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

Randroide Answers to "Next Step"

Guys, I do not see you taking steps to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.

I can not do this job because I always connect from "filtered" institutional net-access, and following those steps could result in new, undesired, controversial "truncation" of words by the software. I do not want that happenning.

Could you please follow the instructions in the link I provided?. Thank you.Randroide 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Randroide answers to New reference by Burgas00

Randroide 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) At last we agree on something!...of course that the new section is a good idea: The false "suicidal" terrorists from PRISA will also be included there.

Come oooooon, boys, start writing that section. I do not want all the kudos for myself: The new proposed article is, by now, an effort made only by me.

But remember: NPOV and sources, all the sources. Just like me citing "El País" in the section about the doubts about the genuineness of the 13th bomb. Cheers Randroide 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a good point. And all the remarks in COPE too. And the "moral certitudes" of Mariano Rajoy published in El Mundo.

---

Randroide 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I agree with you 100%, Larean.

---

Southofwatford 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) What Randroide omits to mention on the section about the 13th bomb is that he only added balancing references when I insisted that he do so, the original version he created was entirely POV, as is much of the rest of the proposed article. Also, all the sources that he added from El Pais are only available to subscribers - NPOV it is not.

---

Randroide 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) You are right, Southofwatford, in your "Randroide omits..." section.

If you have not subscription to "El País", I am sorry but that´s your problem. My "institutional" access also has some advantages, like paid access to "El País" (and many, many other publications and books). That´s one of the reasons for my exclusive use of "filtered" Internet accesss: It´s much easier for me to work here due to the easy availability of sources.

Do you see?. The truncation of words is offsett (I think) by better sources.

BTW, if you write under a "Randroide answers" section you are:

• Invading "my" space. I do not mind, really. But you are doing it.
• Risking new truncations on your messages. To avoid this, please write OUTSIDE "Randroide answers" sections.

If you think that the proposed article is POV, work in it to make it NPOV. The article is not "mine".

---

Southofwatford 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I'll take the risk of you truncating the reply and put it here, it's very short. The issue is not whether I subscribe to El País, its whether the people who read an article in the English Wikipedia subscribe to it. All sources used should be accessible to all readers of the article, putting in a source that readers will not be able to see just so you can claim the article is NPOV is, to my mind, completely unreasonable.

---

Randroide 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All sources used should be accessible to all readers of the article

Very funny, Southofwatford.

I am going to follow this joke of yours.

• Please propose also the deletion of all books as sources, because, did you know?, there is always someone without this or that book.
• Delete all references to TV or radio stations, because that user in Brazil has no TV and no radio at home.
• Delete all the references in spanish, because, did you know?, there are users who know no spanish.

It´s a pleasure to read this kind of funny jokes, really. I had a good laugh.

---

User:Southofwatford 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) How strange that you should find it so funny, after all most of the sources we are providing should enable users to find out more information about what is being sourced, so to deliberately choose sources that require those users to pay to see the information is not funny, it's simply bizarre. Equally, in the English Wikipedia I would argue that choosing a Spanish or other foreign language source when an equally valid source exists in English does not make sense, except perhaps to those who are too busy laughing - your cynicism is evident in your response.

---

Randroide 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Once you have finished wasting your time in personal attacks ("cynic") against me, could you please explain us why you havent answered my Answers to "Next Step" section and why you have done nothing so far about the issue?.

You are very bombastic with your "Moving Forward On The RFC" sections and the like, but when is time to really do something, you drop.

This is a common pattern in your behavior, Southofwatford. But I am not going to call you "cynic". You know: WP:FAITH, WP:CIV (and if you didn´t know, you know now).

I really, really would like to see you doing something about Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, or adding something, anything to Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, or coming here with a new source or a new piece of data.

It would be wonderful to see your User doing something different to disputing with me in this Talk:Page, Southofwatford , because someone could think that you are here only to engage with me.

Burgass00 provided us a source, Larean with half dozen or a dozen of sources. So far, your "collaboration" here is to maintain us busy disputing with you.

