y de "ocultación de pruebas"

*Grin* Again, as we can see, this party says there might be things missing from the indiotment, but do not say it is not valid. They accuse the government (obviously), but not the judicial investigation. This is an extremely big and important difference. El Mundo points to ETA, the indictment points to al-Qaeda. The PP _do not_ say the indictment is false, wrong or however you wanna call it. Ambiguously, they say there might be things missing from it. That may be true or not, but it goes a long way from supporting El Mundo's views.

Last ref you provided isn't good I'm afraid. A few days later it was found that that report had been manipulated by the famous 'peritos' to include ETA. The PP after that didn't say much more on the subject.

You may not want to call it a theory, but that's what it is. And I cannot paste verbatim from the indictment, you'll have to check the Auto ref yourself (it's just a few pages). Sorry.

Cheers Raystorm 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Raystorm, I have taken a look at the link you provided on undue weight and this is what I think. It doesn’t in itself solve our problems because the interpretation that each user involved in the discussion makes of it can still be radically different. I have never believed that the conspiracy theories have to be completely excluded from the Wikipedia article, if I had to make a decision on how to treat them then I think I would dedicate a relatively brief section of the main article to summarising the points of controversy and providing some appropriate links. As a result of the debate with Randroide I reached the conclusion that the best, indeed the only practical, solution was to separate the controversies from the main article and deal with them in an associated article.

One thing that I have absolutely clear, and reading the link doesn’t change that opinion, is that the conspiracy theories cannot be treated as if they are equal to the account arising from the judicial investigation. The reason for this is quite simple, the judicial indictment gives an account of what happened with names, dates and places – it may not be 100% complete as not every detail is known, but it does represent an attempt to explain events based on facts from the investigation. The conspiracy theories turn this approach on its head, instead of trying to provide an account of what happened they concentrate on possible areas of doubt and attempt to fill gaps with speculation and insinuation. For example, there are no dates, names or places to back up the argument that the Vallecas bomb was planted. There are no dates, names or places to support the accusation that ETA were involved. Noone can explain to us how the alleged setup of the Leganés suicide was carried out.

So we are not dealing with two equally credible explanations of the same events, the conspiracy theorists version is entirely parasitical in that it does not stand on its own merits, it is clearly dependent on the main version for its existence. Therefore it would be quite wrong to create an artificial equivalence between the two accounts, for such equivalence to exist both accounts have to be able to survive the same standards of evaluation. The reason in the end that El Mundo does not make the more explicit accusations that are supported by the conspiracy theorists is precisely because of this difference. They know that if they openly claim ETA involvement that they will be asked to provide genuine evidence of it, or if they say that the Vallecas bomb was planted that they might be required to demonstrate how it happened. Their (remaining) credibility would be put in danger by taking such a step. So this is why we have the game of those who say they are “only asking questions”, and those such as Losantos, Luis del Pino, and the peones negros who make grave accusations of government involvement in the bombings which are entirely unproven. The socialisation of doubt is their declared objective, such an openly political objective has nothing to do with finding the truth about anything.

There are powerful people supporting the conspiracy theories, that is undeniable; but if we acknowledge this powerful support then I think we should also attempt to explain it. In my opinion, obviously untestable, the conspiracy theories we are dealing with here would simply not exist if the result of the 2004 election had been to return the PP to power – in other words their existence has its roots in the election result. Of course there would be a few people claiming that Mossad or some other agency had been involved, there always are – but I simply do not believe there would be this sustained political onslaught by media and politicians directly or indirectly associated with one particular party. That’s my opinion and I can’t prove it – but neither can anyone convince me that this is all the result of some independent intrepid investigative journalists who have decided that something isn’t quite right. The programmed nature of the “revelations”, the manipulative nature of many of these reports including blatant factual inaccuracies, the headlines that simply aren’t supported by the content of the article, the bogus “experts” called in to give their opinion – none of these things are coherent with genuine investigative journalism. The very existence of the conspiracy theories is in itself a controversial issue.

In the end we have to agree between ourselves the treatment we give to the conspiracy theories – there isn’t a Wikipedia policy or rule that will tell us exactly how to do it. Unfortunately, I don’t think that just doing a few POV corrections on the existing text is going to solve that issue, I will explain why later today or tomorrow – together with the objections I have to the current state of the article.

Southofwatford 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The "weight" of the groups that voice doubts about the completeness of the Indictment

Note for oldtimers of this page: Sorry for the fastidiousness of the new section I created and the exhaustive nature of the cites. This section is intended as a quick reference for people new in the article (specially non-Spanish individuals), not only for us, the people trapped in the "egyptian curse" of this Talk Page.

Groups that voice doubts about the completeness of the Indictment (section created for the proper application of WP:Undue weight).

• The PP, the second spanish party (the first one in some vote intention polls nowadays -40% of the population-[63], 34.8% in other polls [64])

But Vicente Martin Pujalte, of the conservative opposition party, said they were still unconvinced by the "insufficient conclusion". He said: "To say this is an autonomous cell who simply decided [to carry out the bombing] one morning seems a weak argument." He described the accused as "secondary actors" in the conspiracy. [65]

Other references (in Spanish): [66][67][68]

• Among many others:

• • The second Spanish Newspaper: El Mundo (Spain).

On May 16, the Madrid daily El Mundo published a remarkable editorial that draws upon the paper’s ongoing investigation and contains information potentially as explosive as the 3/11 attacks themselves... (read complete article) [69]

• • The Guardian:

...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. [70]

• • National Review

At worst, the information uncovered by El Mundo could mean that the deadly bombing was actually perpetrated with the complicity of the same Spanish police bomb squad, Tedax, that was subsequently charged with investigating the crime. [71]

• The Cadena COPE radio station, owned by the Spanish Catholic Church.

This is not just a new chapter to the mysteries, the shady issues, the enigmas about 11-M ... We have reached an absolutely critical point ... All the "Sumario" [i.e., the explanation of facts provided by the Spanish Judiciary] is based upon Goma 2 ECO exploding in the trains ... If you can read there "nitroglicerine", the entire "Sumario" goes down (there is the original scientific police reports, missing from the "Sumario").

Excerpts taken from the first fifth of the COPE radio program COPE Audio file (Spanish) 5´35´´...//....7´42´´...//...10´54´´

• Spanish Police Union CEP ("Confederación Española de Policía"). The CEP also supports "Peones negros" demonstrations [72]

• AVT webpage Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo, Spanish Association of Victims of Terrorism. See Wikipedia article with excerpts from an AVT brochure.

• Part of the Spanish judiciary, that, as "El Pais", said, "share their conspirative delirium about the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings" (El País, October 4th 2006 Pay per view link). The quoted "conspirative delirium" line is "El País" Newspeak for the individals that do not swallow the Indictment lock, stock and barrel.

ADDENDA: Groups supporting the airtightness of the Indictment

• Part of the Spanish Judiciary.

The Spanish Judiciary, in words of Felipe González, sent to the jail to innocent individuals:

¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?

Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos. Más allá de la consideración sobre la inocencia o la culpabilidad, para mí, que soy un demócrata, lo que más me aterra es la quiebra del Estado de Derecho que pudiera suponer que unos inocentes estén en la cárcel. Prefiero que haya cuatro culpables en la calle que un inocente en prisión. Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.[73]

• The PRISA group (El Pais and the Cadena SER, among others).

Political leaning?: Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party...[74]

A pair of blatant lies told by the Cadena SER:

• • Spain's spy chief, Jorge Dezcallar, quickly denied a radio report that said intelligence agents were "99 per cent sure" that Islamic elements, not Basque separatists, were responsible. Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party, cited sources at the national CNI intelligence agency as saying agents thought a 10-15 member cell placed the bombs on the trains and may now have fled the country. But Dezcallar, a Government appointee, told the national news agency Efe that agents did not favour one line of investigation over another.[75]

• • The Government said autopsies conducted on victims showed no signs of suicide bombings - a hallmark of Islamic militants [76].

The lie about the "suicide bombers" was created by the SER:

Cadena SER link 22.00 - 23.00 HORA 25.EL TERRORISTA SUICIDA. "Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida. Interior no lo confirma" Three different sources from the counter-terrorism unit confirmed to the Cadena SER that in the first railway coach there was a suicidal terrorist. Ministry of the Interior doest not confirm this claim'

Randroide 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I was going to come back on Randroide's persistent misrepresentation of the position of the Guardian newspaper in my review of the POV sections of the article - but lets do it here:

The Guardian source that Randroide cites so frequently is an opinion piece, and a fairly one at that, written by the deputy editor of El Mundo. You won't know this unless you read to the very end of the article, but that is the case. Under no circumstances can this article be said to reflect the position adopted by the Guardian on the conspiracy theories, because it was not written by anyone who works for the Guardian. It doesn't strengthen your argument when you have to hide the origin of your sources.

Southofwatford 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

voice doubts

The word is underlined for a reason, Southofwatford.

The BBC neither "buys" the Indictment history describing the Leganés explosion as an "apparent suicide explosion" [77]. The BBC simply "voices" what other sources say. Just as "The Guardian" does with the aforementioned article.

It is very funny your accusation of me hiding what is in plain view in the same link I provided. You should think that I am not very bright trying to "hide" such an obvious thing. Randroide 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In plain view only for those who read the entire article, nowhere else is it stated. You are still wrong anyway, the Guardian has not voiced doubts about the indictment or anything else simply by printing an opinion piece by a journalist from a different newspaper. It is misrepresentation to suggest they have adopted any position on the conspiracy theories or the indictment.

As for the PP being the first party in intention of vote - you have to be very selective with your opinion polls to sustain this. The most recent poll I have seen (from La Vanguardia) puts the PP several points behind. It is sufficient, and not disputed, to say they were the second party in votes cast at the last general election. A reality they still seem to have problems with.

Southofwatford 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Where is your link for that "La Vanguardia" claim?.

I write only for those who read the entire article. This is an Encyclopedia, man, this a serious issue, for serious editors. The ones who read "the entire article".Randroide 11:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In La Vanguardia:

[[78]]

Southofwatford 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the link. I correct my own statement in the light of the new evidence you provide.

---

Southofwatford 12:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I think partially corrected would be more accurate. Your description of "lies" told by the Caden SER is simply partisan and propagandistic. I am quite confident we can find many innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings - it would be quite normal for such things to happen. That does not mean that the news organisations behind such reports are lying.

---

Southofwatford wrote: ...we can find many innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings...

I am quite confident we can find many innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings - it would be quite normal for such things to happen. That does not mean that the news organisations behind such reports are lying'[79]

If you really believe what you have written, Southofwatford, please...

• ...change the title of the section 2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Whether_the_conservative_government_lied.