BTW: I did not "deliberately choose sources that require those users to pay to see the information". Again you fail WP:FAITH. I just followed the links in my Internet access, which, yes, is filtered and truncates some words, but also gives me above average access to sources. You should be happy having a fellow wikipedian with privileged access to sources, Southofwatford, but you moan and groan about the issue. Why?. Following the WP:FAITH policy this behaviour of you is a riddle for me.

Southofwatford wrote: Equally, in the English Wikipedia I would argue that choosing a Spanish or other foreign language source when an equally valid source exists in English does not make sense

Are you going follow this piece of advice of yours and going to delete all the assertions on the article based in sources in spanish, Southofwatford?. Or are you going to start searching for alternative sources in english?.

I am not going to oppose that "interesting" course of action you suggested. Please, do it, Southofwatford: Put your money (i.e., your time) where your mouth is.

---

Southofwatford 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Randroide and the rules – once again you wave the rules in the face of other users whilst failing to apply them to yourself. The whole of your response here could be considered a direct personal attack.

I am, thankfully, not accountable to you or anyone else for how I freely choose to use what spare time I have. However, since you raised the question of why I am participating on this page I am happy to confirm that nothing has changed since the last time I responded on this issue; I continue to oppose the abuse of this article in Wikipedia for political objectives that were not achievable in the equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia. So no change there then.

On good faith – you responded to a reasonable point raised by me by attempting to treat it as a big joke and making it completely clear that you couldn’t care less if other users are not able to access the sources you provide – I am afraid the presumption of good faith did not survive such a contemptuous response.

On the issue of the RFC I would suggest that the archive pages you cited are a much more reliable and reputable source than the distorted account you try to present here.

Your aggressive, bullying manner as usual does nothing to improve your case, and as usual I will remind you that I am not affected by it.

---

New reference by Burgas00

Any comment on this?

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/policia/desbarata/montaje/sostener/teoria/conspirativa/torno/11-M/elpepunac/20061202elpepinac_14/Tes

--Burgas00 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Excellent job, Burgas00. This collaboration of yours is most welcome. I suggest you to wait a few days ("El Mundo" will also tell another version) a to add this history to Controversies#The_13th_bomb.

...but if you want to add the text now, I am not going to object.

Any sourced statement written in NPOV is welcome by me. Cheers.

---

--larean01 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: ABC is being far more interesting than El Pais. What we know today is that at least two corrupt policemen conspired to plant evidence in FAVOUR of the conspiracy theory (they are accused by a judge of fabricating and denouncing a false crime), and that El Mundo swallowed the story whole... or worse: ABC goes as far as reporting that El Mundo would have been involved in the fabrication. There goes the credibility of El Mundo as a reliable source. At the very least, this shows the way El Mundo corroborates its stories.

Yes, here is another article appeared on ABC on this trama policial. Quite embarassing really. http://www.abc.es/20061203/nacional-terrorismo/intervienen-documento-escrito-disena_200612030251.html

--Burgas00 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Well the last place to put this would be the section on the 13th bomb, based on the published information there is absolutely no demonstrated connection between the two cases, which does not of course mean that El Mundo hasn't tried to invent one. Perhaps it should go in a section on "media interference in the judicial process"?

---

--Larean01 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I was thinking about that. And that is a good section you are proposing Southofwatford.

Anyone found anything on El Mundo's version of the story? The paper seems to be keeping suspiciously quiet about all of this.--Burgas00 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

El Mundo has answered with a predictable smokescreen, crying foul because a "key" person in the investigation (their informer, Parrilla) is in jail. They have also sent out another smokescreen with a completely absurd but perfectly well-timed complaint by Cartagena, the imam who was controlled by Parrilla. You can find the links here:

http://foro.desiertoslejanos.com/viewtopic.php?id=191&p=8

With due respect, I do not find these news as very imporant. We must not fall in their trap. What El Mundo is doing is so evident that the new revelations have the same relevance that a new proof for the earth being round. This issue can be good as a footnote in the discussion of the arbitration but I do not think it is convenient to include in the main article since discuss something is to accept that exists a doubt. All this must be put in the article about Pedro J because is more about him than about 11-M.--Igor21 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Igor, with respect, I think you are wrong. This is very important. It shows the "quality" of El Mundo's reporting, at the very least: they believe a single source without corroboration and they negotiate the contents of the news with corrupt policemen. And some sources tell me this is only the tip of the iceberg. El Mundo has basically destroyed its credibility. I think that is a significant event.