• ...rewrite the whole article under your premise "innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings...[]...That does not mean that the news organisations behind such reports are lying

Randroide 12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What a curious response, the issue of whether all newspaper reports in the immediate aftermath of the bombings are fully accurate or not has nothing to do with the controversy over whether the government at the time lied - they are completely separate issues. Neither do I see any need to rewrite the whole article - although I do consider it an "encyclopaedic" task to point out known innaccuracies in sources that have subsequently been corrected.

Southofwatford 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok Raystorm. Now the situation is clear. Randroide says that whatever RAND says he will continue with his nonsense. The total absence of sources in English for El Mundo deliriums and the fact that contradict the main world authority (and the rest of world suources) is nothing for him. For me it is clear that is imposible to write an article with someone whose only aim is to give credibility to his ideas by hammering on the wikipedia at all costs. Can we start to force Randroide to limit the nonsense to a subarticle as has been done in 11-S? I am not trying to press you. We are plenty of time. If you want to try to have a rational discussion with Randroide for some months for me is OK. Just let me tell you that you are going to go in circles always coming back to the same bizarra and absurd conclusion bien thrown in your face as gospel.--Igor21 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Subdivision Of The Main Article

Before I go into detail on POV problems I have with the current state of the article I would like to make some more general observations. Given the nature of the dispute we have over the content of this page, it seems absolutely clear to me that we need to agree, or get an arbitration ruling on, a future structure for this article. There are now literally thousands of sources which could, potentially, be included to back up almost any point of view about the bombings. Many of these sources relate to the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues, and it’s very clear that this is the area that attracts most attention – wrongly in my view, but it is the case. The inevitable result of the determination to introduce more of the controversies into the main article is that the article is going to constantly hit size limitations and something is going to have to be done to split it. It also means that the baby is going to end up devouring its parent, the controversies are a sub-topic of the main account of the bombings, and in my opinion they should not end up occupying space that should really be occupied by a balanced NPOV account of the events.

As editors we have to think about the audience for this article, and it seems logical to me that many Wikipedia users will come here looking for a core account without necessarily wanting to be plunged into the minute details of every issue. The article should be structured in such a way that points users to sub-articles containing more detail should they be interested in finding out more. Now, the changes made since Christmas - leaving aside their disastrous effect on attempts to resolve the dispute – have the effect of mixing controversial issues with non-controversial text. That makes any future division of the article harder to achieve. I propose that we go for mediation (or arbitration if mediation is not possible), on the single issue of splitting controversies from the main article and agreeing a stable structure.

Southofwatford 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

...it seems absolutely clear to me that we need to agree, or get an arbitration ruling on...

Of course we must go into mediation. I accepted that two months ago [80]. I am still waiting.

...The inevitable result of the determination to introduce more of the controversies into the main article is that the article is going to constantly hit size limitations and something is going to have to be done to split it...

If you drop "controversies" from the main article, you are falling into POV.

In fact, the "facts" you regard as "undisputed", are controversial.

...It also means that the baby is going to end up devouring its parent, the controversies are a sub-topic of the main account of the bombings, and in my opinion they should not end up occupying space that should really be occupied by a balanced NPOV account of the events....

A balanced NPOV account of the events must include controversial sourced data.

...Wikipedia users will come here looking for a core account without necessarily wanting to be plunged into the minute details of every issue....

Do you want a core account?. Easy: March 11th 2004, Madrid, 10 bombs exploded in the trains, 191 fatal casualties. If you want to breach more complex subjects, you must plunge into the minute details. This is not paper, man, we can go as far as we want.

...Now, the changes made since Christmas - leaving aside their disastrous effect on attempts to resolve the dispute – have the effect of mixing controversial issues with non-controversial text.

Could you please point to the controversial issues mixed into the non-controversial text during Christmas?. AFAIK I introduced no controversial issue.

Randroide 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford : I completely agree. Conspirationist theories cannot be in the core of the article as are not in 11 September article. In 11th September is bieng even forbidden to speak about conspirationist theories in the discussion of the main article. Terrorism is the probably one of the few human things in which there is an undisputed authority so we do not need to discuss very long what to include in the core and what not. So the local sources in Spanish that spread theories (in the form of doubts) about what all the serious sources say. must be restricted to Conspiracy theories sub-article where all the folcklore must be gathered.--Igor21 10:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Terrorism is the probably one of the few human things in which there is an undisputed authority so we do

You are wrong: Cults, Sects, authoritarian religions and totalitarian groups of all flavours "enjoy" an undisputed authority.

...spread theories (in the form of doubts)...

"Doubts" are not "theories". Your mental categories leak oil. Badly. Please take a look at the dictionary.

....what all the serious sources say

Youd did not answer my previous question (vide supra).

I´ll ask you again:

• Is The Times "insolvent" (or "not serious") [81]?

Randroide 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The MIPT reliability. A few pieces of information and some thoughts

To Igor21: I stumbled with several very interesting tidbits from your "serious source", the MIPT:

...despite counterterrorist successes by Spanish and French police and continued murders of suspected ETA members by the rightwing GAL [82]

Your "serious source" was (and is) totally clueless, Igor21: The GAL was not a rightwing group. The GAL was formed by the Spanish police, and there was a leftist PSOE government back then (See GAL or the final MIPT account about the GAL).

They are still so clueless that they still classify the GAL as "Right-Wing Conservative" left column "quick facts"

Read also this (highly ironic, really):

The group’s first action was the kidnapping and killing of José Antonio Lasa and Jose Antonio Zabala in October 1983, both suspected members of ETA. Their bodies were not found until 1995, buried in quicklime and showing clear signs of torture.[83]

Dou you know how your "serious source" (Right-Wing Conservative GAL, oh my God) knew about Lasa and Zabala?.

Because El Mundo (Spain) made investigative journalism about the nasty issue (sorry, the original 1995 "El Mundo" scoop is too old to be online).

Yup, "El Mundo" located the unidentified skeletons of Lasa and Zabala and made the DNA testing to identify them.

Another ironic issue:

This is a link [84] provided as a reference by the MIPT [85].

Which source is mentioned in the MIPT sponsored link?. Yup, "El Mundo":

Various newspaper investigations have also added to the intrigue.The Spanish daily El Mundo reported that agents from the Spanish military intelligence organisation Cesid were involved in Gal.It claimed that Cesid agents kidnapped a beggar and two drug-addicts as medical guinea-pigs in preparation for the kidnapping of a leading Basque terrorist, and dubbed their kidnap plan Operation Mengele - after the Nazi doctor who carried out medical experiments on Jews, vagrants and other victims of the Holocaust.

More incomplete data from the MIPT:

• List of GAL attacks listed by the MIPT [86].

• Complete list of GAL attacks: Grupos_Antiterroristas_de_Liberación#Chronology_of_attacks.

Your "serious source" must be taken "cum grano salis", Igor21. In fact, if you rely only on the MIPT, you are going to get an incomplete picture, a very seriously incomplete one. As we are going to see...

IRONY ON

More interesting things I learned from the MIPT

• Santiago Brouard was never assasinated. Spanish newspapers told us otherwise, but, what the heck!, they should be wrong, because the MIPT says nothing about the issue! [87]. Or maybe is wrong the MIPT? [88]. Uh, Sorry, I disputed the undisputed authority, I must go to bed without dinner.

• Yoyes (killed September 10th 1986) was never killed: Shes not listed in a list of attacks [89] so exhaustive as to include the burning of a single car in Bilbao in 1986 [90]. In fact Yoyes never existed: She´s not even listed by the MIPT [91][92]. The guys who made a film about her (official webpage) are, obviously, conspiracy theorists, Google is also infected by "Conspiracy theorists" [93]

• The Hipercor 1987 attack [94] never took place [95]. We thought that it was the worst ETA attack until 1987, but we are obviously wrong, because the MIPT knows nothing about the issue.

This MIPT guys are so unreliable that they fail to list [96] the June 19th Hipercor attack (21 dead), but they list totally irrelevant 1987 attacks [97][98] with no casualties.

Frankly, after seeing what this MIPT/RAND guys report as important (the burning of a single empty car in Bilbao in 1986 [99]) and what they fail to even mention (the assasination of 21 individuals in a single attack in 1987 -Hipercor-), I must conclude that, if the memos leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were of this quality, it´s quite easy to grasp why the United States was clueless during the Vietnam war.

If you are really serious (I hope you are not) about your undisputed authority claim [100], I suggest you to...

• ...go to GAL and start "correcting" the article in the "light" provided by the MIPT, i.e, "The GAL was a Right-Wing Conservative group that...Source [101][102] ".
• ...or ask for the deletion of w:es:Dolores González Katarain. That woman is not listed by the MIPT, so she was not a former ETA leader killed by the group. All the opposing evidence is a "conspiracy theory" that must go faced with undisputed authority of the MIPT.
• ...or, go to ETA#Under_democracy and delete all references to Hipercor. After all, is not listed by the MIPT, so that Hipercor attack must be some conspiracy theorists invention (sadly, It was not).

IRONY OFF

Have a nice day, Igor21.

Randroide 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Well I think this section to which you have devoted so much time is going to become something of a milestone in our discussions Randroide. At last you seem to have accepted the idea that we need to make some evaluation of the quality and accuracy of the content of proposed sources. Nevertheless, I think you are being a bit harsh by suggesting that sources cannot be relied upon if they have made mistakes when writing about other topics not related to the Madrid bombings. If we apply these criteria consistently then probably all major news organisations will have to be rejected – at some point or other they all make mistakes. Likewise, it doesn’t seem fair to suggest that they are not suitable because they have not written anything about subjects that are not related to the Madrid bombings.

Despite these misgivings I think the general principle is established, we just need to apply it consistently to all sources. We will probably return to this section as a reference point in future discussions.

Southofwatford 07:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

...all major news organisations will have to be rejected – at some point or other they all make mistakes. Likewise, it doesn’t seem fair to suggest that they are not suitable because they have not written anything about subjects that are not related to the Madrid bombings.

• I never said that we must "reject" the MIPT. I only said that we must know that what the MIPT says is not set in stone, and that the absence of MIPT commentary aboput something means nothing.

• Yup, all media makes mistakes.

• The MIPT failed to see (vide supra examples I provided) the proverbial elephant in the bedroom in well documented and non disputed issues (it is well documented and non disputed that ETA killed 21 individuals in the Hipercor 1987 attack...etc). Moreover, the MIPT is not an sloppy general information newspaper, but pretends to be a "Terrorism Knowledge Base". It fails.

Randroide 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Objections On The Current State Of The Article

I will add things here bit by bit as I review the article but to set the ball rolling here is the first item that I feel needs attention - it should be noted that I am not including the controversies section in this review:

- There is a significant amount of information that was removed by Randroide after Christmas on the grounds that it was unsourced, without any discussion or visible attempt to source it. This information must be reviewed and sourced where possible – then reinserted as part of the process of restoring the balance of the article.

- Identifying in the very first paragraph some of the accused as "police informers" is POV - police informers usually have that status because they are either directly or indirectly involved in criminal activity. The focus on them being informers as well as criminals is a constant theme of the conspiracy theorists to try and hint at police involvement in the attacks without taking on the too onerous burden of actually proving it. So why highlight this status here in the very first paragraph?