And Pedro J. replies: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/12/06/espana/1165418489.html?a=6a18a6aa166fe2881ed58b67897c617c&t=1165426325

--Burgas00 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 10:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) This is the kind of defence that says "Nothing that I do can be considered to be wrong as long as I can suggest that somebody else somewhere has done something that is worse". El Mundo seems to have knowingly destroyed a criminal investigation in progress so that it can make an entirely unsubstantiated connection between it and the Madrid bombings. Just further confirmation that they are not acting as independent journalists reporting on events, thay have now become active, interested, participants in those events.

---

This episode with the rest of episodes is very necesary to show that El Mundo does not belong to the set of "reliable sources" for any meaning of this expresion. However, in the final article, the presence of these people and their "investigations" (i.e. inmoral schemes, clumsy manipulations and intentional fabrications) should not have room. The main characters must be the victims, the killers, the people who helped the injured and the policemen who solved the case on-the-fly. The article about Pedro J is the place for explaining at lenght the feats of this suburbial citizen Kane.--Igor21 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 10:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti CT sources.

--Larean01 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC) One more international and respected source has clearly and squarely positioned itself against Conspiracy Theories, The Economist:

Prosecutors and police are now convinced that only radical Muslims were involved. Seven blew themselves up in a mass suicide three weeks later, as they were about to be arrested. But senior PP figures have openly fanned conspiracy theories that still try to establish some link between the Islamists and ETA.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8382048

Randroide answers

Randroide 08:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Very good. I am also against conspiracy theories like the one presented in the Indictment: The "conspiracy theory" of an al-Quaida inspired bombing.

"El Mundo" is also an excellent anti CT source: They are against the al-Quaida Conspiracy Theory. Good!.

...but this quote from "The Economist" is NOT good:

Prosecutors and police are now convinced that only radical Muslims were involved [1]

This is a pure, undiluted  LIE. 

The truth is that...

• ...some policemen are now convinced that only radical Muslims were involved AND
• ...some policemen are now convinced that "radical Muslims" autorship is extremely dubious.

Two examples of the latter:

• • Former police chief Agustín Díaz de Mera, who says that there is a secret official police report about the ETA involvement [2].

• • Former Guardia Civil EOD Luis Ángel Marugán Casado, who is highly critical with the official version about what we really know about which explosives went off in the day of the bombings ("El Mundo", july 24th 2006). Marugán Casado has 14 years of service in the Guardia Civil EOD unit, and is now retired due to the medical consequences of an bomb.

• • POSTDATA: Spanish Police Union supports the doubters of the Indictment END OF POSTDATA Randroide 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So, please guys, do not corrupt language and stop talking about a generic "police" that does not exist: There are only individual policeman, and their thinking is not unanimous at all.

---

Southofwatford 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Amazing, you find 2 retired ex-policemen, both of whom are clearly situated in the political orbit of the Partido Popular (one is a full-time PP politician), and claim that this means the Economist is lying! I don’t think that the Economist makes any claim to be expressing a view on the opinions of all of the retired policemen in Spain, what they are clearly talking about is the conclusions reached by those in active service who are involved in the investigation of the bombings. To call them liars implies an intention which I don’t think the Economist can justifiably be accused of having, this is not El Mundo and the Economist has no evident political motivation behind what it writes.