- The reference to ETA and the Barajas bombing does not belong in the Aftermath section, there is nothing that establishes it as part of the "aftermath" of the 11th March bombings. The whole question of treatment of ETA in the article needs to be resolved, given that there is no single credible piece of evidence pointing to their involvement

Southofwatford 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Go ahead. If I stumble with a source for a unsourced block of text removed, I restore the text [103]. You can do the same.

Your "without any visible attempt to source it" is false. There´s a visible attemp in the link I just provided.

Discussion to remove unsourced text is NOT required.

BTW, unsourced text is NOT information.

Randroide 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide : I have nothig to speak with you. RAND database is worldwide known. I do not know why the Hipercor bombing is not listed or which is the criteria around Yoyes assasination. I do not care very much since is probably a compilation mistake because this MIPT is an extract of RAND database. Regarding GAL, everybody knows that some of the people involved were former members of the Batallon Vasco Español. The PSOE authorized and organized the GAL using existing infraestructure so the mistake is undestandable moreover knowing the uncomfortability that governement sponsored groups cause to terrorism experts. You can say what you want because now is clear what are you doing here. If you want to argue with RAND go ahead, but do not expect me wasting more time with you. Destroy the article, twist facts and use poisonous sources as much as you want. When mediation or arbitration or whatever is going to happen starts, I will present my opinions so the comunity can decide. In the while, ignore me and continue with your sistematic blocking of the truth to support the fanatics you are representing here. They should be proud of having such an effective activist. Wikipedia readers will probably be less happy when reading your intoxications but it is not my responsability since God knows I have done all I can to make truth be reflected. Have a nice day Randroide and enjoy your playground.--Igor21 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to argue with RAND go ahead

• I did not "argue" with RAND, Igor21.

• I just presented a small florilége of RAND´s blatant omissions.

It was very interesting job, really. I gained a new perspective on why the Vietnam war was lost (see Pentagon papers). Look, until yesterday "RAND report" ringed some authority in my ears. Not any longer: Reading RAND reports about issues you have knowledge about (not about arcane issues from the other side of the globe) is a sobering experience about the competence (or lack of it) of these guys.

I do not know why the Hipercor bombing is not listed or which is the criteria around Yoyes assasination. I do not care very much since is probably a compilation mistake because this MIPT is an extract of RAND database.

Uh. So the undisputed authority makes mistakes. Fine, fine.

Regarding GAL, everybody knows that some of the people involved were former members of the Batallon Vasco Español. The PSOE authorized and organized the GAL using existing infraestructure so the mistake is undestandable moreover knowing the uncomfortability that governement sponsored groups cause to terrorism experts.

Nor the Hipercor attack nor the Yoyes assasination were governement sponsored, and those pieces of information are not listed by the MIPT neither.

Your implicit argument that if it is not listed by the undisputed authority MIPT, does not exist, is untenable, Q.E.D..

Randroide 11:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Just for the sake of record : My fully explicit argument is that in an issue so sensitive as international terrorism and regarding an incident that took place in 2004, if there exists amongst experts any shadow of doubt about the fact that the bombing was done by Islamists, this doubt would be discussed in MIPT. The thorough explanation that MIPT gives without any reference to El Mundo non-sense, is a proof that there is not any discussion about authorship of 11 March bombings and perfectly enables editors to skip in the core of the article any mention to conspirationist theories/doubts like e,g, the ones Randroide waves all the time.

If you want to water down the credibility of RAND using 20 years old incidents, the war of Vietnam or the second coming of Messiah is up to you and if someone has nothing better than play your games, go ahead. For me this question is finished and is a problem of wikipedia what to do with you, your theories and your tricks of dishonest lawyer.--Igor21 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for making explicit what was implicit.

The issue is much clearer now.

Randroide 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive and going on hold for a bit

Hi everyone. As you can see, I've archived part of the discussion in this talkpage, up to January 4. The page was getting too long and those discussions had been inactive for a while. If, however, someone wants to activate the archive (number 8), and its discussions, that can be easily done. I did not archive more because I couldn't -discussions were still active (we do tend to discuss a lot here). ;)

On a sidenote, I'm sorry to say I'm going to be very busy for the next few days/weeks. One of my articles is going through a FA candidature right now, and as the principal contributor and nominator I need to address all the comments and suggested changes reviewers make there. So it may be a while before I drop by here again and follow the arguments exposed. This does not mean I'm abandonning this page or its discussions forever -simply, I have to put them on hold for a little while. If you need anything however (including help with the mediation process), feel free to contact me at my talkpage. I'll try to help as much as possible. If consensus is reached in the meanwhile regarding any aspect of the article, please count me in. Cheers and I hope to be back asap :) Raystorm 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, we trust that nobody will try to use your temporary absence as an excuse to make contested changes to the article. Before you go, can I assume from your comments that you support the mediation proposal based on my suggestion of separating controversies from the main article?

Southofwatford 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Back!