On the “secret” report allegedly linking ETA to the bombings I just repeat the same questions which have yet to receive an answer. Has Díaz de Mera seen this report? If he has seen it why doesn’t he tell us more about what it contains? If he hasn’t seen it then how does he know it exists? Is the report he refers to the famous boric acid document? Why did he wait until over two years after the bombings before making his claim? Until these questions are answered the existence of this supposed report is entirely unsubstantiated. Of course, I realise that such an unsubstantiated fact-free allegation is accepted without question by those who want to believe it is true, but any neutral observer would want to see more justification here.

---

Randroide 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: ...the Economist has no evident political motivation behind what it writes.

Of course that there´s a political motivation: All media has a political agenda.

Southofwatford wrote: Has Díaz de Mera seen this report? If he has seen it why doesn’t he tell us more about what it contains?

Please, hear the interview I linked above and stop asking superfluous questions.

Ah, and you have an enormous mass of unanswered questions asked by me. Have a nice day, Southofwatford.

---

Southofwatford 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) The Economist has a political bias, which would make it more sympathetic to the PP than the PSOE, but that is simply not the same as having a political agenda. When they write about the PP and the Madrid bombings they write as disinterested observers of the situation, unless you can show that they have some particular political axe to grind on this issue? I'm unaware of it.

I will try and listen to the interview later bit I suspect from what I have already read about it that it will not answer my questions - the allegation is made in such a vague way that it cannot possibly be disproved, because it contains no evidence that can be tested.

---

Southofwatford wrote: The Economist...When they write about the PP and the Madrid bombings they write as disinterested observers of the situation

Yeah, sure: As "disinterested" as you and me.

Besides: Everybody knows that magazines write editorials in issues they are "disinterested". Randroide 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. The Economist lies. It does not make a mistake, no. It LIES. Surely they have been abducted by the evil Rubalcaba. The conspiracy is clearly getting out of hand. I don't know how we are going to be able to keep quiet 85% of the Western population.

At any rate Díaz de Mera is not a professional policeman. He is a professional politician and a member of the European Parliament by which party? Of course: the PP. Here his resume BEFORE being head of police:

Licenciado en Historia Moderna y Contemporánea. Diplomado en Comunidades Europeas. Director del Colegio Mayor "San Juan Evangelista" (Madrid).

Secretario General del PP (Ávila); miembro de la Junta Directiva Nacional del PP y miembro de su Comisión Permanente en Castilla y León.

Presidente del PP de Ávila (1996-2000).

Teniente de Alcalde (Ávila). Alcalde de Ávila (1999-2002). Senador (1989-1993);

Diputado al Congreso (1993-1996); Senador (1996-2000 y 2000-2004);

Presidente de la Comisión de Defensa.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?country=ES&partNumber=1&language=ES&id=28397

Wow. Eat your heart out, Eliott Ness. This is a real policeman, not you. By the way. Ávila, Ávila, Ávila. And he becomes head of police in 2002, the same year Acebes (the "baron" of the PP in Ávila) becomes minister. Funny coincidences.

So you have ONE policeman who is not an active policeman... and he does NOT even express doubts about Islamist authorship! He does not express any thought that can lead us to believe he is "now convinced that "radical Muslims" autorship is extremely dubious." He just puts into question the way a given report has been presented:

http://www.belt.es/noticiasmdb/HOME2_noticias.asp?id=1528

You take a loooong leap there, Randroide. A very long leap. It is called non sequitur.

And you call that "examples", and you call the policemen who back the summary "some". And we are the ones who corrupt language. We and The Economist, I guess. Geez.

---

Southofwatford 18:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Randroide, I suggest you Google or look up in a dictionary the words uninterested and disinterested - they do not have the same meaning and yes, magazines can and do write disinterested editorials. Then you can explain to us what the political agenda of the Economist is relating to the Madrid bombings because I am unaware that they have one.

---

Randroide 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) To Larean: OK, Larean. I checked De Mera´s curriculum and he is not really part of the spanish police. You are right and I was wrong. Thank you very much for the work you made with this issue: You corrected my error.

And now...

• ...is Luis Ángel Marugán Casado part of the spanish police?. He spent 14 years in the Guardia Civil EOD team. Yes or no please.
• ...are the "peritos del ácido bórico" part of the spanish police?. Yes or no, please.