Hi guys, I'm back! :) Against all my expectatives, my article became a FA in just a week. I thought it'd take longer. I also thought I'd come back to kilometres of lenghty discussions here. ;) You guys went on hold too? *Grin* Shall we start discussing the article again? Southofwatford, you want to take the controversies from the page to other subarticles, right? Randroide, what do you think of that? Cheers! Raystorm 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More than being in hold, I have thrown my hat to the fire. If everybody in en.wikipedia wants El Mundo non-sensic absurd and idiotic conspiracy theories to be treated as if were something serious, there is nothing I can do. Randroide has shown clearly who he is and what is doing here and not only is not blocked as he should but you dialogue with him and you tell me that I am "confrontational" because I say what he evidently is. When he was cornered you helped him to deslegitimize Southofwatford and now we must start from square one. So as we say in Spain "You can can eat it with your own bread". I will try to help but I do not want to enbitter my life with this absurd issue anymore. Everybody serious knows what happened in Atocha and if someone is so moron to trust wikipedia who trust Randroide's toxic sources, for me is wrong but I am not God and I cannot be responsible for all the evil in the planet.--Igor21 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just very busy, not so much on hold. I was going to suggest that we take the issue of separating controversies to mediation (or arbitration) as the key issue of dispute - everything else we do is impacted by this. If we don't separate the controversies then the main article will be much more about the controversies than anything else. I believe that would be a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia seeking a core account of events. Southofwatford 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion rejected, Southofwatford: Sorry, but we tried to separate controversies (the famous multi colouor debate), and we failed: Consensus was impossible. In am not going to waste more time on that.

Moreover: If you want to delete controversial data from the main article, key issues (as, for instance, who made it) would be left out. Yes, "the Islamists and only the Islamists did it" is also a controversial assertion. If you must shut up about controversies in the "core" article, you must shut up about essential issues. Your suggestion is a no-go.

I suggested an easier and noncontroversial solution for the article size problem four weeks ago [104]: It is called Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The content in "Reactions" is, IMO , far less substantive, bordering on Cruft sometimes: For instance, what Fidel Castro said about the attacks.

Congratulations, Raystorm. Randroide 14:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor21, please assume good faith. I've never had the intention of deligitimazing Southofwatford, and to be honest I don't think s/he has ever felt threatened by me in that sense. If anything, I respect and applaud his/her attempts to seek an answer for the situation in this article. I really want to make this article the very best it can be. You have to realize I was not aware of the situation between the different editors of the article when I first arrived, including the mediation proposal. I've never felt dialogue is a waste of time -in fact, I have been involved in several controversial articles before with excellent results. :) My aim is to improve the article, not block Randroide. I completely disagree with some of the things Randroide supports, and we've had our 'tense' moments too as a side-effect, but always trying to discuss things thoroughly and being polite and civil (which is, I believe, the only thing that matters). I'm sorry, but I don't have the history with him/her that you two seem to have. I honestly think you can be a great asset for the article, please don't renounce to it. :) Randroide, if you do not wish to accept Southofwatford's proposal (with which, btw, I agree), then do you agree to mediation? If consensus cannot be reached here then we have to resort to third parties. Please indicate your aceptance in that case. And thanks for the congrats. :) All: in February the case against the March 11 suspects shall begin, so I guess this article will start having to add new info pretty quickly, as it is released, and will probably get more attention and more editors as a consequence. Be ready for that. It'd be nice to get consensus before that happens on the core issues regarding the article though. On a sidenote, I have a question for some reason I always forget to ask: why isn't this article called March 11, 2004, or something like that? Would anyone object to a page move? Suggestions for a new title, if you don't like the one I proposed? Cheers Raystorm 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What is at stake is wikipedia credibility not ours. So we must ask the comunity if they think that a local Spanish newspaper -that is known for having lied, bribed witnesses and organized schemes using crooked policemen to invent pieces of news- can be used here as a source. If they say "yes", for me is OK but I think they deserve the opportunity to stop El Mundo lies to be published. This was Durova suggestion to me and this is what we must do. Discuss with Randroide is completely useless. --Igor21 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC) PS:BTW, a good programmer can do a software that reacts like Randroide. He will find someone in the long term that blocks him as happened in Spanish wikipedia and then wikipedia will be a better place (at least a more truthful one).

Err, forgive me, who is Durova? :) And what's that about a software that reacts like Randroide? I'm afraid I don't understand. Cheers Igor21 Raystorm 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously there is no consensus on removal of non-controversial material from the article to make way for the conspiracy theories. Removing the Reactions section would probably solve the problem for about a week - then we would have to choose the next section to jettison (perhaps the Introduction?). We were actually not very far from achieving consensus on separation, although there were some important sticking points, presumably thats what mediation and arbitration procedures exist for. On the question of the trial, I don't think we want to get into doing daily updates based on it - this is not a news agency and the trial could easily last for 7-8 months. The best thing is to reflect the most important developments, but only when it becomes clear what the nature of those developments are; with a trial that is not always immediately evident. Of course some would say, and I am one of them, that the trial is the proper place for the controversial issues to be examined in depth. Southofwatford 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford, could you please tell me where are the conspiracy theories in the article?. I see no one.

I have no intention to jettison any other section if "jettisoning" (your word, not mine) "Reactions" really solves the size problem.

Raystorm, I agree to a "generic" Mediation, where different editors present their allegations independently. Look at what happened to the RfC to see why. Uh, a side issue: Last time I checked I was "him", not "her" ; ) Randroide 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hehe, I didn't want to assume, so I used s/he. :) Raystorm 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm : Durova was an admin who answered a Randroide rant about how impolite I was with him. After careful explanations of the nature of the problem, her conclusion was [[105]] and I have been trying to follow her advice since then (up to now unsuccesfully). And regarding the comment about software, you can continue "dialoguing" whith Randroide and later or sooner, you will understand it. --Igor21 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check out the link then. And btw that was quite the cryptic remark! :-) Raystorm 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what Randroide means by a "generic" mediation - as I understand it, a mediation request simply has to define the point(s) of contention and then each editor will be free to define their position once the process begins. There is no requirement for us to present a joint position statement. I propose a process based on a single point of contention - the separation of controversies from the main article Southofwatford 10:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I do not accept your proposal, Southofwatford. The controversy is about what is fit for the article and what is not. Randroide 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Well like it or not the structure of the article forms part of the dispute. If we do not attempt to resolve it via a mediation process what is your suggestion for dealing with the issue? Southofwatford 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You wrote it with the exact words, Southofwatford. I´ll bold the key word:

the structure of the article forms part of the dispute.