• ...You said that the PP membership of De Mera is relevant. Well, is also relevant the PSOE membership of the policemen who support the Official Conspiracy Theory (an al-Quaida inspired plot)?. Yes or no, please.

To Southofwatford: Thank you for the english lesson, Southofwatford. I fell into a first class false friend. Now I know the difference.

Yes: You are right and I was wrong, magazines can (and in an ideal world should) write disinterested editorials.

I am not a reader of "The Economist", so I do not know about that publication agenda.

But: Please note that "The Economist" does not cite a single fact, but only makes accusations against the PP.

Mediation Request

Southofwatford 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) To submit a request for mediation we need to identify those issues where we want the mediator to help us, and then submit these issues as a list of brief bullet points. I am very short of time at the moment but if everyone involved can list the key points they think should be included, then I will try to put it all together. If we cannot do this by Friday then I will not be able to submit the request, because of personal commitments that mean I will have very little Internet access time until the middle of January. If it takes longer then someone else can do the actual submitting of the request but perhaps making it clear that not all editors will be able to participate until mid-January. Given that there seems to be a backlog of mediation requests that might not be much of a problem, and a Christmas cooling off period might also be welcome for everyone?

---

I though we were already waiting until mid January and that this chatting was only to kill time until arbitration decides if El Mundo -with his particular way of doing investigations by bribing policemen to simulate facts- can be be used as source bearing in mind that contradicts all the international reliable media. --Igor21 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Igor21, we have to make the request for mediation, and then wait until someone has time to do it - so if we don't ask until January we may have to wait a lot longer.

Can I suggest as the first bullet point "What criteria should we be using for assessing validity of proposed sources?".

I remind you all that the sticking point on the main article was not the question of sources.

---

For me the main question is to establish if El Mundo is a source or not. If it is accepted that is a source only suitable for "conspiracy theories" article, it will be posible to write the main article in a truthfull way since El Mundo is the only source of the bizarre theories. Then all the conspirationist theories will be included in its own article as was done in 9/11 --Igor21 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The issue with the mediation request is just to establish the points of conflict for which we would like mediation, nothing else - the debate we have during the mediation process itself. So the bullet points just identify mediation issues, and that is open for all of us to do, not just me. The other bullet points have yet to be decided but they need to cover things which are blocking any progress

---

Of course there were many differences between editor but in my view all were derived from the fact that El Mundo es feeding the small group of media who are "disidents" with faked revelations. If we rule out this "investigations" -like the one we commented last week with the bribing of crooked policemen to simulate explosives smugling- we would get rid of the big problems. But this is just my opinion and I do not want to lead anything since I do not have experience in english wikipedia and I am not a native English speaker (you would probably guesses so from my "Marbella waiter" grammar and vocabulary).--Igor21 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Well I suggest as the second bullet point "Mediation on difficulties of wording in the separation of controversies from the main article". Any other issues that anyone wants to raise?

---

My suggested bullet point is "Can a local newspaper be used as a source in the main article when contradicts the indictment, the police investigation, the consensus amongst specialists in terrorism and all the world class international media and -added to this- has been caught fabricating evidence? or should it go to the conspiracy theories article?"--Igor21 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) All editors involved have to agree for the mediation to go ahead, so all we need to do is define the topics for mediation, then you can say whatever you want to when the process begins. So the bullet points just need to be short definitions of those topics, the debate comes later.

---

Southofwatford 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry everyone, but I don't have time today to submit the mediation request and I am going to have very limited access to Internet in the next 4 weeks. Can someone else please submit the mediation template with my bullet point on sources, and Randriode's second suggestion on controversies. If there is a way to make clear that not all of us will be able to participate before mid-January then that should be done, so that mediation can include all points of view.

---

Randroide answers

Randroide 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Igor21 wrote: ...until arbitration decides if El Mundo...[]...can be be used as source

No, Igor21. That´s not going to be the point of mediation.