Yes, the structure of the article forms part of the dispute, but it is not the dispute.

My suggestion is a "generic" mediation common text, something like this:

There´s a long disagreement at 2004 Madrid train bombings. Mediation is requested.

And, after tha "generic text", this allegations section:

Allegations by Southofwatford...[]...Allegations by Raystorm...[]...Allegations by Igor21...[]...Allegations by Larean...[]...Allegations by Randroide

Randroide 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Well I suggest you read this first before proceeding with your proposal:

Requests for Mediation is not an appropriate venue for debating the merits of a given request; the purpose of Requests for Mediation is to identify disputes requiring mediation and indicate the fulfillment of all prerequisites to acceptance. Parties are prohibited from debating in this forum; statements that cannot be presented in the form of unbiased bullet points will be summarily removed or refactored by a member of the Committee. WP:RFM Southofwatford 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Thank you for the text, Southofwatford.

"Allegations" are not a "debate". Different allegations (made backstage, here) made by different Users would be the "bullet points" onstage (there, in the RfC).

If there is any problem, the bullet poins could be "refactored".

There is no problem whatsoever with my proposal: You write your point asking for the "segregation" of "Controversies", or any other demand, I write my point asking (among other things) for the introduction of new "Controversies" into the article.

I propose a process based on a single point of contention - the separation of controversies from the main article

This line of yours is problematic. Why should I (or any other editor) be barred from presenting other demands?.

Randroide 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Don't make baseless accusations Randroide, nobody is being barred from presenting anything. I suggested that we go on the issue of separating the controversies alone because it has an impact on everything else we do with the article. If you want to include other issues then we can - we'll just have to try and deal with them one by one when the mediation begins. It's quite clear from the WP:RFM that we just need to identify the areas of dispute as short bullet points, we don't need to do anything else for the RFM itself. Everyone involved can then present their arguments when the mediation begins. Why don't you suggest bullet points that you want to include? Southofwatford 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I have nothing to "suggest", Southofwatford: After the RfC fiasco (weeks of wasted job, see archives) I have nothing to "suggest" about arbitration procedures related to this article.

Suggestion [106]:

• To imply but stop short of saying explicitly.
• To ask for without demanding.

I demand (not "ask for"), explicicitly, to include my demands about this article in the mediation.

Please do not (mis)use the word "suggestion" in this context. Thank you.

Randroide 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You just don't get it, even after all these months you continue to think that working by consensus means that you make demands and the others involved simply have to agree to them. In fact it means working by negotiated agreement of all parties. The RFC fiasco was principally a waste of time for me, I worked on a balanced even-handed proposal which you rejected without even reading it through. A mediation request requires the agreement of the parties involved, if you don't want to make proposals in an attempt to reach agreement then that is your free choice.

Southofwatford 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

("My") Bullet points:

• What is a proper "source" for the article?.
  • Is El Mundo (Spain) a proper source for the article?.
  • Is PRISA media a proper source for the article?.
  • Is the Spanish Judiciary a somewhat superior source for the article?.

• Should the "Controversies" section be segregated into a different article?.
  • If affirmative: What would be the proper title for the new article?.
  • Should all references to the "Controversies" section be segregated?.
  • Should this material be in the main article?. Should this material be mentioned at all in the main article?.

• Should the "Reactions" section from the main article be segregated into a different article?.

End (by now) of ("My") bullet points.

For the sake of not wasting your valuable time (and mine), let me be very clear about this issue:

• You (and Raystorm, Igor21 and Larean) can add new bullet points. No problem about that, if you use a neutral language, as stated in the mediation norms.
• If you want to delete bullet points, or to use non-neutral language, I do not accept mediation. That´s it. End of the discussion.

Sorry for this maybe-too-assertive kind of language, but I have my reasons. Lets see...

Southofwatford wrote:

I worked on a balanced even-handed proposal which you rejected without even reading it through

Balanced and even-handed for you, Southofwhatford. Not for me.

I rejected nothing, once I pointed my misgivings, you withdrew from the RfC .

After this RfC fiasco, no more "consensus" regarding bullet points, Southofwatford:

• You have the right to present "your" ("yours") bullet points (using neutral language, of course). For instance:
  • Igor21 could present this bullet point: Is the MIPT a somewhat superior source for the article?. Fine. No problem with me.
  • Raystorm could present his bullet point about too much "air time" for Pedro J. Ramírez. Fine, no problem with me.
  • Southofwatford could present his bullet point about wether blogs should be linked (not used as sources, of course, simply linked) or not. No problem with me.
  • And so on...
• I have also the right to present "my" bullet points (using neutral language too, of course).

Randroide 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My bullet points (without the blue parts) are

• At the light of what has been done in "11th of September attacks" and in many other articles, once it is clear that there are two incompatible narratives regarding what happened in Madrid the 11th of March 2004; bearing in mind that one of them is supported by all the world class sources and the other only by a local Spanish newspaper that has been caught fabricating proofs, distorting facts and contradicting public known primary sources: do you thing is a good idea to separate both narratives in two subarticles with the second being shorter and intitled "alternative theories"?