The point of the mediation is going to be a definition about which sources are valid to the article. Allegations will be presented against several sources, not only against "El Mundo".

---

Radroide : Yes, you want to do the oposite thing. Get rid of all the sources except El Mundo since for you is the only newspaper in the world that is not written by the same evil hand that conspires in the shadows.--Igor21 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about my intentions, Igor21.

Could you please tell us about the other, ehr, "Bullet points", Southofwatford?.

Randroide 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Second "bullet point" suggested wording: "Definition about what is "controversial" and what is not".

Randroide 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Look, Igor21, I am not going to put my user name under that bullet point of yours. I suggest to simply make a barebones common statement, i.e. :We have disagreements about the article. After that, we present an individual statement.

20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)I agree in submitting to the mediation process, and I think that we all agree in the fact that we have a conflict about what is the proper content and focus ("controversies" vs. "wacko conspiracy theories") to the article.

I am afraid that trying to go beyond these simple statements is going to be impossible. Impossible and unnecessary.

Unsourced claims removed

If you can find a proper source, please add the claims to the main article:

---

[[3]]

I do not know what this is, and IMHO the picture is nonnotable. Any idea?.Randroide 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Despite the Spanish Government's claims that the explosive used was titadine, a type of compressed dynamite used by ETA in recent years, 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 Randroide 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Later evidence strongly pointed to the involvement of extremist Islamist groups, with the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group named as a focus of investigations.

---

Consequently, all railway traffic to and from Madrid was shut down, including commuter, regional, and intercity trains as well as the high-speed AVE service to Seville. International rail traffic to and from Madrid was also interrupted due to security concerns, although trains to and from France departed from Chamartín, Madrid's second largest train station. According to the French SNCF, this was done at the request of the Spanish authorities.

---

RENFE organized alternative transportation, and moved 3,000 passengers by road. Around 18:30, traffic to and from Chamartín and Príncipe Pío was restored, including some commuter rail lines and northbound national and international traffic out of Chamartín.

---

A blood donation bus, which had already been parked in the Puerta del Sol for a number of days , became inundated with donors, with several hundred queuing to offer their assistance.

---

The towns served by the commuter rail line on which the bombings occurred are home to large Latin American and Eastern European immigrant communities. Many of the 250,000 people using the line each day are students, blue-collar workers, and middle-class people who cannot afford to live in the city of Madrid and so commute from neighbouring communities.

---

Initially it was feared that families of illegal immigrants killed in the terrorist attack would be afraid to contact the authorities for fear of being deported for immigration violations, but Spanish Prime Minister José Aznar announced an immigration amnesty for victims of the attack.

---

Official statements issued shortly after the Madrid attacks identified ETA as the prime suspect, but the group, which usually claims responsibility for its actions, denied any wrongdoing Scores die in Madrid bomb carnage (BBC News)</ref>. Source does not say that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randroide (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

---

However, the official rally in Barcelona, which had politicians from all political parties in attendance, resulted not only in scuffles between demonstrators of differing viewpoints but also the forced evacuation of Rodrigo Rato, Spain's Economy Minister and Vice President (later appointed Director of the IMF) and Josep Piqué, president of the Partido Popular de Catalunya, who were being jostled and insulted by the angry crowd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randroide (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

---

apparently also provoked by the news that President Bush had expressed on the BBC his regret for the bombings coming as a result of Spain's involvement in Iraq. Notably this news came from abroad while the media in Spain seemed unable to emit any such information. The demonstrators accused the government of lying about the responsibility for the attacks and demanded that the truth be told before going to vote.

Source: Eyewitness account, gosh!!. Randroide 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The conduct of the protestors on the Saturday was strictly speaking illegal: with a General Election the following day, the Saturday is designated as the "day of reflection" ("día de reflexión"), during which all political activism is banned. That said, the many TV appearances of the PP candidate Mariano Rajoy on the same day, were also illegal. Randroide 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

...government ministers Eduardo Zaplana and Angel Acebes had approached King Juan Carlos and asked him to approve the imposition of a Law of Exception (Ley de Excepción—effectively Martial Law) Randroide 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

At 08:40, the ruling People's Party suspended all electoral campaigning. Shortly after, Mariano Rajoy, the People's Party candidate for prime minister, cancelled all his electoral activity for the day. The opposing Socialist Party cancelled all campaigning at 08:59. At 09:02 Prime Minister Aznar also cancelled all public appearances.