• In your opinion, if the editors who base their narrative in the world class sources manage to proof the above statement, has English Wikipedia the resources to establish such structure?

--Igor21 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

That´s the kind of bullet points I do not accept, Igor21:

Those bullet point of you are not neutral.

• Where is the other "narrative"?. I only see a "narrative" in the article: The Indictment.

• I provided some world class sources voicing doubts about the Indictment "narrative" [107].

• You fail to prove your grave accusations against the "local Spanish newspaper". You said nothing.

Try a better wording, Igor21. And be concise.

BTW, I just initiated your case against "El Mundo" in my point Is El Mundo (Spain) a proper source for the article?.

I suggest you to wait until mediation starts to make your arguments. Think about it, please. Randroide 08:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Randroide, thanks for the kind suggestions. This is my new wording:

• At the light of what has been done in "11th of September attacks" and in many other articles, once it is clear that there are two incompatible narratives regarding what happened in Madrid the 11th of March 2004; bearing in mind that one of them is supported by all the world class sources and the other only by a local Spanish newspaper that has been caught fabricating proofs, distorting facts and contradicting public known primary sources: do you thing is a good idea to separate both narratives in two subarticles with the second being shorter and intitled "alternative theories"?

• In your opinion, if the editors who base their narrative in the world class sources manage to proof the above statement, has English Wikipedia the resources to establish such structure?

If everybody agree I will put the blue links.

--Igor21 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Well if all we think about for the moment is just presenting the issues for mediation at the most general level, we only have two bullet points:

1). The structure of the article

2). Acceptability of sources

Which of the bullet points above would not be covered by these descriptions? Once mediation begins any user can present their specific views and issues to the mediator. That way it's not necessary for each issue to have an "owner". Southofwatford 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I do not see a generic problem with sources but only with ONE single "source" that cannot be mixed with the rest of the sources for the reasons stated above (and known by everybody even by the ones who simulate to ignore).--Igor21 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You can make that clear when we come to mediation Igor, the aim at the moment is just to define the areas for which we request mediation; the more detail we put into the request, the more likely it is to be rejected or not even to get that far because of disagreements. I also think there is more than one source open to question if we look at the sources currently in the article.Southofwatford 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The article is currently useless

What a pity. This article is so stuffed with conspiranoic garbage that nobody can use it for an encyclopedic purpose. It's mere politics of the worst type.

The final trial will start soon. Hope we can make a good one when it finishes, putting the conspiranoic in a "criticism" or "controversial points of view" section, as in most other Wikipedia articles, but not intermixed with the whole text, rendering it unusable as it is now.

MaeseLeon 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC) , Zaragoza, Spain.

Sure?. Could you please point to the conspiranoic garbage?. I reviewed the article line by line and I found no such a thing. Paste blocks of text, please. If there is any "conspiranoic garbage" I missed, it should be removed. Thank you. Randroide 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MaeseLeon : Before speaking with Randrodide check his historial and then decide if is worthwile or not.--Igor21 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Significant grammar and sentence structure editing needed

A lot of this article lacks the fundamentals of good English grammar and sentence structure. I'm going through a lot of it to correct. Section 3.2 had already been called out as needing significant re-wording, which I completed. The first paragraph was duplicative of earlier parts and highly irrelevant to its section, as it discussed how those believed responsible were killed in later police confrontations. Hopefully you all find my edits appropriate thus far. I'm about halfway through and will be continuing edits over the course of this week. akronpow 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop doing this now, this article has significant problems that go way beyond the questions of grammar and every time somebody comes crashing in with their particular issue of concern it just makes the underlying problems harder to solve. Some of your corrections are perfectly fine, others I find either unnecessary or simply arguable - changing things from English English to American English is a policy here? All we need now is to give those who like an excuse to ignore the disputed nature of tis page the green light. Southofwatford 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

To Southofwatford: Please read WP:OWN, Southofwatford. Akronpow is making an excellent job, and we should be grateful to him.

Frankly, assuming good faith, I can not understand your attitude.

Just read this hidden text:

<!-- Whole section needs lots of rewording -->

Akronpow is making just that. Thank you very much, Akronpow.

I only have a misgiving, Akronpow: Could you please explain the removal of text in this edit? [108]. Randroide 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

To Akronpow : Randroide is a fanatic conspirationis who heavily modified the article during Christmas after having agreed to ask for a mediation. Because of the lack of precision in the definition of what is a source for wikipedia, now we are in dificulties for removing all the garbage he introduced in the article. His tactic now is to let time goes by to petrify his ilegal modifications. (e.g. the bizarre structure of the first paragraph is caused by the fact that Randroide adds his absurd statements about non-muslims because he wants to show that the Socialdemocrat party helped by the Spanish police did the bombings). Wording and good grammar are extremely important but also to remove intentionally misleading comments is important. In this regard I am trying to convince other editors that the croocked and politically biased local Spanish newspaper El Mundo cannot be a source but Randroide is far more shrewd than the other editors so he is currently having his way with the article. Nowadays the trial for the bombings is about to start in Spain so probably the whole text will be changed when the conspirationist non-sense is ruled out by the judge decisions in the Fall. You can do what you want but I thought it will be good that you know the context since probably Randroide is going to use you -as has used other people before- to stop Southofwatford from reverting the destruction he caused during Christmas.--Igor21 10:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)