---

Prime Minister Aznar spoke with King Juan Carlos, then with leaders of the political parties in parliament and with the heads of government of Spain's autonomous communities. At 10:36 a "Crisis Cabinet" was convened, including Aznar, Deputy Prime Ministers Rodrigo Rato and Javier Arenas and Interior Minister Acebes. Randroide 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Ibarretxe...[]..."those who commit these atrocities are not Basque" and "ETA writes its own ending with terrible actions". Randroide 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

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 source [4] does not say that, and that´s due to a very simple reason: We still do not know which kind of explosives went off in the trains. Pedro J. Ramírez asked for the official reports about the analysis made in the site of the explosions in july 2006, with no success.Randroide 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

34 of these 40 imputed were informers and / or controlled by the Police, Civil Guard and National Center of Intelligence before the attacks and contains weird coincidences like the Moroccan El Chino who distributed hash in the Basque country. A notebook of Carmen Toro, member of the Asturian group, contained the cellphone number of the chief of TEDAX. The cellphones used in the bombing were purchased from a shop of Mausilli Kalaji, a Spanish police officer and former member of Al Fatah Strange Coincidences in Madrid (English translation of the El Mundo article)

Bad source: It´s a blog.Randroide 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

The amount of space dedicated to what happened during and immediately after the bombs' explosion is ridiculously small when compared with the following sections dealing with all the controversy about the elections and the ETA theory. I'd like to suggest the creation of several subarticles to avoid this, to approach something like the September 11 2001 attacks article. In fact, this entire article is getting too long (58 kb), it _should_ be reduced in size (just click edit this page in the article to see the warning). Cheers, and let me know if I can provide any help with this. Raystorm 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the size of the article, Raystorm, but dividing it is not an easy task, because it is difficult to reach an agreement about what is "controversial" and what is not.

I am trying to improve things removing at least the unsourced lines.

Another option would be to move all the aftermath section to Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"Reactions

Well, the division could be a chronological one, not one based on what is controversial or not. Let's say until three days after the explosion, and then start sub-articling the following sections? I like your idea of moving all the aftermath section, but it's gotta be done carefully, or we'll have the opposite problem on our hands: a very small article here, and a really long one (the aftermath one) elsewhere. Raystorm 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so easy, Raystorm: There´s a chronology of what happened and a totally different chronology of when we knew that this ot that happened.

I suggest: The creation of Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. "Reactions" is a very long and noncontroversial section. I think it is the deal section to go out.Randroide 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Morocco's radical Islamist Combat Group

i haven't edited this page at all so i'm not sure if this has been addressed. according to the Independent[5], the bombers were "taught in training camps in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, under instruction from members of Morocco's radical Islamist Combat Group." there isn't much info about this group on the internet, but i did come across this paper by Mohamed Darif. He is a Professor of Political Science, Hassan II University, Mohamedia[6]. according to his paper, there are definitely links between this group and al Qaeda. should this be incorporated into the article. while the Independent did report "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", the Islamist Combat Group does appear to share a historical link with al Qaeda. any thoughts on this. i suggest anyone interested in this read Mohamed Darif's paper. Anthonymendoza 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh. You made a quite interesting job. The Elcano report seems to contradict The Independent. Good job. Be bold and please add that information to the article. If appropiate sources present contradictory information, all sources should be presented to let the reader make his own mind.

Yeah, seems...but please note that "...has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance" is not neccessarily in contradiction with an alleged al-Qaeda related group providing training to the allegued perpetrators. You can provide training to a bunch of guys and know nothing about what they are going to do with that training. Randroide 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9] 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 [10], so please stop writing that nonsense about "Spanish...police...are to be believed".